Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I raise this matter on behalf of a number of my colleagues in the House and on my own behalf. You no doubt noticed in a newspaper article about a week ago in the financial page the substantial profits being shown by the Bell Telephone Co. I wondered if you could prevail upon them to set aside some hundreds of the millions that they have made to provide telephones for the members of the Legislature in order that they could carry out their responsibilities during this legislative session.

As you can appreciate, it is virtually impossible for a member, after having been elected and having taken on very onerous responsibilities, to carry out those responsibilities without the use of some communicative device back to his or her constituency. A telephone would be useful. If you would take it upon yourself to look into this matter on our behalf as the guardian of the members’ rights, we would appreciate it very much.

Mr. Speaker Stokes: I will take advantage of the first opportunity to call this to the attention of Mr. Speaker Rowe, who is responsible for protecting the members and making sure the amenities are provided for them to carry on their duties, and I am sure he will take that into consideration.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to you and members of the House a group of 140 students from the E. J. James Public School in the great town of Oakville.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House and your attention, and welcome to this House, a group of the wives of the members of the Ontario Association of Educational Administrative Officers who are holding their convention in Toronto this week. These women are in your gallery attending today’s sitting.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

EMERGENCY MAIL SERVICE

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, like other Canadians, I have been anticipating settlement of the postal strike each day. But as each day slips by and the strike lengthens -- and no one is certain at this point just how long it may drag on -- I think it is I incumbent upon me to advise the House of the emergency mail service we have had in effect, and will maintain for the duration of the strike.

Special attention has been given to important mail pieces, such as GAINS and family benefit cheques and other vital service communications. For instance, senior representatives of my ministry are making appropriate arrangements with representatives of the Ministry of Revenue to distribute GAINS cheques that would normally have been due for delivery later this month.

The flow of essential mail between government offices is being handled by private courier service, bus parcel express, air express, special international mail service, telecommunications services and through the use of Ministry of Government Services’ vehicles.

Field offices of the Ontario government throughout the province have established drop boxes to receive, for distribution, essential mail from the private sector addressed to all Ontario government offices and to the members.

Mr. Roy: How about courier pigeon?

Mrs. Campbell: How about the telephone?

MACGREGOR POINT PROVINCIAL PARK

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that the MacGregor Point Provincial Park --

Mr. Gaunt: A good park.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- a new 2,500-acre recreation facility on Lake Huron, five miles south of Port Elgin, will be open to the public for camping by July 1, 1976.

As I have previously indicated to this House, MacGregor Point’s new campgrounds will replace those phased out at Inverhuron Provincial Park at the end of this season to comply with regulations of the Atomic Energy Control Board in line with the agreement made in 1973 with Ontario Hydro.

However, and I do want to stress this, Inverhuron Park’s swimming and picnic areas will remain open to the public free of charge, only Inverhuron’s campgrounds will be discontinued.

Costs of land acquisition and park development at MacGregor Point, to replace the equivalent facilities formerly provided at Inverhuron, were financed by Ontario Hydro with additional costs for the more extensive facilities provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Over 150 campsites will be available to the public by July 1, 1976, with a further 200 scheduled for completion by midsummer. When completed, the new park will contain more than four times the acreage of Inverhuron Park, thus expanding both day use and camping opportunities for the 4,000,000 Ontarians who live within a three-hour drive of this part of Lake Huron’s scenic shoreline.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Lewis: Housing, Housing!

Mr. Roy: The minister is still hesitant. Does he still want to change his mind once more? Go ahead, we will understand.

RENT REVIEW

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, today I will be introducing the Residential Premises Rent Review Act. The introduction of --

Mr. Roy: Is the minister sure about that?

Mr. Cassidy: The government should have done that 2½ years ago.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The introduction of rent control in Ontario at this time is in keeping with this government’s undertaking during the last election. It should also be viewed --

Mr. Singer: Which one, which one?

Mr. Lewis: Which day?

Mr. Singer: Which day, which undertaking, by whom?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It should also be viewed in the context of the federal government’s anti-inflation measures which it is designed to complement.

