Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, last fall the board of governors of Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology met with me to request additional funding, primarily to cover anticipated increases in faculty salaries as a result of the collective bargaining agreement.

In the course of that meeting it was mutually agreed that an independent study should be made of the overall financial situation at Algonquin College. A consulting firm has been engaged in this study since January and will be resorting early in March to myself and to the chairman of Algonquin’s board of governors.

I understand that the consultants are receiving excellent co-operation from the board of governors, the college administration and from the ministry’s staff. It is, therefore, surprising to hear of a conjecture about dismissals, layoffs and the cancellation of classes before all the financial facts are verified and laid on the table.

Until I have received the consultants’ report, I will have no other statement to make, except to offer the assurance that this government would not countenance a disruption of Algonquin College’s services to the community on the scale purported.

INQUIRY INTO DUMP TRUCK OPERATIONS

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, in response to questions in the House in recent weeks, I have indicated to the House that it was my intention to hold an inquiry into the for-hire operation of dump trucks in the Province of Ontario in the transportation of sand, gravel, rock, road building materials and aggregates.

The ministry has received representations from a number of associations representing dump truck operators, alleging that there are circumstances which inhibit the operation of dump trucks on a paying basis. Such circumstances are the adequacy of trucking rates, the number of dump trucks available in relation to demand for their services, the desire of local truckers to participate in local projects, overloading practices as a means of increasing revenue and the resulting potential danger from mechanically unfit vehicles as a result of such practices.

The inquiry which I propose will:

Examine and evaluate the availability of dump trucks in relation to the demand for their services, and also in relation to different areas of the province, for example eastern Ontario, northeastern Ontario, northwestern Ontario, central and western Ontario;

Establish the trucking rates in effect during 1974 for the areas defined, and establish whether such rates were compensatory, including consideration of financing arrangements between vendor and purchaser of new and used dump trucks;

Establish the contractual relationships in effect between the quarry or pit operator, the construction contractor and the dump truck operator;

Determine the essential criteria for the establishment of a proper rate;

Examine the advantages and disadvantages of control of entry into the industry and establish ways and means of effectively controlling such entry.

I am extremely pleased to announce that Mr. M. L. Rapoport, QC, will be appointed commissioner to conduct the inquiry. Since graduation as a lawyer in 1936, Mr. Rapoport has devoted his whole career to transportation law, with particular emphasis on highway transportation. His experience has been related both to the purchasers of transportation and to the carriers. His experience and reputation place him among the leading practitioners of transportation law. He has represented both shippers and carriers in the courts and before federal and provincial government transportation tribunals. He has also contributed a number of leading articles on transportation law to trade magazines.

He was a founding member of the Canadian Institute of Traffic and Transportation, past member of the faculty of Queen’s University on extracurricular transportation, and was chairman of the board of directors of Doctors’ Hospital in Toronto.

With further reference to questions in the House in this matter, I advised the House that I was reviewing the statutory authority that would permit the declaration of a moratorium on the issuance of further public and commercial vehicle licences for dump trucks. My legal advisers are of the opinion that the Public Commercial Vehicles Act would authorize the cessation of the issuance of operating licences, however there is no authority to refuse the issuance of a vehicle licence under the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

In other words, it would be possible to limit the number of operators but it would not be possible to limit the number of vehicles that could be operated by such operators. Therefore, I am not satisfied that a moratorium in these circumstances would be effective or appropriate. Neither am I satisfied that a moratorium would be in the public interest in all circumstances, in that it may result in unreasonable limitations of trucking services available to any particular construction project undertaken in any particular area of the province.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The member for Kitchener.

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, following the statement made by the Minister of Colleges and Universities, and noting the recent press comment on this subject, can the minister, first of all, advise if possible how the situation would have developed that has led to this proposal, made just a day or so ago, which presumably because of financial problems, has led to the suggestion of dismissal of a large number of staff and also curtailing enrolment? Does he know whether the finances have been satisfactory; and if that is a problem, can he tell us when he expects the report to which he referred?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, perhaps dumbfounded isn’t the word, but I was very surprised when I read yesterday what had been announced by, I believe, the vice-president academic to the board on Thursday --

Mr. Breithaupt: Vice-president of administration.

Hon. Mr. Auld: On Wednesday, rather; the vice-president of administration was quoted in the paper this morning, I believe it was the vice-president academic who made the proposal to the board, which was at a public meeting I gather.

The board, as I said in the statement, met with me, I believe it was on Nov. 27, over a number of things, but particularly their concern about a possible deficit in the current year. There was some question on the part of our own staff about the figures they were anticipating, so we mutually agreed that we would have a consultant; in this case, it’s a partner of Woods Gordon, who has met with them and with us.

To answer the last part of the member’s question, the target date is March 14 but they may be finished a little sooner because it seems to be going well.

The thing that surprises me so much is that there would have been this proposal before receipt of the report, which will have a great bearing on what the situation will be at Algonquin.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Speaker, in his answer to my colleague, the minister stated that he was somewhat dumbfounded by the approach announced by Algonquin College. Is he not aware that apparently all the community colleges since the announcement some time ago regarding universities, have complained to him that they are getting less per student than the universities and that in view of his policy, the announcement this week was inevitable? Why would the minister be dumbfounded when in fact the community college presidents have conveyed their financial difficulties to him?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take issue with my hon. friend. All the rest of the colleges have indicated that they have to tighten their belts and that it’s going to be difficult. None of them has suggested anything oil the scale comparable to what has been suggested at Algonquin.

Furthermore, it’s well to remember that while the percentage increase in the case of the colleges was not as great as for the universities, in fact it was almost the same, because last year’s original budget, on which the percentage was based, was increased during the year by some additional funds. So actually there is not much difference. But, of course, the situation is slightly different anyway.

I should also say that in the college situation we have the manpower training programme, which is fully supported by the government of Canada and which varies a great deal. This is a continuing problem with some of the institutions because it is very difficult for them to do long-range planning in terms of faculty, for instance, when it’s sort of a year-to-year selling of service.

Mr. Roy: May I ask one further supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: One further supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that Algonquin College is the only community college that is facing this kind of financial difficulty? And if that is so --

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, Mr. Speaker. I said a moment ago that they are all having to tighten their belts but Algonquin, which I think has a total full-time enrolment of about 8,000, is the only one that has talked about not accepting 2,300 or 2,500 students and laying off 135 faculty and a large number of administrative people. As I said, I just don’t believe that would ever happen; it would be unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for --

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t complete my supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is not a debate.

Mr. Roy: If I might just complete my supplementary, would Algonquin College have added problems because of the fact they have instituted a bilingual programme on the campus?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, that may well be part of the problem, and that’s one of the things we hope the management people will be looking at. Of course, they get a substantial grant -- I haven’t the figure at my fingertips but I have it here in the book -- for their bilingual programme. But it is sometimes a little difficult to establish to mutual satisfaction what those costs are.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West with a final supplementary.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that very similar financial difficulties to those that are occurring at Algonquin have given rise to a meeting this coming Wednesday at the University of Windsor, the topic being whether or not they can continue or will have to close down?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’m not aware of any meeting at Windsor. Is it a normal internal board meeting or an administrative meeting?

Mr. Bounsall: They have called a meeting of the entire university community to discuss whether they can continue operation or will have to close down for this coming year.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that meeting but I think it unlikely that Windsor would be closing down.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

DISPOSAL OF LIQUID WASTES

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister’s officials are concerned and perhaps are suspicious that many toxic industrial liquid wastes are being dumped on farmlands instead of being properly dealt with and that this problem appears to exist particularly in the Waterloo region, can the minister now give us any report as to the problems that are suspected, that these wastes perhaps are being dumped into abandoned gravel pits where they could add substantially to very serious pollution of water systems?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, there are certain sites that are set aside for this purpose in various parts of the province, depending on the type of liquid waste, whether it’s organic or inorganic liquid waste. There are some landfill sites which are approved for certain kinds of liquid waste disposal. There are times when individuals are paid to take waste to one of those sites and they do drop it off some place where they should not. We do have some staff in the field, and wherever we can catch these people or are informed about it, the necessary charges are laid.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Where is the waste being dumped from Johns-Manville?

Hon. W. Newman: What kind of waste is the member talking about?

Mr. Shulman: I am referring to asbestos waste that they cart out of there in trucks twice a week.

Hon. W. Newman: I don’t know. I can find out. But I would imagine it would be going to a landfill site.

Mr. Shulman: Would the minister find out please?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary on that point: As it would appear that the small independent haulers who, normally are hauling septic tank sludge, could be involved in this problem, is there any intention to develop a further kind of a supervision programme so that this kind of problem can be more closely monitored, and hopefully stopped?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if the member is talking about septic tank haulers, they will all be licensed hopefully by the end of this year and will have to carry a licence under the Ministry of the Environment. We hope to have that in place by about the end of this year.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

PICKERING AIRPORT

Mr. Breithaupt: Just one further question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker: As it would appear there is a ring road proposed around the new Pickering airport that apparently would obliterate the Green River townsite, can the minister advise us if the roads that are proposed will be provincial roads and will the province be involved in contracting the building of them, or will the funds be coming from the federal government to develop the road pattern which is proposed in that area?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, at this point I don’t think we can say exactly where the jurisdiction will lie because we have only recently got into any sort of discussion with the federal government as to what sort of involvement we would have for the provision of ground transportation to the airport. My understanding is that there will be a contact made some time today between officials in my ministry and the Ministry of Transport in Ottawa to begin some discussion about what our involvement will be. So I don’t think I can accurately answer the member to whose responsibility it would be and what our involvement would be in that particular ring road situation.

Mr. Breithaupt: When that is decided, will the minister make a statement with respect to that particular responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes Mr. Speaker, I think that once the whole situation has been resolved as to what is going to happen out there, I’m sure that it will all be made very public, at least I sincerely hope so; at least our involvement will be, I can’t speak for Mr. Marchand.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

ATHABASCA TAR SANDS

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. Given the statement last evening by Patrick McFadden on “As It Happens” with regard to the negotiations which took place in Alberta over the Syncrude deal, that the Ontario delegation was kept some considerable distance away from the actual negotiations for a period of time during the crucial and critical part of the negotiations, will the Treasurer --

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Who said this?

Mr. Deans: Patrick McFadden said it last evening on “As It Happens.”

Mr. Roy: Another one of the minister’s --

Mr. Deans: Will the Treasurer take some steps to put before the public of Ontario the position Ontario took initially with regard to the Syncrude deal, along with whatever information was available to Ontario prior to the delegation going to Alberta, in order to make us aware, and the public aware of how Ontario arrived at its position; and also to determine whether Ontario did in fact have access to the complete study, rather than just the summary of the engineering study that was supposedly completed but not yet tabled in Alberta?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have no idea what was said on television last night.

Mr. Deans: Radio.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Or radio, Mr. Speaker; but it is not correct. It is true there were a number of bilateral discussions which went on during the course of the day, and we were involved in meetings which others weren’t involved in and vice versa. The majority of the time was spent with all six participants in the room.

With respect to the second part of the question, I think the answer would have to be no; not from the point of view of denying access to certain papers to members of the House but from the point of view that what papers and studies there are are in --

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): In good hands.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- in good hands; and are in various places. We have no report per se as to what our evaluation was. A great deal of it was done on the basis of discussions, on the basis of figures being put in front of us, on the basis of informed advice. To table a document does not give a complete picture at all, so I think the answer would have to be no.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Did Ontario go to the meetings with a prepared position?

Mr. Roy: Blindly!

Mr. Deans: Did the minister have available to him prior to leaving this province the information with regard to the studies that were completed, did he have the summary of the engineering study available to him prior to going to Alberta? Was there a position that Ontario was prepared to put forward before they arrived there, and was that then negotiated? Or did he just arrive and sit down and listen and then nod his head?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. Ontario had worked out a number of positions in advance, the basic position being that we believed this was in the national interest and in the Ontario interest; and if we could be helpful, then we would be helpful. That was the basic position we took to the meeting, based on a number of facts.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary question: In his effort to be helpful, whose advice did the minister get with regard to the actual value, the actual cost of the project that is --

Mr. Yakabuski: Sure as heck not the member’s.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): The member was not very helpful.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Wentworth is asking a supplementary question.

Mr. Deans: It is okay. I don’t think the member for Renfrew South knows much more about this than I do, and I think that we all have the right to know.

Mr. Yakabuski: It is a good deal.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Deans: I just happen to think the people of Ontario have the right to know when the government spends $100 million. What I am asking is how did the Treasurer arrive --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Yakabuski: It’s a good deal.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member has a right to ask a supplementary. We’d like to hear it.

Mr. Deans: How did the minister arrive at the decision that the $2 billion was a reasonable figure and that the $100 million that Ontario was going to invest was an investment well taken? And how does he justify the Premier’s (Mr. Davis) position that it is something like the original involvement in the railroads? Does that mean the Province of Ontario will be forever subsidizing the Syncrude operation?

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, how long is this going on?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Deans: Until I am finished.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there are several questions there. The original figure going way back on the Syncrude project was $750 million. The base figure of some time ago was $1.2 billion. The studies which we did and which others did of Canadian Bechtel’s revised Syncrude estimate from $1.2 to $2 billion, works out on the basis of about 70 per cent inflation and perhaps 30 per cent improvements and modifications during the time from the preliminary design stage to the stage of final engineering, including contract awards.

The escalation in costs from roughly $1 billion to $2 billion over the last two or three-year period is not surprising. The Petrosar project, for example, was originally estimated at just over $200 million. It is now priced at close to $450 million. The refinery at Nanticoke which was originally conceived as a $200 million project by Texaco is now over $400 million. The original Pickering project was in the neighbourhood of $760 million. The duplication of Pickering should be cheaper because there are certain economies and efficiencies in the doubling of Pickering. I think the latest figure there is about $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion.

We are all aware that there has been an enormous amount of inflation in the economy in the last two years. Nowhere has the inflation been more pronounced than in the construction field, in the area of steel and of heavy equipment. The costs have escalated enormously in all that area.

We were and are satisfied that the $2 billion figure is the best estimate that can be made at this point. People who looked at it in greater depth than we did -- and I am quick to say that -- found variables of plus one per cent and minus two per cent, but on balance felt that the $2 billion was on, with the figure still built in for inflation and for escalation in costs over the next three or four years which is an enormous figure. The highest figure I have heard suggested as an over-run, depending on rates of inflation, is possibly five per cent.

The other part of the member’s question was how can the Premier compare this to the building of the railway. He might have used the building of the trans-Canada pipeline as perhaps something more current. He might have talked about our commitment to the nuclear programme at Pickering, which was a gamble of nearly $1 billion. He might have referred to the Seaway in Mr. Frost’s time.

Mr. Deans: He might have talked about a public project.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What he was talking about is faith in this country, faith in the people of this country in doing something. That’s what this party is dedicated to. We are not dedicated to tearing things down the way the small-minded people are over there.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Faith in Imperial Oil, that is what the minister is talking about.

Mr. Deans: He was talking about the government’s decision to take public funds and put them into private corporations.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Does the member for Kitchener have a supplementary?

Mr. Renwick: The government will be taken by Imperial Oil, just as the federal government was taken by the CPR and still is.

Mr. Speaker: We have a supplementary by the member for Kitchener. Order please.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): It took the Treasurer 28 minutes, but he finally got to it.

Mr. Breithaupt: On the record of the House, are we correct that the commitment of funds in fact may be increased to a five per cent result, just as the federal government’s commitment may also be increased proportionately, if there is some over-run? We are committed to the five per cent, of which we expect $100 million to be the likely total. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, we are not committed to anything. We are committed to five per cent of the total. We are an equity shareholder. If costs escalated, I suppose we would have the choice of saying in some way that we are pulling out. I just don’t know how one could conceive of that at this moment.

Mr. Deans: The government could try to find some other sucker to buy its share.

Mr. Renwick: It could sell out.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We are an equity shareholder. It will be available to the new consortium, whatever form it may take, to Syncrude Ltd. if I can put it that way, with new shareholders, which organization has not yet been negotiated or put in print, and which will take some months or some weeks at any rate to complete, to borrow on the credit so that the cash flow might well be held to $100 million. But we would be responsible, for example, for five per cent of a debt which might be incurred. Our responsibility would be there, but perhaps not the cash flow.

The other point that has to be made is that one of the variables in the $2 billion figure, and I think this will take some weeks if not months to sort out, is the evaluation of the sunk costs of ARGO. That’s not going to be sorted out overnight; and that could reduce the figure somewhat, depending how much is left in.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Supplementary: May I ask the provincial Treasurer, has Ontario got a copy of the most recent Alberta study that I understand has been completed but not yet released? Has the government a copy, and if so will it be tabled in this House?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have copies of a number of studies --

Mr. MacDonald: I mean the most recent one, the Loran International engineering feasibility study.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There were studies tabled in the Alberta House on Tuesday which are public documents and we will make them available.

Mr. MacDonald: Only a summary of the latter. My question was, and I repeat it, has Ontario got a complete study?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We will not table what has not been tabled in the Alberta Legislature.

Mr. Deans: Does the minister have a copy?

Mr. MacDonald: My question, I repeat for the third time, has Ontario got a copy, a complete copy not the summary, of the Loran International engineering feasibility study?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. MacDonald: Yes; but the minister won’t table it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. MacDonald: Does the minister believe it is confidential as Lougheed does?

Interjection by hon. member.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The government of Alberta believes it is confidential. If they were prepared to table it, then obviously we would have no objection to tabling it.

Mr. MacDonald: I wonder what they’ve got to hide, the both of them?

Mr. Roy: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East. A final supplementary on this.

Mr. Roy: When the minister talks about tabling documents, in fact when his leader talks about tabling documents would that include the agreement arrived at by all the partners, including the federal, the two provinces and the oil companies? Would it include that?

Mr. Yakabuski: The member should get that from his federal friends!

Hon. Mr. McKeough: When that agreement is ultimately signed?

Mr. Roy: Yes; the government has a signed, written agreement with --

Hon. Mi. McKeough: Do we?

Mr. MacDonald: It’s a verbal agreement?

Mr. Roy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There isn’t a piece of paper in existence at this moment in time.

Mr. Roy: The government doesn’t have it down in writing?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Roy: Oh wow!

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth, further questions?

Mr. Deans: Very quickly, a question to the --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But when the agreement is signed, I would see no reason why it would not be made available.

Mr. Deans: It would be nice to get information in advance.

Mr. Renwick: It would be nice to get it before the shareholders of Imperial Oil got it.

Mr. Deans: It would be nice to know the basis of it too.

HAMILTON TRADE CONVENTION CENTRE

Mr. Deans: A question of the Minister of Government Services: Given the inflation the Treasurer speaks about that’s been built into the Syncrude operation, will the Minister of Government Services reconsider his position with regard to the Hamilton Trade Convention Centre? Will he consider making more money available to try and offset the inflation the Treasurer recognizes has taken place in all construction in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker I heard the last part of the question. Would the hon. member repeat the first part? I didn’t realize --

Mr. Deans: I’ll try, okay? Given the position the Treasurer has put forward with regard to the inflation that has affected all construction in Ontario, will the Minister of Government Services reconsider his position with regard to making more money available for the development of the Hamilton Trade Convention Centre to try and adequately meet the 100 per cent or more additional Cost which the city of Hamilton is going to have to bear over the 1971 projected figures?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, let me explain, Mr. Speaker, that the first commitment of this government to the Trade Convention Centre was in the amount of $3 million.

Mr. Deans: The first commitment was by John Robarts in 1967, pre-election.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That was not the case, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deans: It certainly was.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The first commitment for the Trade Convention Centre was in the amount of $3 million made in 1971. The Trade and Convention Centre did not proceed at that time, although it had been worked at continuously and co-operatively between officials of the city of Hamilton and officials of my ministry.

The city of Hamilton approached the government about a year ago requesting that we reconsider the amount of our contribution. We did so at that time, and based on inflation in the construction industry from the date of our original commitment until mid-1975 when the project is expected to go to tender, we increased our commitment by 50 per cent.

Mr. Deans: From $3 million to $4.5 million.

Hon. Mr. Snow: From $3 million to $4.5 million.

Mr. Deans: The cost of the project has gone completely --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Just a moment, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate being able to answer the hon. member’s question.

Mr. Yakabuski: He doesn’t want an answer. He wants to hear himself.

Hon. Mr. Snow: He spent a great deal of time in commentary in asking the question, I’d like to reply fully.

Mr. Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr. Roy: Yes, hurry up.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the estimate of the officials of my ministry on the inflation rate in the construction industry -- that is, building construction, which I point out is not the same as the heavy construction industry, which the Treasurer was speaking about -- would be 4 per cent at the highest from the date of our original commitment to mid-1975. So I recommended, and Management Board approved, that we should increase the commitment from $3 million to $4.5 million, which fully took into account the inflation factor.

Mr. Roy: This is a statement.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The reason for the increase in the cost of the centre is that a great many additional criteria have been added by the city of Hamilton. They have decided they wanted additional things that were not originally anticipated, and this has escalated the cost.

Mr. Yakabuski: Flairs and frills.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to our original agreement, this government agreed to build the underground parking garage under the Trade and Convention Centre which was originally to be completely funded by the city of Hamilton.

Mr. Deans: That’s because the government is building an office block.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We agreed to build this because we were building an office building in the complex.

Mr. Deans: It will facilitate the government’s needs!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of the underground parking garage has escalated considerably and we have assured the city of Hamilton that we will pick up all the cost escalation in the underground parking garage.

Mr. Deans: How much has it escalated?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The first estimate I had from my officials for the parking garage was $2 million. It is now going to cost more than $3 million; I believe it is $3 million or some such figure.

Mr. Deans: I thought there was only a 48 per cent increase since 1971.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are still receiving the answer to the question.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would also point out that we are accepting any increase in our share of the cost of the central utilities plant which is being built, and of course we are accepting the total cost of the office tower. So, Mr. Speaker, I think we have accepted our full share of any increase and any commitment that has been made.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Renfrew South.

CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer.

Mr. Deans: Is that why the member was so noisy? He finally had something to say.

Mr. Yakabuski: In view of the statement of Mr. Macdonald, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in Ottawa yesterday, and his pleading for voluntary restraints insofar as the conservation of energy is concerned, would the Treasurer feel that the comment of the former Treasurer in April, 1973, which I believe went like this, “Turn down your thermostats and put on a sweater,” doesn’t look all that bad now? And wouldn’t he say that the former Treasurer was two years ahead of his Ottawa counterpart?

Mr. Shulman: Is the member bringing back the energy tax?

Mr. Roy: Wasn’t it a good idea to put a seven per cent tax on energy?

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): What about a second sweater.

Mr. Breithaupt: They all have bulky sweaters on.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. I would just comment -- and perhaps my colleague, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell), might like to comment as well -- that the remarkable thing is that it only took Ottawa two years; often it is five or 10 years.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That was between 1957 and 1958.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): A final supplementary: Is the Treasurer going to take up his predecessor’s suggestion and re-impose a seven per cent tax on energy in his next budget?

Mr. Deans: Is the member suggesting it?

Mr. Singer: No, no. Since he thinks it is such a good idea, I just want to know if that is his contention.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Wait and see.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Why doesn’t the member ask them that in Windsor?

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): Does the member feel that it is something he would recommend?

Mr. W. Hodgson: Why is he so interested?

Mr. Ewen: The member should bring it up at his party’s convention.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): It’s a pretty poor defence of his Ottawa counterparts.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to my friend from Downsview that he control himself and wait for the budget. In the fullness of time all will be unveiled to him and he will once again feel secure in the promised land.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview with a new question.

INQUIRY INTO DUMP TRUCK OPERATIONS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

In view of his announcement this morning about the inquiry into the trucking industry --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is this a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: The first question was a supplementary; this is a new question.