As the minister responsible for housing, I am and must be concerned with the possibility that rent control could have an adverse effect on the development of rental accommodation, which is already scarce in a number of our communities. In other jurisdictions, such a reduction has occurred and it is a distressing side-effect of the strong medicine of rent control. However, at a time when rents have been climbing, wages are limited and prices subject to review, rent levies must be legislated for the common good. Hopefully, we will be able to interest builders in our housing programmes and the new federal housing initiatives so that, notwithstanding the controls, a better supply of accommodation of all types will become available in these communities.

The following are the general principles of the legislation:

Leases commencing before July 30, 1975, while not subject to this Act, may be considered by rental officials named under the Act if a tenant requests a review of the statutory rent increases allowed when such a lease is renewed.

Leases commencing between July 29, 1975, and Jan. 1, 1976, will be limited to a maximum rental increase of eight per cent of the rent paid in July, 1975. During this period the allowable increase cannot be appealed by either party. Appeals will be allowed either party for the balance of the term after Jan. 1. 1976. Provision is made to require landlords to refund overpayments.

Leases commencing between Dec. 31, 1975, and Aug. 1, 1976, will be subject to a maximum rental increase of eight per cent which may be appealed by either landlord or tenant.

Leases commencing between July 31, 1976, and Aug. 1, 1977, will be subject to a new maximum rental increase established by order-in-council which may be appealed by either landlord or tenant.

In any appeal case, the person affected by the appeal may ask to have the rents reduced rather than increased or increased rather than reduced, as the case may be. The onus will be on the landlord to demonstrate that increased costs justify the rent increase.

Disputes will be first heard by a rent review officer with a right of appeal by either party to the Rent Review Board.

Residential premises for the purpose of this Act will be either a dwelling unit that contains bathroom and kitchen facilities or land used as a site for a mobile home. Rent will mean not only the amount paid by the tenant for accommodation, but that paid for any ancillary service or “thing” such as parking or lockers. A tenancy agreement may be written, oral or implied.

We will be naming rent review officers in all parts of the province and making provision for the Rent Review Board to bold hearings across Ontario for the convenience of tenants and landlords.

The rent review officer will be empowered to approve the amount sought by a landlord if he is satisfied that the costs presented justify the amount of the rent increase. On the other side of the coin, he can order the landlord to reduce the rent increase to an amount less than eight per cent on appeal by the tenant and order the landlord to pay back rent already paid in excess of what is finally allowed.

Until such time as the rent review officer makes his decision, a rent increase up to the eight per cent limit established by the Act may be collected by the landlord. Also, the discontinuance by the landlord of a service, privilege, accommodation or “thing” which results in a substantial reduction of the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises will be considered a rent increase. Neither party may charge for any equipment or service which cannot be justified.

The rent review officer is empowered to review such actions by landlords and tenants who sublet. Tenants will not be able to sublet for a consideration greater than the rent that is lawfully charged by the landlord and may not charge any consideration for assigning the tenancy agreement.

This Act will not apply to a number of residential premises. These include those owned by federal or provincial governments or government agencies, buildings of four residential units or fewer, luxury accommodation -- which is defined as having a rent of more than $500 a month -- co-operatives and non-profit housing and several similar exclusions. Also exempted are new buildings, no part of which were occupied for residential purposes before Jan. 1, 1976.

Any person who knowingly contravenes the limiting sections of the Act is guilty of an offence and on summary conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000.

Mr. Lewis: Members opposite should be more enthusiastic than that. Or are you still kicking and screaming?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s completely consistent with what we said last August.

Mr. Nixon: On which day?

Interjections.

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT AMENDMENTS

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of the Residential Premises Rent Review Act for first reading this afternoon requires further legislation to ensure security of tenure. I therefore intend to introduce amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act next Wednesday, to protect tenants who become involved in rent disputes. I would like to review the main points of this legislation this afternoon because of the important connection between it and the rent review legislation.

The first important change will be to require landlords to give reasons for terminating a tenancy at the end of a term. No terminations will be permitted without notice to the tenant specifying reasons and particulars.

If the tenant does not consent, the landlord will be required to apply to a judge to obtain possession. He will have to satisfy the judge that reasons given for termination constitute “just cause” under the terms of the amended Act.

The list of just causes for termination at the end of a term will include such things as excessive damage to the premises, offensive or illegal acts, undue nuisance or disturbance of other tenants, or failure to pay rent. A draft of these provisions is being delivered to spokesmen opposite and will be made public this afternoon.