Mr. Singer: Yes. In view of the minister’s announcement about the inquiry into the trucking industry and the appointment of Mr. Rapoport, has the minister any idea when Mr. Rapoport is going to commence his inquiry? Has there been a time limit put on it? And isn’t the time limit important in that there should be a report to government as quickly as possible since the minister says he is unable to restrict the issuance of licences?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the gentleman will be prepared to start immediately and get the basic staff he is going to need to get started. That will be taken care of very quickly. We haven’t put a specific time limit on the inquiry, however I have been advised that it should take a maximum of two months to carry out the inquiry. He feels he can handle it in that time.

I recognize, Mr. Speaker -- I’ll take just a moment -- there are some pressures, and we recognize these pressures, upon the industry; so does the gentleman who will be carrying out the inquiry. But there are a number of matters that have to be brought in, that I related in the statement. We want this to go as quickly as possible, and certainly we want to have this thing completed before the major construction season gets under way.

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

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: Is the minister not aware of the problem created by out-of-province trucks coming into Ontario during the construction season, particularly in the eastern part of the province? Will he consider broadening the terms of reference for Mr. Rapoport to include looking into the problem created by out-of-province trucks coming in during the construction period?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Certainly I have no intention of limiting the inquiry that Mr. Rapoport will carry out. If that is a real factor then certainly that should be considered. We are not anxious to have out-of-province trucks coming into Ontario to carry out work that our people can do themselves. But I think the hon. member is as aware as I am that there are certain parts of this province where there is not the overabundance of dump trucks available for major jobs. The north and the east are certainly two such areas.

Mr. Germa: Is it now included?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It will be; it’s not now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West has a question?

COLGATE STRIKE

Mr. Bounsall: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. What involvement have he or his mediation staff had in the three-week-old Colgate strike in east Toronto, bearing in mind that the only issue seems to be one of a monetary nature, that it’s the lowest paying soap company in North America and that they still charge the same price for their soap products as any other soap company?

Mr. Germa: That’s a slippery outfit.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, Mr. McGuire of our mediation and conciliation service has met with these people. We’re continuing to work with them and hope that settlement will be brought about in due course.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary?

Mr. Reid: This may not be exactly supplementary --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: -- but has the minister been approached by the United Steelworkers to mediate the dispute between themselves and their office workers?

Mr. MacDonald: That is not a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, but we’ll be glad to help them if they need some help.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

COMPUTER BILLING ERRORS

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the minister responsible for the protection of consumers. In view of the extensive use of computers and credit cards in this province, and in fact the billing practice emanating from the use of computers, does he plan any legislation to protect the consumer when the computer, in fact, bills the consumer incorrectly and then he starts getting a series of letters --

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Jail the computer.

Mr. Roy: -- where the consumer’s response is, in fact, neglected? Does he plan to do anything about that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Jail is too good for it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, having recently had personal experience in trying to argue with a computer, I found the best way to do that is to put a pin in the computer card and then somebody has to look at it. However, I would be pleased to see if this is going to be a very serious problem. Certainly the provincial government is aware of its responsibilities to consumers.

Mr. Roy: Is the minister recommending that?

Mr. Breithaupt: Is that government policy?

Mr. Deans: Is the minister recommending that?

Mr. Breithaupt: Do not fold, staple or mutilate.

Mr. Roy: May I have a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: You may have a supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he will support my private member’s bill which will, in fact, annul a bill under $50 if the computer doesn’t give a reasonable response within 90 days and, secondly, will allow the consumer to collect as much as $100 from the computer firm if it continues violating the Act?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that his private bill is being studied very carefully in my ministry for any merit which it might contain. Certainly if there are good ideas we will take them from any source.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

SWEDISH WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Is the minister considering the use of the Swedish home waste treatment system, both for sewage and garbage, known as Clivus Multrum for the past 30 years, and now available on this continent -- a system which, if used in every home in a new residential community, would make unnecessary both sanitary sewers and a sewage treatment plant and would reduce the community’s need for water by about 50 per cent?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, our ministry always considers any alternatives to the present methods. We are looking into that particular method. It’s not necessarily something which we can accept as being feasible in Ontario or in Canada because it works in another country.

Mr. Renwick: Of course not.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: So what I’m saying to the hon. member is this: We are aware of that method, and we will look into it and determine whether or not it is feasible. I don’t think it is at the present time.

Mr. Burr: What possible conditions could make a system not work in Canada, when it works in Sweden and the United States?

Mr. Breithaupt: We know how those Swedes are.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, that is a technical question that should be answered by the technical experts. I don’t think the hon. member is an expert in all fields of technology.

Mr. Renwick: He certainly is.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Any more than any other member in this House.

An hon. member: He tries to be. Every time a science digest comes out he has a question.

Mr. Renwick: He is. That’s where the minister is wrong -- he is.

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

WATT AND FANTASIA HOLDINGS LTD.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, just a short answer to a question from the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis). He asked me to investigate a company by the name of Watt and Fantasia Holdings Ltd. We have made certain inquiries and have not found anything to connect the firm of Watt and Fantasia Holdings Ltd., with the recent strike at Rexall Drug Co. in Mississauga.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

DAYCARE SERVICES

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. In view of a recent editorial entitled “Where’s Our Daycare Centre?” which appeared in one of the renowned weekly newspapers in Huron county, I’m wondering if he is able to indicate whether Management Board have looked favourably upon his request to extend the funding for daycare centres? Or if indeed the Management Board has approved an increase in funding for daycare centres across Ontario?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, Management Board always looks favourably upon me. I think the hon. member has written to me --

Mr. MacDonald: Who is the minister kidding?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Getting the dough, that’s something else.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I believe he has written to me about his daycare centre and this is the one in question in Huron? Is that correct?

Mr. Riddell: Yes, at Seaforth.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Did the member not get a favourable reply? It was my understanding that consideration was being given to that daycare centre. I’d be pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see the hon. member after the question period to find out just what the status of his application is.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

YOUNG TRAVELLERS PROGRAMME

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I have a question of the provincial Treasurer. Is the provincial Treasurer aware there are dozens of schools in northwestern Ontario anxiously waiting to find out whether or not the Ontario Young Travellers Programme is going to be extended beyond this fiscal year? Is he aware that a good many of them have to plan for those trips now? Is there any way the Treasurer can assure them that this programme -- it has received wide acceptance throughout the north -- will be continued beyond March 31?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, no, I was not aware of that; but I will make it my business to become aware and speak to the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) about it, perhaps he might have something to say.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: In his investigation, can the Treasurer find out whether or not the new programme has limited the Young Travellers Programme to a range of 300 miles? In the case of northwestern Ontario that would restrict them very severely in coming down to Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nipissing.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Will the minister table the feasibility study that apparently has been done under aegis of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission in regard to rail passenger service into northeastern Ontario and the new technology that is now available to provide that? Secondly, will the minister indicate what steps he has taken since his estimates, when he indicated he would look into the question of making an application to the Canadian Transport Commission in regard to the losses that are suffered by the ONR insofar as their rail passenger services are concerned?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of the question I haven’t received a copy of that report as yet, so I’m unable to table it.

As to the second part, I have been in contact with the officials in the Ontario Northland and requested them to make the necessary inquiries as related to the matter of funding available from the federal government for losses on the operation of passenger service. I’ve received nothing back to this date.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister table the first report when he does receive it; if and when the ONR finds the time to send it to him? Secondly, would he get the reply to the second question from the ONR within the next year or so, or are we going to have to wait another four or five years --

Mr. Roy: Next election maybe.

Mr. R. S. Smith: -- and miss all the benefits of the federal money that is going down the drain?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I have to take that sort of criticism about waiting a year. I haven’t waited a year. The question was placed to me, I made the inquiry. As to whether it is coming back, very often any delays that we experience in trying to get information from the federal government --

Mr. Roy: Oh yes, it’s the feds.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- isn’t on the receiving end. Why doesn’t the member use some of his influence, if he has any anywhere?

Mr. Roy: Why doesn’t the minister ask me?

Mr. R. S. Smith: I want to make the point that I brought this to the attention of the minister and his predecessors for six years in a row.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to that. I can’t be responsible for what happened six years ago anymore than the people in the member’s riding can be responsible for him.

Mr. Roy: There is no continuity in this government.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

HAMILTON HARBOUR INVESTIGATION

Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the Attorney General, notice of which has been given. Is it not true that his ministry has in its possession evidence, including a tape recording, linking a prominent politician with the Hamilton harbour scandal? Is it also not true that the non-elected officials in his ministry recommended to his predecessor that charges be laid against that official? Why has the Attorney General not laid the charges which were to have been laid yesterday?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me those questions outside the House and I refused to answer them. The matter is still before the court. The Hamilton matter is still before the courts in Hamilton. It is inappropriate, and would be most inappropriate for me, to pass commentary either privately or publicly relating to the criminal charges against any individual in this province. I have no intention of responding to the member’s inquiry.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Let me make it quite clear that I am not referring to the charges before the courts. I am referring to charges the Attorney General has not laid, against a person who has not been named, yet which his non-elected officials have recommended be laid, I am asking has there been political interference to prevent those charges being laid.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, there has been no political interference respecting anyone in connection with any charges, be they applicable to Hamilton or any other area. I hope the member is not suggesting there has been political interference in my ministry when it comes to a criminal matter.

Mr. Shulman: Yes, I am suggesting it very strongly.

Hon. Mr. Clement: If the member wants to make it public, then let him go ahead and do so, but I will not engage in any dialogue or debate in this House affecting criminal charges which may or may not be pending against any individual in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO HYDRO REPORT

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to have the honour of asking the Minister of Energy a question. I think it is the first one he has had.

Mr. Singer: Oh that nice young man! He’s a great suitcase carrier and he goes to Winnipeg very well.

Mr. Roy: Did he enjoy the trip with the big boys to Winnipeg?

Mr. Reid: Can the minister inform me whether he has received a report from Ontario Hydro in regard to the new facilities for Ontario Hydro in northwestern Ontario, hopefully the report that was going to recommend Atikokan as the site of the new facility?

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MacDonald: I have a new question.

Mr. Roy: Mine is a new question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York South has a new question first then.

EMPLOYEE GRATUITIES

Mr. MacDonald: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of a widespread practice, in the food and beverage service industry, whereby an employee is forced by management to rebate to management one or two per cent of his daily gross sales out of his income? If the minister is aware of this practice, does he approve of it? And if he doesn’t approve of it, would he be willing to consider some legislative denial of that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some practices where they rebate all of their tips to management. I don’t think it’s very widespread, and I hope it’s not. As far as a proportion, some percentage, going back, that’s a different angle. I’m not aware of that, although I suppose those arrangements can be made.

As I said in the House the other day, certainly we could pass legislation to make the gratuities the sole property of the employee and to say that any agreement of this nature would be null and void. But, sir, I don’t think we should do that for various reasons that I mentioned the other day.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary question: Would the minister investigate how widespread is the practice of a mandatory percentage rebate -- one or two per cent -- from gross sales by the employees from his income to management?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t heard of that practice, but we’ll investigate it. If the hon. member for York South has any information for me, I know he’ll be glad to share it with me.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In the great socialist society they are not allowed to accept a tip.

Mr. MacDonald: That may be a good idea.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Handleman presented the annual report of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario for the year ending March 31, 1974.

Mr. J. A. Taylor from the standing administration of justice committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 133, An Act to establish the Ontario Land Corp.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Motions. Introduction of bills.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wonder if I could ask the government House leader to consider a matter that is causing some concern? The personnel who are interested in both the Crown Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Board are the same people; and the people interested in business being conducted in the House are, generally speaking, the same people.

We have both committees sitting simultaneously today, which it makes it extremely difficult for the people involved, as he can appreciate. Both of those matters are very closely related, so that it would be impossible to divide the forces up in such a way as to have it adequately covered by people who are knowledgeable in both fields. I wonder if it would be possible to have but one committee sit this morning in order that we can deal adequately with that and then perhaps on Monday go back to the other committee for the remaining work to be done?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, with my particular problem I have taken a position that we wouldn’t sit here while the other two committees were sitting. This is the first day this week when two other committees were not involved, and I appreciate the problem the hon. members face. I am faced with exactly the same problem.

However, I think that I have been sufficiently generous in the course of the week to fend for the other two groups, and I would really like to proceed this morning. If there is to be a stand-down of one of the committees, I would think that it would be the committee hearing the Workmen’s Compensation Board and not ours.

Mr. Deans: I don’t care which one, as long as we only have one.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’ll speak to the chairman.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, if I might just speak to that, I think the officials from the WCB are here. I don’t know who all were involved in the other committee -- but we do have a good number here and would like to proceed.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 182, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves third reading of Bill 133, An Act to establish the Ontario Land Corp.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): No, no.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of third reading of Bill 133 will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to; third reading of the bill.

Clerk of the House: The third order, House in committee of the whole.

UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT (CONCLUDED)

House in committee on Bill 55, An Act to Prohibit Unfair Practices in Sales to Consumers.

On section 7:

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Chairman, before the commencement of the committee, in view of some of the discordances toward the end last night, I think it might be beneficial to review the situation. There were three proposed amendments to section 7. I think that before the committee adjourned I had dealt with the first proposed amendment, but it might be in order at this time if the member for Riverdale would read the second and third parts of that amendment to section 7.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could deal with them one at a time.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we had dealt with the first one. There had been full discussion on the first one and I had replied.

Mr. Renwick: I recognize that. I say the next two we could deal with one at a time.

Ms. Drea: Oh, all right, fine, yes.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we could deal with the first amendment moved by Mr. Renwick. This deals with section 7 and would be a new subsection.

Mr. Drea: That has been dealt with, Mr. Chairman. The second and third have not.

Mr. Chairman: We haven’t taken a vote on that one. I think this is the one we were discussing, wasn’t it?

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: It would read:

“Where the director or tribunal makes an order under this section or where the court grants relief under section 4, the director, tribunal or court, as the case may be, may make a further order requiring the person to advertise to the public particulars of any order, judgment or other relief granted.”

I would ask the hon. member for Riverdale, this is not another subsection? This just continues on, the reading here?

Mr. Renwick: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: To continue:

“Any order made under this subsection may prescribe:

“(a) the methods of making the advertisement so that it will assure prompt and reasonable communications to consumers;

“(b) the content or form or both of the advertisement is to be made; and

“(d) such other conditions as are considered proper.”

Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it; the amendment is defeated.

The Chair will read the second amendment made by the hon. member for Riverdale. Perhaps the hon. member might refresh the Chair’s memory as to which of these amendments was placed first last night.

Mr. Renwick: The one, Mr. Chairman, which is referred to at the top as the ad substantiation power.

Mr. Chairman: We will deal with that amendment. It reads:

“Where a person makes or has made a consumer representation, the director may order that person to provide to him material possessed by that person at the time the consumer’s representation is or was made, substantiating or purporting to substantiate the truth or accuracy of that consumer representation, and may order disclosure of the substantiating material.”

Is there any discussion on this amendment?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think there need to be very much discussion on it. The merit of the amendment, of course, is obvious. It is an attempt to ensure, where advertisements, particularly of nationally advertised products, make representations about matters that the public cannot know about, that the director would have power to require the substantiating data be made available to him, and in proper cases, made available to the public to substantiate the claims which are being made.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I see merit in this but the difficulty is, as I said in committee, with respect to the hon. member for Riverdale, I take it that this is substantially the same as the proposals for a monitoring-of-advertising clause, which was proposed to us as a separate section, rather than in addition to this one. I see considerable merit in this, Mr. Chairman. I think that it’s not too far away. But within the confines of a very strict regulatory bill which defines unfair practices, which defines unconscionable transactions, which allows for the speedy declaration of a practice or a representation to be unfair or unconscionable, subject to confirmation by the Legislature, which provides a great number of penalties, I suggest to you that desirable as it might be in principle, that particular substantiation of advertising claims or the monitoring of advertising claims, would be seriously out of place in this bill.

As I said to the representative of the Consumers’ Association of Canada when this matter was raised I not only find merit in it, I have great sympathy with it; but I think it properly belongs in a much more general statute than in a very particular and a very specialized regulatory one.

I find some merit in the remarks concerning potential double, triple or quadruple jeopardy that were made last night by the hon. member for Ottawa East. One of the concerns that I have about this particular monitoring or substantiation within the confines of this Act is that here we would be saying, in effect: “Without prejudice and without damage to you, we want you to substantiate your claims under a section of an Act that most specifically, in a substantive form in section 2, contains these very specialized definitions of unfair practices and unconscionable transactions.”

So, on the basis that while it does have merit, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be seriously out of place in a bill like this; and indeed might altogether erode some of the intent of Bill 55. I would not be prepared to accept that amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Chairman, can I ask the parliamentary assistant a question pertaining to this amendment? I certainly consider it to have some validity in a highly technical age and with sophistication in products, and so on. The amendment proposed may well have a lot of merit. He’s not suggesting that under the bill, as it is presently drafted, the director or the tribunal has that kind of power, is he?

Mr. Drea: No, no.

Mr. Roy: So that, in fact, there is somewhat of a void there in what this amendment would cover. I just wonder, in light of the fact that this amendment was proposed in committee and now is proposed again -- and you seem to think it has merit -- why it could not be included?

Mr. Drea: I don’t want to leave the impression that the hon. member for Riverdale formally presented this amendment in committee. He did not, in those words. He said that he was going to put forward an amendment to this intent when we returned to committee of the whole. My particular concern about it -- and I make it very plain -- is that the director does not have the power under this Act, and it was not envisaged that he would.

I am also somewhat concerned about the implications of Bill C-2, if and when it is ever passed. In light of certain definitions in Bill C-2 and the avoidance of duplication, I think this particular substantiation or monitoring of advertising does have merit, but not in this bill.

It may very well be, within a very brief period of time, that there will be general legislation coming from this ministry that will establish the very procedures that the hon. member for Riverdale would want in section 7 of Bill 55. On that basis, I’m not prepared to accept it for Bill 55.

Mr. Renwick: Well, the parliamentary assistant has spoken and I really don’t expect him to change his mind. That is as close as we have got to any suggestion that there was any merit in any of the matters we put forward. I am delighted to know he is sufficiently open-minded this morning to feel there is some merit in that proposal.

Mr. Drea: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, my position was made abundantly plain in committee in the representations that were made before me. I haven’t changed my mind one whit from anything that went on in the committee.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Maybe we can continue with the debate on the issue in question.

Mr. Drea: Then how about cutting out the facetious remarks?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Don’t be so sensitive.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, because the phrase has run through the parliamentary assistant’s remarks in the course of this bill, when he refers to this as a regulatory bill as if it were regulating some particular aspects of our lives, I want to say this is a bill to establish behaviour in the marketplace. That is what the bill is about. It is designed to get away from criminal prosecutions and to provide a wider range of remedies related to administrative law and civil actions for the purpose of protecting the consumer.

The concern which we have had, ever since we found out the very limited interpretation placed upon the advertising provision of the Consumer Protection Act, is that this government, for whatever the reasons, refuses to take any position with respect to misleading advertising. Not only does it refuse to take any position with respect to misleading advertising, the government defaults in the fact that it assumes only the federal Crown will take any action about misleading advertising, because no charges have been laid by the Ministry of the Attorney General for the purpose of protecting people against misleading advertising. Nobody has to be a genius to know that high prices and misleading advertising are the two areas of immense concern to people.

This government is gun-shy about advertisements. It says it is a federal matter. Even though day in and day out it enforces the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to every other kind of offence, through the Ministry of the Attorney General, there has been no instance that I know of where a substantial case of misleading advertising, using the provisions of the Criminal Code or the Combines Investigation Act, has been launched by this government -- no such case. You are gun-shy about misleading advertising. We will come to that in another section of the bill.

I am simply saying that ad substantiation is a matter that any government interested in the consumer will deal with and will not leave to the federal government.

Alternatively, a commitment could be made by the parliamentary assistant, on behalf of the ministry he represents, that the provisions of the Criminal Code and of the Combines Investigation Act relating to misleading advertising will be dealt with through the Ministry of the Attorney General or through the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) laying the information before his colleague. Rather than to say only federal prosecutors can prosecute federal matters.

That’s the line that this government has been taking in consumer matters, and it doesn’t operate that way. The law in force in the Province of Ontario is the law passed by this assembly and the law passed by the federal government at Ottawa and you have a responsibility to enforce it. If you won’t enforce the Criminal Code provisions or the Combines Investigation Act provisions, then you have got to put it in your own statute.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to let that one go by because once again it is half the truth, and the member for Riverdale knows it. I went into this at great length last night.

Mr. Renwick: It is the whole truth.

Mr. Drea: Under the specific regulatory Acts that we have in the ministry we have constantly moved in the area of misleading advertising, either through cease-and-desist orders or through more substantial penalties. However, it has been our position --

Mr. Renwick: Where? Name them. Name the incidents.

Mr. Drea: I would be prepared to.

Mr. Renwick: Name the penalties that have been imposed in this province for misleading advertising.

Mr. Drea: In committee I was prepared to read off -- I think the figure was better than 200. That’s to the best of my knowledge. I had a piece of paper that night that was handed to me.

Mr. Renwick: Are penalties imposed?

Mr. Stokes: Not with cease-and-desist orders.

Mr. Drea: Penalties are imposed -- loss of licence to operate.

Mr. Renwick: We’re not talking about loss of licences. That’s entirely different, and you know it.

Mr. Drea: No, it’s not entirely different. It’s not entirely different at all.

Mr. Renwick: There are no licensees provided in Bill 55.

Mr. Drea: That is quite correct.

Mr. Renwick: There are no licences provided in the Criminal Code and the Combines Investigation Act.

Mr. Drea: You know, your problem is you take a sawed-off shotgun to shoot a mouse.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): If you’re referring to yourself that’s true.

Mr. Drea: We’re not gun-shy about false and misleading advertising at all. I think we’ve taken a very responsible position -- and that is, where it’s a specific regulatory Act, we move. The director of the business practices division has moved constantly, and has moved well, and has moved efficiently.

Mr. Renwick: You are dealing with licensing and this is not a licensing bill. Don’t confuse them.

Mr. Drea: I am going to go back and say it again. You said this government and this ministry are gun-shy about false and misleading advertising. Nothing could be further from the truth. I explained that last night. In terms of the Combines Investigation Act we have wanted the prosecutions to go through them because it seemed to us that this was a much more efficient manner -- rather than everybody jumping into the field, rather than everybody doing the investigation.

Mr. Renwick: Don’t be ridiculous. The Crown attorneys that are in the courts every day prefer the charges under the Criminal Code and that’s a federal statute. Why don’t you prefer charges under misleading advertising in the provincial courts through the Attorney General the way you do in other criminal life? It’s because you’re gun-shy.

Mr. Drea: I’m going to say it again that the record of the business practices division of this ministry would indicate that, far from being gun-shy, the business practices division is most efficient, and has built up quite a substantial record of movement on false and misleading advertising.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Yes, I just want to say one word on this. I don’t know that actual facts are stated either by the parliamentary assistant or by the member for Riverdale. So far as the Combines Investigation Act, the Narcotics Control Act and a number of other federal matters are concerned, the federal government administers those itself. They do it through their own police officers.

Mr. Renwick: That is exactly the point. There is no reason why they administer them themselves.

Mr. Singer: They do. They do, in fact, do it.

Mr. Renwick: They don’t need to do it.

Mr. Singer: The fact is that they do it, and it is accepted across Canada, and it is done in this way, and is recognized by the police, and there are lines of demarcation. There are frequent prosecutions for false and misleading advertising which are against the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act.

Mr. Drea: That is right.

Mr. Renwick: But they are not by this government.

Mr. Singer: I agree. If the member for Riverdale will understand, the arrangement -- and I don’t know whether it has the sanction of law or not --

Mr. Renwick: It doesn’t have the sanction of law. You know that.

Mr. Singer: Will the member for Riverdale simmer down for a minute and listen? The administration of justice is charged to the province by the appropriate provision of the BNA Act. Whether or not the combines investigation statute is passed under the criminal powers and its administration becomes a question of the administration of justice or not, I don’t know. Perhaps you would want to give us a constitutional essay on that point.

Mr. Renwick: You should know it. It is an elementary point.

Mr. Singer: The fact is that for many years in Canada there has been a procedure that federal officials enforce certain federal statutes. One of them is the Combines Investigation Act, another of them is the advertising section, another one is the Narcotics Control Act, another one is the federal Expropriation Power Act. There is Food and Drug, and so forth. This is the way it works. I don’t think that the charge levelled at the provincial government is a fair charge because there is a system that’s handling it. That’s all I wanted to say.

Mr. Drea: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s amendment as previously read will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

The third amendment to subsection 7 as submitted by Mr. Renwick is as follows:

“Where a consumer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that any person is lagging, or has engaged in an unfair practice, and the director refuses to make an order under subsection 1, the consumer may give notice to the director requiring a hearing by the tribunal of the refusal of the director, whereupon the tribunal shall appoint a time for and hold the hearing and may be ordered to uphold the refusal of the director or direct the director to make the order provided for in subsection 1.”

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I think this question of the access of the consumer to the tribunal with respect to a matter on which he, the consumer, on reasonable and probable grounds, feels that the director is not doing the job which he is supposed to to in a particular instance, should be a matter that goes to the tribunal.

Very briefly again, because the amendment is quite clear, I want to ask if my colleagues in the Liberal Party would seriously consider supporting this amendment. I want to refer to the letters which were addressed to the minister of this ministry, Jan. 28 -- to which my colleague the member for Lakeshore has already referred -- from Prof. Trebilcock and from Mrs. Jackson, the president and vice-president of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, and the letter of Feb. 3, 1975, to the minister from Prof. Jacob Ziegel; both of whom, as you know, act for the Consumers’ Association of Canada as well as being. I suppose, the leading, most knowledgeable law professors in the field of consumer law in Canada.

Mr. Trebilcock and Mrs. Jackson say:

“Another of our proposals with which the minister expressed some sympathy was that in the event of the director refusing to propose a cease-and-desist order following a consumer complaint, the consumer should have the same right of appeal to the tribunal as a supplier has under the bill in the event of the director proposing to make such an order.

“We contended, with considerable feeling, that the appeal process should work both ways. While we made a number of other proposals, such as the inclusion of consumer class actions, etc., it is a matter of bitter disappointment to us that our more immediate proposal, with which the minister expressed sympathy during the hearings, has been totally ignored in the new version of the bill.”

And part of Prof. Ziegel’s letter said:

“Very few of the recommendations made in the brief filed on behalf of the Consumers’ Association of Canada and the brief which I filed with the committee have been implemented. I am particularly concerned about the consumer’s lack of access to the commercial registration appeal tribunal where the director himself has evinced no interest in pursuing a complaint.”

I simply say that both those professors act for the Consumers’ Association of Canada, both of them are knowledgeable about what is required and both of them believe that the consumer should have access in a case where there is a difference of view as to whether or not a matter should be pursued by the director. I urgently ask that the government would accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): A simple question, placed in the negative: Why not --

Mr. Drea: Good morning.

Mr. Lawlor: Good morning. I’m afraid I can’t take off on the same high fervour at this time of the day as I was able to mount last evening. Why should not the consumer have that right of appeal? I doubt if you can think of a reason why he ought not to be able to; or if you do think, we certainly are all ears about it.

It was simply a case of tit for tat. Isn’t there as much grievance on the side of the consumer? As a matter of fact, he is the complainant in most instances. He’s cut off at the post in this particular legislation, whereas if in any way the supplier is called into question he has this right of appeal right up to the courts if he so wishes to avail himself of that.

I take it as an oversight. I take it that basically it wasn’t very deeply considered at the time. The puzzling thing now is, can it any longer be an oversight, you having been very fully informed about the matter during the committee hearings? That’s what committee hearings are all about. When you came along with your revision of the bill, I very much expected to see it embodied. This is really one of the smaller things; maybe not smaller but more obvious thing, where you get some kind of balance and some kind of equity and what is available to one is available to the other I felt the tenor was that this is a consumers’ bill directed to be of immediate benefit and impact upon the consumer and to alleviate a whole host of situations, admittedly. In a cultural area of mere procedure, he hasn’t got a look in. He gets no benefit at all.

I think we could prolong it almost indefinitely in terms of the equities involved and the balances. It seems to me so appallingly simple that you would just accept it without turning a hair. Maybe it’s because you are losing your hair. I don’t know. Why this recalcitrance in the course of this bill?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I know this is the other side of the coin, but if there is an appeal to the supplier against the decision of the registrar, why shouldn’t there be an appeal allowed to the consumer? It would seem that if the complaining consumer hasn’t been dealt with in a manner that he feels is appropriate by the director then he should be allowed to go to the tribunal on an appeal.

Perhaps there should be some additional or specific mention of a power given to the tribunal to impose costs in the event that the appeal to the tribunal is frivolous. That would be the only sanction there. I don’t see any reason why, if the director refuses to act, there shouldn’t be an opportunity given to the complainant to go to the tribunal and ask that they act in place of the director or direct the director to take the appropriate course of conduct.

I think this is a reasonable amendment and we shall support it.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I have just one word on this amendment. In most legislation that you are dealing with, even the most stringent type of legislation, criminal code or otherwise, there is always a two-way street, that if the Crown can appeal, why not the accused? If one side can appeal, why not the other? Even in legislation dealing with professionals -- the Health Disciplines Act, that we passed some time ago -- there is an appeal that runs both ways. I can’t see why not in this bill. Using your own words, you say that you really want to protect the consumer and want to give him a full range of sanctions and remedies under this particular Act Then why can’t he appeal? I don’t see anything offensive about this amendment. It makes good sense.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. parliamentary assistant wish to reply?

Mr. Drea: I think the member for Ottawa East touched upon it in his second last sentence. What we are concerned about is a remedy for the consumer. As the member for Downsview very well knows, costs have never been involved in appeals before the tribunal. The frivolity of the complaint really doesn’t concern me. Regardless of how many of us would view a complaint, I would like always to take the position that the person who is making it makes it with the utmost seriousness and sincerity.

However, despite the fact of being able to appeal the decision of a registrar, or in this case of the director, in that there was no complaint under the Act to the tribunal, what is the remedy indeed for the consumer? All the tribunal can do is to order the registrar to look into the case or, failing that, they can direct him to say that this is an unfair practice.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Drea: At this point, the consumer still hasn’t got his money back or what have you.

Mr. Renwick: We are not talking about that. Will you please pay attention to the amendment?

Mr. Drea: It is most difficult to pay attention to you in a consistent manner. You need a road map at all times.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Shall we return to the amendment?

Mr. Lawlor: We will buy the parliamentary assistant a compass so that he can see if he is NNE or SSW.

Mr. Drea: I’m certainly not left, my friend.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, at times, you even pretend to be that.

Mr. Chairman: Order please, Will the hon. parliamentary assistant continue the debate?

Mr. Lawlor: He can’t tell a hawk from a handsaw. You know what Hamlet said.

Mr. Drea: It is our position that while there are those who are sympathetic to this amendment, it really doesn’t provide a remedy to the consumer. And on the basis of the lack of remedy -- it’s not the concern about the frivolity; I want to emphasize that that’s not my concern. The possibility of the director being upset and the impact upon administrative law don’t concern me.

This amendment does not provide a better remedy for the consumer than he now has; after all, if the director refuses to issue or to investigate, the consumer has all kinds of remedies in the court. I suggest to you all that this amendment does is postpone for some period of time the actual implementation of the remedy, which in the end is going to have to be done by the court.

Mr. Renwick: You are talking through your hat.

Mr. Drea: If it provided a faster way for the consumer to get a remedy, regardless of its implications upon administrative law and regardless of some of the concerns about frivolity, I would accept it. Since it is my advice that it does not, I am not prepared to accept it.

Mr. Renwick: Of course you are not. We knew that.

Mr. Drea: You now have five people in here between the two of your parties. You pulled this one just to get a standing vote, so let’s divide.

Mr. Roy: Just before we divide, may I say that what you are doing is creating sort of a vicious circle. First of all, you rejected an amendment where the director could have taken a substitutive action on behalf of the consumer.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Roy: Now we are saying the consumer should have a right, let’s say, to appeal a decision that is directed to the tribunal.

You are going around in circles. You are saying that if he can’t appeal a decision, he has still got his action. But if he doesn’t have any money or something to take his action, as we know very well -- those of us who practise law know there are situations where a consumer doesn’t have the means or the access to a court -- then the director can’t take an action for him.

Mr. Drea: You mean you don’t take action?

Mr. Roy: As you go along, you keep chipping away at your bill, a bill which you say is for the protection of the consumer, and yet you are consistently turning down reasonable amendments which would help the consumer.

Mr. Drea: You have voted against most of those reasonable amendments.

Mr. Roy: I voted for reasonable amendments, and these two were among them.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I can well understand why the parliamentary assistant wants to get this one over. It’s so eminently reasonable that the fewer words on the Hansard record to disclose the complete fallacy of what the parliamentary assistant is about, the better he will like it.

Mr. Drea: If you want to speak for an hour, be my guest, because I will reply to each and every one of the allegations that you are going to make. So don’t say I am trying to muzzle you or throttle you with a short answer. You just go on with all your eloquence, because I’ll just come right back at you.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, come on. One thing we know about you from last night is that you are predictable.

Mr. Drea: And consistent.

Mr. Renwick: All I am saying, Mr. Chairman, if I may make this sort of off-the-cuff remark about the problem of parliamentary assistants, is that it makes a mockery of bill debate, because obviously this parliamentary assistant has absolutely no authority at all to alter one jot or tittle of the bill.

We are talking to the public of Ontario because, as the member for Ottawa East simply said, when you add it all up you have taken away, by refusal to accept these amendments, what could have been a very real and valuable bill for consumer protection. The parliamentary assistant has refused to accept even those very reasonable amendments which have the support of all thinking people and of the jurisdictions that have made use of these procedures for the purpose of protecting the consumer.

The division on this bill will obviously be another defeat for the consumer, but so be it; there’ll be a new government and these changes will be made.

Mr. Roy: We’ll protect the consumer, don’t you worry.

Mr. Drea: God help him if you are protecting him.

Mr. Lawlor: They are not getting much from you. You are not doing very well up there.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

All those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. Renwick: We’ll stack that.

Mr. Chairman: Fine, we will stack the vote and consider it at the end of the committee and report on this. Subsection 7 will carry. Any other comments, criticisms or amendments to any other section of the bill? If so, what?

Mr. Renwick: My friend here.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, section 8, Mr. Chairman.

On section 8:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: It has to do with class actions. I am moving that section 8 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection as subsection 6 thereof. It’s fairly lengthy. I submit it.

Mr. Singer: Have you got some copies?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I have a copy. I am not going to give one to the parliamentary assistant, because he is not going to accept it anyhow. If you happen to be remotely interested in the matter, if it makes any twinge upon you at all, then it is taken directly, verbatim, out of the Alberta statute.

I want to put you to shame. I want to cause you to blush. I mean, this from those benighted beggars out in the middle of the prairie there somewhere, who are known for their conservatism. But you can out-conservatize them. By George, you are a stalwart, true-blue part of the machine, aren’t you? What do you think you are -- a bolt in the axle, something in the rear end of the motor vehicle, so to speak?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: I am not going to waste time now --

Mr. Drea: For a clown who does not even know where Mozambique is, don’t put me in your league.

Mr. Lawlor: I am not going to waste time this morning, Mr. Chairman, talking about class actions. This is what it is all about. I think that the hon. member despite the fact that he is not a lawyer -- has a fairly good inkling, from what he has picked up in the consumer field over the years, as to what is involved in a class action. Our jurisdiction is probably the most retrograde in North America with respect to the utilization, both within the legal profession itself and then in cahoots or conjunction, or whatever it is, with this government.

In the area of environmental control, we run up against total obtuseness, recalcitrance -- in that particular area, I don’t think they even understand. At least I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you do know what this particular grievance and particular plea on class actions is all about.

In Ontario, under a 1910 decision, Martin Co. versus the Knight Steamship Co., a line of reasoning was laid down. It was stated by the court that no representative action could lie where the relief sought was damages, since they would have to be proved separately in the case of each plaintiff. The common interest or common grievance propounded by Lord McNaughton in the Bedford case was thereby limited to those situations where there are identical rights against a common fund or where a class of people has a community of interest in some subject matter.

That’s very difficult and very narrow, extremely hard to apply and to bring yourself within the umbrella of, and therefore the class action concept has to apply. Why shouldn’t a number of individuals with a common grievance, being similarly afflicted, pool their resources and hire a single lawyer and not half a dozen or so? Maybe there are as many as 500 people, or 5,000 for that matter, who have been similarly afflicted in the marketplace. They should be able to proceed to take the matter before the court as a conjoint thing that will affect them all.

It’s one of the more involved points in jurisprudence. And, of course, the Americans in this area put us to shame. They are considerably ahead of us. They have evolved the law, refined it in this area to a point -- we are almost primitive in this regard.

All I am asking is to make a move forward, to bring yourself in line with contemporary thinking in the western world in this regard -- and let’s have it. Since I despair before I speak, I would have loved to have gone into class action at a very considerable length.

I’m sure the minister, as well as the rest of us, is in possession of a fairly elaborate document called Consumer Class Actions prepared for the Consumers’ Association of Canada, by Prof. Neil Williams of Osgoode Hall, as he then was. Prof. Williams and any number of others have worked on this thing. There are luminous texts now, and this is a new thing in the world in the area of these actions, proving their worth and their efficacy. I want the minister -- or the parliamentary assistant, who very well may be the minister some day -- to put on his socks --

Mr. Drea: Boy, have you changed your tune since last night.

Mr. Lawlor: -- fresh socks, pull up his socks, even if it’s the old ones, and move into this area.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, just one word -- I think that the suggestion put forward about class actions has merit and I shall support the amendment. Thank you.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I want to --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: Before the hon. member for Downsview goes, will you just give me a minute for explanation?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Before we continue the debate on the amendment, perhaps the Chair should read it into the record for the consideration of the hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I want the minister to understand it.

Mr. Drea: It may not be necessary, Mr. Chairman. I want to raise a certain point that the hon. member for Lakeshore may have overlooked in his research. If that is based upon Bill 78, and I think it is, in the Alberta Legislature, I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. member for Lakeshore that that bill is dead, a new bill is coming in in the Alberta Legislature, and the particular sections that you’re referring to and pointing the finger of scorn at me for not accepting western conservatism, aren’t going into effect. So, this now becomes your total idea.

Mr. Lawlor: That only proves what I have to say.

Mr. Renwick: That only proves it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair will read the amendment into the record. Order.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s right, they are the true-blue blue-eyed Conservatives that I thought they were, and you’re right with them.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The Chair will read the amendment into the record.

Mr. Lawlor moves that section 8 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection as subsection 6:

“8(1) Where a consumer has suffered damage or loss due to an unfair act or practice, that consumer may, on behalf of himself or on behalf of himself and other consumers who have suffered similar damages or loss due to similar unfair acts or practices, commence and maintain an action in court against any supplier of the goods or services that are the subject of the consumer transaction who engaged in or acquiesced in those unfair acts or practices that caused that damage or loss, for relief from that damage or loss under this section.

“8(2) In an action under this section, the court may (a) award damages for damage or loss suffered; (b) award punitive or exemplary damages; (c) make an order for (1) specific performance of the consumer transaction, or (2) restitution of property or funds, or (3) rescission of the consumer transaction; (d) make an order declaring that the act or practice is an unfair act or practice; (e) grant an order in the nature of an injunction restraining the supplier from engaging in the unfair act or practice; and (f) make such directions and grant such other relief as the court considers proper.

“(3) The court may award party and party costs and solicitor and client costs or either of them.

“(4) When an action is commenced under subsection 1, the plaintiff shall serve the director with a copy of the statement of claim within 15 days after the date on which the statement of claim was served upon the defendant.

“(5) Upon being served under subsection 4, the director may, upon notice to all parties to the action, make application to the court to be added as a party, and upon the order being made the director may take any steps be would have taken had he commenced an action under subsection 6.”

The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Can I just make a comment on that? My colleague, the hon. member for Downsview, has mentioned that we on this side would certainly support the amendment. I would just like to mention to the parliamentary assistant that whether that is part of the Alberta legislation or not seems to me to be irrelevant.

Again, we’re talking about a bill which you say is really going to protect the consumer, and, as I mentioned in my earlier comments, Mr. Chairman, this parliamentary assistant has, on a consistent basis, refused amendments which we feel would give the consumer more clout and certainly more accessibility to the court. For instance, you have taken away the right of the director to take action on behalf of the consumer of substitutive action. You have not accepted the amendment dealing with an appeal from a decision of the director to the tribunal and now you are going to refuse the question of class actions.

My colleague from Riverdale is right when he says that it is difficult sometimes to have an exchange of ideas across the House, because you don’t seem to have any flexibility whatsoever in your approach to the bill. In other words, you seem to have come into debate in committee of the whole here with a view in mind that you are not going to change one iota of this particular bill. Really that is what you are doing, and the evidence is there. You can shake your head all you like. The evidence is there that you have not shown any flexibility at all.

Mr. Drea: If you would ever come to committee or if you would ever stay around this House long enough, there are a lot of changes you would know about.

Mr. Roy: You are inconsistent with other legislation that is going to come into this province. I am convinced that when that new legal aid report comes out, one of the major recommendations will be that legal aid be provided to groups to allow individuals to take class actions, because you have situations where a whole group of consumers is affected.

Let me give you some examples. What about all the consumers who are affected, for instance, with motor vehicles such as the Corvair? You will recall just a few years ago the famous motor vehicle that everybody had problems with called the Firenza. A whole ream of people formed an association. Surely it would be helpful to have this type of class action. It would be additionally helpful if the director, as was proposed in this legislation, could come in as a party awl maybe take over this action and prosecute it on behalf of the consumers.

I could go on, Mr. Chairman, to mention a number of cases where surely a group or class action will be of relevance. You appear again to be turning it away without giving valid reason. I don’t see your reasoning or the merit or the logic of your refusal of this amendment.

Mr. Drea: That is understandable, since I haven’t given it yet, but that is nothing new for you.

Mr. Roy: You haven’t given the reason I asked this morning.

Mr. Drea: Just cool it. First of all, not being a solicitor --

Mr. Stokes: The parliamentary assistant hasn’t the right temperament for this kind of thing.

Mr. Drea: Of course I do. I don’t have a red face and high blood pressure. I have a very easy-going temperament.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Can we return to the debate on the amendment?

Mr. Drea: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just want to raise one thing for about 10 seconds. I am not going to say it any more.

Mr. Stokes: You should practise at home before the mirror.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. member will continue the debate on the amendment.

Mr. Lawlor: Why don’t you stay on the point? Why do you get off on these personal things?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to go on until there is some order in the committee.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, aren’t you? Then you will be standing there for a long time.

Mr. Roy: You are overly sensitive.

Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. member continue? In the Chair’s opinion, there is good order.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairmen, in terms of class actions I would like to point out something. There was the document held up by, I think it is Mr. Williams. I have read the document, but I forget the man’s name.

Mr. Lawlor: Prof. Neil Williams.

Mr. Drea: It would have been very interesting if the member for Lakeshore would have read into it, because he would have found out that when it comes to class actions the author of that particular document suggests they do not appear in Acts like this. If class actions are to come in, it would be my position that they should come in across the board and not just be confined to a relatively limited statute administered by one particular ministry of government.

With all due respect to the member for Ottawa East, I don’t know what is in the report based upon legal aid.

Mr. Roy: You just won’t read it in a couple of weeks.

Mr. Drea: Not being clairvoyant, it is difficult for me to read what hasn’t been put out.

Mr. Roy: That has been your problem throughout this debate.

Mr. Drea: If we are going to start on a road into class actions, I would respectfully suggest that it should be across the board. It would be more properly the jurisdiction of the Attorney General (Mr. Clement); it would be more properly placed into every type of litigation in this province, not just consumerism. Therefore, I think that’s a very valid reason that at this particular time I’m not prepared to accept the amendment that would put the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations into the class action field in a very limited area of its jurisdiction.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, may I just mention one thing to the parliamentary assistant? He may well be right that the ideal situation would be to have legislation which would be all-encompassing and apply to all provincial legislation allowing class action. That is a frustration on our part when we are proposing amendments or legislation to you people across there, because the only way you could possibly do that would be to have what is called an Ontario bill of rights with something in it about class action. If you can explain to me how you can pass a piece of legislation in this province which would apply to all legislation, including this Act, which negates the class-action approach, I would be interested to hear it.

I’m saying that what we need is a standard niece of legislation like an Ontario bill of rights. Of course, you’ve refused to accept that. I’ve made the suggestion for three years that we should have some sort of legislation permitting the use of that, but this province has rejected that. If you look at your colleagues in Alberta. They have what they call the Alberta Bill of Rights. I don’t know how you would do it, frankly. I’m saying that the way you are going about not accepting this amendment at this time is not practical and not possible because in the past you have rejected legislation that would permit it.

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

All those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the wish that this be stacked?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, please.

Mr. Chairman: Then we can proceed with section 9 of the bill. Shall section 9 carry?

The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I have a very minor thing on section 10.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 9 carry?

Section 9 agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Renwick: On section 10, we had never heard in this party the expression “AVCs” until this bill came through, but I would like the assembly to know that we discovered in the last day of the bearing that AVC means assurance of voluntary compliance. We were a little bashful about asking about it for fear of disclosing our ignorance, but we wish you to know that we did learn something in committee after all.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 10 carry?

Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment on section 12.

On section 12:

Mr. Renwick moves that section 12(1) be amended by adding after the word “Act” in the sixth line, the words “or any provision of the Combines Investigation Act or of the Criminal Code of Canada relating to the supplying of goods or services or both.”

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak to the matter. Reverting to the point about which the member for Downsview interjected a few moments ago to outline to me this question of the responsibility for the administration of the laws in the Province of Ontario, I repeat, the law enforced in Ontario for which the administration of justice which is required under the constitution by this province includes the federal laws applicable in the province. No administrative practice or convenient bifurcation of jurisdictions with respect to executive action can override the responsibility of the government to administer the laws of the province.

This particular section of the bill is limited to the power of the director to investigate only alleged contraventions of this Act. It is passing strange that every other Act dealing with this and similar forms of behaviour has an extended clause in the particular Act governing it.

The Securities Act of the Province of Ontario has had it in from time immemorial. My guess is that it was the original clause and I’d like to read from the proposed Bill 75, which repeats what is in the existing statute. And I refer to the proposed Bill 75, which stands on the order paper:

“Where, upon a statement made under oath, it appears probable to the commission that any person or company has,

“(a) contravened any of the provisions of this Act or of the regulations;”

That’s what this present Bill 55 says and that’s where it stops. But the Securities Act goes on to say:

“or (b) committed an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada in connection with a trade in securities the commission may by order [do so and so.]”

I refer to the bill which was introduced by the parliamentary assistant on behalf of the ministry in this session of the Legislature, and which I believe has already received royal assent, Bill 165, An Act to regulate the Business of selling and dealing in Travel Services. When we come to the correlative pass section in that bill, section 20 in that bill, it says:

“Where, upon a statement made under oath, the director believes on reasonable and probable grounds that any person has,

“(a) contravened any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations; or

“(b) committed an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada or under the law of any jurisdiction that is relevant to his fitness for registration under this Act ... ”

And then goes on to make a statement.

I want to point out that under the Securities Act where you are engaged in protecting the consumer in the securities industry, you do not limit the power of the director. But then again that would be natural for this government because the consumer who has an investment portfolio and who has the funds to invest in the security markets, always has the ear of the government because he belongs to the top level of the people in the province who economically can have that protection.

But oh, when the minister comes to dealing just with the consumer of consumer goods and services, he limits the power of the director. You give him no authority, even though the constitution requires it, to provide that the consumer in Ontario under aegis of this ministry will have a vigilant watchdog to refer, not only to breaches of Bill 55, but who will have the benefit of the references to the Criminal Code when they relate to fraud and other transactions related to the sale of goods for which this ministry should accept responsibility.

The point is so obvious, the point is so clear, that when it comes to the consumer, when it comes to the consumer of goods in the marketplace, this government has no interest except to impose its version of paternal elitism on the province.

The Securities Act deals in securities for certain segments of the consumer public and the director has wide powers. When you are dealing with a consumer in his generic sense, the guy who buys the automobile, the guy who buys any kinds of goods and services, broadloom, any of those areas that are involved in it, no. You insist on the division, the rigid division between federal responsibility and your responsibility.

I referred to it earlier, I say again, and I will continue to say it, that the ministry is gun-shy. They are frightened. They are frightened and they are blind to the need to protect the consumer in the province. The defeat time after time in this assembly of the amendments which we have proposed to this bill add up to an almost total abdication by this ministry of any concern of any significance for the consumer.

Mr. Stokes: Shame. Shame on you.

Mr. Renwick: If you accept this, I’ll give you some indication that maybe perhaps you will treat the consuming public with the same deference that you protect your elitist friends who have the portfolios of investments represented by the protections under the securities law.

Mr. Stokes: Well said.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: This, you will be happy to learn, is my last hurrah -- the last time I intend to speak, I believe, in this bill.

Mr. Drea: I don’t believe it.

Mr. Lawlor: Surely the recommendation made, this amendment, already embodied in other pieces of your legislation, should be palatable and acceptable to you -- or does the degree of your recalcitrance reach such limits as even to reject that?

I am delighted with the bill in the way in which your obtuseness has shown itself. It has become absolutely clear, crystalline to anybody who cares to look, precisely where this government, and the minister, stands with respect to consumer matters. It is clear when you get a letter from Mr. Trebilcock and Mrs. Jackson, Jan. 28 of this year, which in the second paragraph thereof says: “Listen, they haven’t got a great deal of time and we’ve got less money. The parts in the new section 5 on real estate have been deleted and we are hard pressed to find any other strengthening changes made in the bill as a result. They are reluctant to come to the conclusion.” They may be reluctant, but I hope their reluctance has been overcome. They see what members of the opposition have to forfend against every day of the week, and particularly in the area of consumer legislation. You bang your head against stone walls and the blankness comes down, moles creep underground seeking light; yes. Why don’t you come to the surface and take a little rain water?

Mr. Drea: Why don’t you get on with it?

Mr. Lawlor: They are reluctant they say “to come to the conclusion” -- what nice people. Oh, there is a certain degree of trust in their relationship with the government, one which we have learned somewhat to overcome by bitter experience with it. But I could have told them pretty well what would have happened. I didn’t know it would be as crass as this; that you would come down as hard. In fact, I thought you would allow a little elbow room; do a little stick handling. You haven’t even got the grace to do that. You say blankly “no.” You’ve cut everything off.

Mr. Drea: That’s right.

Mr. Lawlor: Let me start the sentence for the fifth time:

“We are reluctant to come to the conclusion that the hearings were simply an exercise in participatory tokenism, a giant talk-in, designed to give the appearance of flexibility on the part of the government, when in fact its mind was closed to meritorious amendments.”

And that sums up this debate. And that’s where you are, boyo. That’s what it is all about, and I don’t think there is any point in saying very much more.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, just on this amendment, from a personal point of view. I have serious reservations about this Act if it was ever challenged -- the Act in its present form -- on the basis of ultra vires or constitutionality. Just on the basis on which it is drafted now, I have serious doubts whether it would stand up to the scrutiny of the court. The argument by the federal government, that in dealing with punitive legislation in relation to advertising or otherwise, would obviously be that they occupy the field. The facts of this Act that I see as problematic in this type of case would be the points in section 18 where you deal with penalties. It may well be that the province could argue that it is dealing with the civil aspect of the remedy and the federal government is dealing with the criminal aspect of it. But one thing I would be concerned about if the amendment was, in fact, accepted is that it would be clear, in my opinion, that the provincial government is clearly embarking on a field which is occupied by the federal government.

Mr. Renwick: That is the most utter nonsense.

Mr. Drea: You see what you are up against?

Mr. Renwick: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Roy: I notice when my friend from Riverdale was talking about other legislation, the Securities Act, in which the director had flexibility, let’s say, he said that all of this legislation that was being mentioned was in fact in the Criminal Code. And of course the province has jurisdiction for the enforcement of the Criminal Code. But it doesn’t --

Mr. Renwick: All right, accept my amendment with respect to the Criminal Code then.

Mr. Drea: He never accepts reality.

Mr. Renwick: Of course not.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Ottawa East has the floor.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, if it said here that the director had flexibility to look at a breach of the Criminal Code, obviously I would support it; he would have that juris diction because he does have jurisdiction to go into breaches of the Criminal Code and that’s guaranteed by the BNA Act. But when it comes to the question of the Combines Investigation Act --

Mr. Renwick: The Combines Investigation Act is criminal law and always has been so.

Mr. Roy: That is your opinion, but I am suggesting to you --

Mr. Renwick: It is the opinion of the courts of the land.

Mr. Roy: It is not the opinion of the courts of the land.

Mr. Drea: Let’s get out of law school and back to the bill.

Mr. Roy: I have yet to see any prosecutions by any provincial governments or provincial Attorneys General, let’s say for the Income Tax Act. Are you saying again that that’s a criminal prosecution? I haven’t seen any of this. It’s just like the Combines Investigation Act. In light of the fact that we are operating in various levels of jurisdiction -- we are talking about federal and provincial or otherwise -- I say very sincerely to my friend that I feel if that was inserted in the bill, clearly someone would argue that it was ultra vires and that the province was trying to get an encroachment of federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, you know, sincerity is no substitute for knowledge.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): You are right on.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: Let me give the member for Ottawa East a minor lesson in constitutional law.

Mr. Roy: Oh, don’t give me any lessons.

Mr. Drea: Don’t give lessons; get back to the bill.

Mr. Renwick: So far as the Income Tax Act reference, which is totally irrelevant, is concerned, one jurisdiction will not enforce the revenue laws of another jurisdiction. That’s trite law; very simple. Okay, that’s that.

Mr. Roy: You should sit on the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Renwick: Secondly, the Combines Investigation Act, when it was first introduced into the Parliament of Canada, was by reference held to be an exercise of the criminal law power.

Mr. Roy: Quasi-criminal.

Mr. Renwick: Not quasi-criminal; criminal law power.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s right.

Mr. Renwick: A substantial number of the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act were transferred out of the Criminal Code for administrative purposes only. It’s not quasi. That’s typical lawyer’s jargon. Nobody knows what the word “quasi” means, you know. It’s not English. Do you understand that? It’s criminal law and it’s criminal jurisdiction --

Mr. Roy: You should sit on the Supreme Court of Canada,

Mr. Renwick: -- and the responsibility of this government is to enforce the criminal law in the Province of Ontario. I am asking this ministry to enforce the criminal law. The criminal law is contained in the Criminal Code and in the Combines Investigation Act. What the government is doing -- and we are allowing it to happen; we raised it before the Provincial Secretary of Justice -- this government, in the field of consumerism, has made a minor representation about the intrusion into the civil law field of the federal court apparatus to permit an extension of the Combines Investigation Act from its criminal aspect into its administrative and into its civil aspects. That, in my judgment, is wrong.

This government has permitted a new level of courts to be introduced into Canada -- the federal court system, expanded and enlarged -- so that this government will be able to continuously say: “Oh, in our little watertight compartment, we protect the consumer through our paternal elitism, and anything else we will leave to the federal government and to the federal court.” That’s what they are doing. It is an abdication of responsibility. It’s clear -- it’s clear in the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In the estimates you can’t even find the word “consumer.”

In this bill there are so many failures that this can’t even be dignified as the kind of bill which generally the Liberal Party supports -- that a little bit is better than nothing. This bill is hardly even that. What you have done is to preserve for the arcane world of the lawyer, the protection of the consumer. And that has failed down the years and will continue to fail because of the ineptness, rigidity, closed-mindedness of the ministry.

In a charitable moment, I say that had the former minister still been the minister, and had he not taken ill during the course of those proceedings, we might possibly have got two or three of the reasonable propositions which were put before the committee by the Consumers’ Association.

I know he is upset, I can tell. When his right flapper flaps, I know he is really upset.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member for Riverdale --

Mr. Drea: Are you all there?

Mr. Chairman: You’re speaking to the principle of the bill instead of your amendment.

Mr. Renwick: It is very interesting that the new minister apparently treats this bill as old business which didn’t really exist for him in his administration of this ministry, because I haven’t seen him or heard of him during the course of this debate. But the intransigent parliamentary assistant, the vocal parliamentary assistant for consumer rights --

Mr. Chairman: Order, order. The member for Riverdale --

Mr. Renwick: -- has become a lawyer, a pseudo lawyer.

Mr. Chairman: Order, order. Will the member for Riverdale please come to order and speak to the amendment.

Mr. Drea: Wait just a minute. Mr. Chairman, I would like first to comment upon the remarks of the member for Ottawa East. You stole a little bit of my lines -- that is a concern. Secondly, I would point out to you --

Mr. Renwick: It’s wrong; it is total error.

Mr. Drea: Secondly, I would point out to you that in the two Acts that were mentioned -- the Securities Act, and we have a reference to Bill 75; there was also a particular reference to the travel industry Act, Bill 165 -- now the reason that the extension was put on in both of those is that particular section with the registrar or the competent authorities --

Mr. Renwick: Those are only --

Mr. Drea: -- has to deal with the revocation of the registration.

Mr. Renwick: That is not correct.

Mr. Drea: Now, I would point out to you in Bill 55 --

Mr. Renwick: That is a deliberate falsehood.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Renwick: That is a deliberate falsehood. The Securities Act deals with the Criminal Code and has nothing to do with registration of any kind.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Would the member for Riverdale take his seat while the parliamentary assistant speaks to the amendment?

Mr. Lawlor: How can he do that when he is misleading the House? It is a dreadful thing. How do you answer my colleague?

Mr. Drea: With contempt.

Mr. Lawlor: You are a real atavistic amoeba if ever there was one.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Order, order. The member for Lakeshore --

Mr. Lawlor: It’s absolutely unbelievable. All right, we can give as good as we get, you know -- and probably better.

Mr. Chairman: Order, order. To the member for Lakeshore, he has already spoken to the amendment. Now give the parliamentary assistant --

Mr. Stokes: Tell him to make sense then.

Mr. Lawlor: Let him make a fool of himself.

Mr. Chairman: If I were a referee, a judge of both sides, I would say there has been very little sense made in the past 15 minutes.

Mr. Roy: I thought I had a very reasonable comment.

Mr. Drea: I think I have replied to the member for Ottawa East. I am not prepared to accept this amendment.

First of all, if the director feels that the particular mailer should be more properly handled under the Combines Investigation Act or the Criminal Code, there are investigatory agencies dealing with both of those pieces of legislation. This would merely be a duplication if the director became a policeman for purposes of the --

Mr. Renwick: Absolute nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Drea: -- Criminal Code or became an investigator under the Combines Investigation Act. They have their own staffs. They do very well. They have built up an enviable reputation.

Mr. Renwick: Very few convictions.

Mr. Drea: Once again, it’s just another attempt to duplicate. I agree with most of the comments made by the hon. member for Ottawa East that this indeed would be an intrusion upon a very well defined and clearly laid out federal area.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, don’t talk nonsense.

Mr. Drea: I never talk nonsense. Despite the names that have been coming at me, I’ve remained remarkably calm. But I will tell you that it’s not when my right hand begins to flap that I am starting to go. You are rapidly pushing me so that we are going to have quite a little bit of fun in the 44 minutes that are left.

Mr. Stokes: Is that a threat or a promise?

Mr. Renwick: I hope you enjoy it because I have spent all the time here I want to today.

Mr. Drea: Let’s just see if you can get five of you to divide on this, because you haven’t even got five in your own party here.

Mr. Lawlor: The government has handled the rules of this House so badly that everybody dispersed to the four winds.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): You have only five counting yourself.

Mr. Stokes: There are only five Tories in the House.

Mr. Drea: That’s better than five of the left wing.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 12, subsection 1 carry?

Mr. Renwick: I think we should call a quorum vote. What about a quorum?

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour please say “aye.”

All those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it. I declare the amendment lost.

Sections 12 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other section of the bill before section 20?

On section 17:

Mr. Renwick: Yes, section 17 deserves one comment. Section 17, subsection d, provides for regulations “exempting any class of person or type of consumer from this Act or the regulations of any provision thereof.” That again is the provision by which the vested interests in the province will be able to do behind the closed doors of the ministry what they failed to do in the public committee hearings on this bill. They’ll get exemption after exemption after exemption, because they’ll be able to say, “It’s a very good bill in principle just so long as it doesn’t apply to us.”

The same argument that was so effective in excluding the professions from the application of this bill is going to be used by the ministry to exempt the life insurance industry and various other groups who very vocally put their case. The committee knocked them down. But once they get behind the closed doors of the ministry, the vested interests always win. And they’ll win again, you mark my words.

Mr. Drea: I would just like to point out to the hon. member for Riverdale, as I said last night, though he may not remember from last night --

Mr. Renwick: I remember last night very well.

Mr. Drea: -- there would be no exemptions and no exclusions under the regulatory section. That’s a matter of record; that’s a commitment that’s there.

Mr. Renwick: Well, delete it. I will move the deletion of that section.

Mr. Drea: That’s a facetious amendment.

Mr. Renwick moves the deletion of item ‘d’ of subsection 1 of section 17 of the bill.

Mr. Renwick: The minister said it’s not going to be used, and I’m a great one for not making the statutes any longer than they need to be.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 17 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour of section 17 standing as part of the bill will please say “aye.”

Mr. Drea: Aye.

Mr. Lawlor: There is only one person over there.

Mr. Stokes: Just one person. Now put the other one.

Mr. Drea: Oh, there’s more than that.

Mr. Stokes: Oh, no. It has been put and one person responded. Ask for the “nays.”

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): There are more ways to respond than talking.

Mr. Stokes: You didn’t even grunt.

Mr. Chairman: All those opposed to section 17 forming part of the bill please say nay.

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it. I declare the amendment lost.

Mr. Drea: We can’t even get a division yet. They haven’t got a party over there.

Mr. Stokes: We got one “aye” and not even a grunt.

Section 17 agreed to.

Mr. Stokes: This place becomes more irrelevant by the hour.

Mr. Chairman: Section 18?

On section 18:

Mr. Drea: Yes, I want to do something on section 18, Mr. Chairman. Since I have been accused quite directly of being intransigent, arrogant, defiant, obtuse and probably about 15 other adjectives, where there is some stimulation involved as to the creation of them, I would like to point out that I am not totally opposed to any amendment. In view of the fact that they spent, quite frankly, all of the time in committee, and while we didn’t agree, either the member for Lakeshore or the member for Riverdale might like to propose an amendment -- I could to it, Mr. Chairman, but I am being very charitable -- they might like to propose an amendment, because there is a typographical error in this section, that I am sure they have noticed. It is in subsection 2 where it says:

“Every person who engages in an unfair practice other than an unfair practice prescribed by regulation made under subsection 1 of section 16.”

That really should be section 17, not 16. Now if someone would like to propose the amendment -- either one of you -- I would be glad to accept it. If you don’t propose it I will move it myself.

Mr. Lawlor: You move your own silly amendment.

Mr. Drea: All right, Mr. Chairman, I move the correction of that section.

Mr. Lawlor: We offered you all kinds of opportunity, and now you want a typographical error changed.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss a prior subsection in section 18 with the parliamentary assistant, if we are going to proceed with this in order.

I would like -- and depending on your answer I may well move --

Mr. Chairman: Maybe we should dispose of this and we will let you get back to it.

Mr. Roy: Okay, I didn’t want to be precluded from talking about section 18(1).

Mr. Drea: Oh no, it is a typographical error.

Mr. Roy: Okay, that’s your amendment then.

Mr. Drea moves that in subsection 2 of section 18, line 3, the figure 16 after the word “section” be changed to 17.

Mr. Chairman: You have all heard the amendment. All in favour of the amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to section 18(1)(c). I am somewhat concerned about the wording of that section. It states here one is guilty of an offence on summary conviction if he does the following things under a, b and c, and c is: “ ... fails to comply with any order or assurance of voluntary compliance made or entered into under this Act.”

The problem I would like to discuss with the parliamentary assistant is this: When you talk about any order under this Act, are you talking about an order of the director or an order of the tribunal, or what is it? Are you talking about both of these orders? I am just wondering whether you should have in front of the word “order” the words “lawful order.”

I am concerned that one may well consider that the order made by the director is not a reasonable order and want to challenge that order. If, under subsection c, he fails to comply with it, is there any way for him to challenge the order made by the director?

Again, I am all for the protection of the consumer; but on the other hand I do not want to see a sort of double whammy put on the individual who infringes this Act, and put on in such a way that he has no way of challenging the order without being in breach of section 18(1)(c).

Mr. Drea: In reply to the member for Ottawa East, I am assured by the legislative counsel that “order” per se means lawful order; the word “order” in the Act does not become an order until the person who it applies against has exhausted his appeal through the Commercial Relations appeals tribunal.

So, I think that answers your concerns that this is not just -- I am going to use the word “directive” rather than “order” to avoid confusion -- this isn’t just an arbitrary directive of the director, and that that would bring the particular person under the ambit of subsection c before he has a chance to appeal it. The thrust of subsection c as it stands now is after all of the appeals, if there are appeals, have been exhausted. So it is a final order that has been confirmed where the person has had the right to appeal.

Mr. Roy: My concern, of course, is that the parliamentary assistant’s whole bill interchanges the word “order,” whether it’s emanating from the director or from the tribunal. My concern is that once the word starts being used interchangeably in the bill, and the court is in a position to start interpreting the word “order” in section 18(1)(c), it’s going to look at the bill to see how the word “order” is used in the bill itself.

I’m not sure that entering the word “lawful” in front of the word “order” is going to make it any more lawful but I just want to express the concern that I wouldn’t want to see a situation where an individual would be in breach of section 18(1)(c) when he was in the process of challenging some order or directive of the director.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments? Shall section 18 carry?

Mr. Roy: I would like to put one other question to the parliamentary assistant. In talking about a corporation that has been convicted of an offence under subsections 1 or 2, section 18(4) says:

“The director ... and each officer, servant or agent of the corporation who was in whole or in part responsible for the conduct of that part of the business of the corporation ... is a party to the offence unless he satisfies the court that he did not authorize, permit or acquiesce in the offence.”

First of all, what you are doing is reversing the general onus on the Crown in all criminal or quasi-criminal prosecutions to prove a case against an individual. That is one of the basic rules of our criminal law. What you are doing here, in fact, is switching that around.

It’s an extremely wide section. In the case of a company like Imperial Oil, it may well be that once a decision is made for advertising in relation to one particular product, let’s say, you may well involve hundreds or thousands of officers or servants who might be faced with having to satisfy that onus.

Mr. Drea: Perhaps I could ease your concern if I explained how that particular subsection came into being.

There was considerable concern expressed to the committee by people, particularly the directors, who represented the very type of corporation you are talking about. The concern that was expressed, and it’s reflected in this definition, is that directors might well be unaware because of the complexity of the enterprise and so on; indeed, it would be Draconian unless we got into a limitation of their responsibility which is what we have arrived at here. This was suggested by representatives and directors of corporations, both large and small. This was also suggested and complied with in an element of fairness by members of the committee who have had some experience.

Therefore, I think that some of the concerns you were expressing may not be as substantial, or the thrust of that subsection may not seem as significant, now that you understand the basis on which it was arrived at.

Mr. Roy: If I might, I would like to make this comment, Mr. Chairman. I’m not overly concerned that one of the basic principles of the Bill of Rights or our criminal law is for the first time being chipped away or reversed, because in other legislation at the federal level the onus has been changed when it was necessary.

I think that when you’re dealing with corporations, you sometime have to switch the onus because there is just no way that the Crown or the prosecuting authorities could prove the active participation of individuals when you are dealing with large corporations.

But I do want to express concern and have this concern put on the record, Mr. Chairman. You see, this works well in normal, sort of ordinary cases, but I can see situations where that section, involving a particular type of transaction, could be abused. And of course when that springs to mind, I think it’s normal that one would express some concern about the wide powers and the onus put on individuals under that particular section.

Sections 18 to 20, inclusive, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Mr. Renwick has moved an amendment to section 7 of the bill. Is it the wish of the House that the Chair re-read the amendment or shall we take it as previously read?

The committee divided on Mr. Renwick’s amendment, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 14, the “nays” 43.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment defeated.

Mr. Lawlor has moved an amendment to section 8. Is it the desire of the House we take the same vote, the same count?

The committee divided on Mr. Lawlor’s amendment, which was negatived on the same vote.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 55, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT

Mr. Drea, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Handleman, moves third reading of Bill 55, An Act to Prohibit Unfair Practices in Sales to Consumers.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, before third reading I would simply like to put the position of our party about the defects in this particular legislation.

It is defective in that it doesn’t provide for substitutive actions. It is defective in that it doesn’t provide for class actions. It is defective in that it doesn’t provide for access by the consumer to the tribunal where the registrar refuses to act. It is defective in that there is no provision for corrective advertising orders. It is defective in that there are no provisions for ad substantiation orders.

It is defective in that it does not apply to all services, but excludes, particularly, professional services from its ambit. It is defective because the government persists in dividing the field between itself, and the federal government instead of accepting the responsibility to administer all laws in favour of consumer protection. Therefore, for that reason we in this party are opposed to the third reading of the bill and will divide on the matter.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Speaker, may I make a quick comment on the bill on third reading? We feel that the bill could have been considerably stronger had the amendments been accepted by the parliamentary assistant. We are extremely concerned about them. These matters were mentioned by my colleague from Riverdale; the substitutive action, the class action and the right of the consumer to appeal the decision of the director. We feel, Mr. Speaker, that when the parliamentary assistant states that this is a bill that is going to be strongly in favour of the consumer, unfortunately, the evidence does not bear him out. He has left a gap in what we consider to be very important areas of the bill.

In spite of the fact that we are in favour of this type of legislation, we are very displeased indeed by the intransigent attitude of the parliamentary assistant in not accepting what we had considered to be important and very reasonable amendments. When the consumers of this province complain in the future about the lack of action in certain areas --

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): They won’t go to the member.

Mr. Roy: -- we will direct them to read the debates that haste taken place here over the last two days.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I realize there is going to be a division. I am going to talk for about 20 seconds. First of all, this is the finest piece of consumer legislation ever introduced in this province and indeed in the whole country. I don’t say that because I had anything to do with it. I think it is a monument to the minister of that day, who is now the Attorney General (Mr. Clement).

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to end on a concordant note.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): It is really remarkable what a little power will do, a little brief authority. It is just incredible.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the member continue his remarks?

Mr. Drea: The member came close last night. Just keep pushing it, mister.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would like to end on a concordant note. I would like to thank the members of the standing committee on justice from all parties who, despite the fact that it was late in December, that there were many hours of sessions and that there were a great deal of very, very technical arguments, nonetheless stayed, were present and made an important contribution to this bill.

I say that, Mr. Speaker, because there was some publicity about certain activities in this House on a certain evening. I think the record should show that there were nine members of the committee who were not in this chamber on that particular evening. In fact, two of them gave up part of their dinner hour to make sure this bill would be studied.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re discussing third reading of the bill.

The House divided on the motion for third reading of Bill 55, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Allan Auld Belanger Bennett Birch Carruthers Downer Drea Eaton Evans Ewen Gilbertson Grossman Hamilton Handleman Havrot Henderson Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton) Hodgson (York North) Kennedy Leluk MacBeth McIlveen McNeil McNie Meen Morningstar Newman (Ontario South) Nixon (Dovercourt) Nuttall Parrott Rhodes Scrivener Smith (Simcoe East) Snow Stewart Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox) Villeneuve Wardle White Winkler -- 41.

Bounsall Breithaupt Burr Deans Dukszta Foulds Germa Lawlor MacDonald Martel Renwick Roy Smith (Nipissing) Stokes Worton -- 15.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 41, the “nays” 15.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to; third reading of the bill.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House. I’d like to say that on Monday we’ll proceed with Bill 111 and then we’ll resume item No. 2 on the order paper.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1:10 o’clock, p.m.