To protect other tenants, the amendments will also enable the landlord to terminate the tenancy of an unreasonable tenant prior to the end of the term. To get possession of the premises, the landlord may need to prove his case to a judge. Landlords will also be required to give the tenant notice of default and an opportunity to remedy it, before going to court.

In addition, special provisions will be made for landlords to obtain possession of rented premises for extensive renovations or demolition. Notice to tenants will be necessary and the landlord will, once again, have to prove the validity of termination to a judge if a tenant objects.

We are very concerned that tenants have the fullest possible opportunity to assess rent increases and contest them if necessary. To this end, landlords will be required to give tenants three months’ notice of intended rent increases, whether the tenancy is for a week, a month, a year or longer.

We are satisfied that the rights of good tenants will be improved -- and fully protected -- by these amendments.

Further legislative changes will be made to provide new rights to the owners of mobile homes who rent sites for them. The courts have declared that the Landlord and Tenant Act does not apply to tenants who rent the site but not the mobile home. In some cases, this has led to serious hardship. Amendments to be introduced next week will ensure that the provisions of the Act do apply, including security of tenure.

In addition, the tenant will be given the right to sell his mobile home while it is on the rented site, without payment of a fee. The landlord will have a right to refuse consent if he can demonstrate just cause.

Landlords of mobile home parks will be prohibited from making charges over and above reasonable expenses for such things as entry to or exit from the park, installation or removal of a mobile home or the granting of tenancy.

In addition, landlords will not be allowed to restrict the tenant’s right to purchase goods or services from the person of his choice. Landlords will be required to provide garbage disposal and maintain common facilities and internal roads, plumbing, sewerage and electrical systems in the park.

These initiatives will extend to Ontario mobile home owners a measure of legal protection unequalled in any other Canadian province.

Finally, important procedural changes will be made to the Landlord and Tenant Act to help a tenant present his case and obtain redress.

Tenants and landlords will be allowed representation in court by other than a lawyer. Tenants will gain the right to apply to a judge for termination of tenancy, a return of security deposits with interest, or abatement of rent. Presently, only landlords can make application to a judge under the Act.

Hearsay evidence will be permitted in court for the first time under the Landlord and Tenant Act, an important breakthrough for tenants who must rely upon their own spoken evidence to make their case.

The new legislation will allow a group with common interest to bring or defend an action before a judge if a judge approves. County and district judges will continue --

Mr. Lewis: We should have elections more often -- every six months.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- to adjudicate landlord and tenant matters to ensure that justice is served in this complex and contentious area. The excellent record of the judiciary on these matters deserves our continued support.

I intend to review the need for additional judges to provide for any increase in caseloads due to the amendments and to ensure prompt dispositions. In fact, we have already had preliminary conversations with the chief judge of the county court of the Province of Ontario.

There is more to come.

Mr. Lewis: What about Sept. 18 on an annual basis?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The Ontario Law Reform Commission will soon report to us on its analysis of the landlord and tenant relationship. Among other things, it will deal with the possibility of a standard tenancy agreement for Ontario. With this new report in hand we will consider the need for a new Landlord and Tenant Act.

Mr. Cassidy: There’s more enthusiasm over here than there is over there.

Mr. MacDonald: Long live minority governments!

Mr. Lewis: Who would have believed it?

Mr. Reid: Here comes the bad news.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Health has the floor.

Mr. Foulds: Is dental care next?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Most certainly a toothless opposition needs it.

Mr. Cassidy: From what we have just heard, the minister shouldn’t say that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the Minister of Health continue?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will if your opposition will permit. It is not your opposition, it is my opposition.

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADVISORY COUNCIL

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in the past few years we have all grown increasingly aware of the complexity of the problems involved in guarding the people of Ontario against the hazards of health in various occupational and environmental surroundings. Historically, occupational health measures were seen mainly as routine precautions against known dangers with promptly visible consequences, but in more recent years the industrial application of new developments in the field of chemical technology have greatly increased the possibility of hidden and unsuspected risks.

It is clear to me that part of the price of remaining internationally competitive is not to be paid by a sacrifice of life expectancy. It requires greatly increased watchfulness. This watchfulness must detect new hazards and react effectively and with the least possible delay against them. Decisive precautionary measures must also be imposed in the case of known hazards. There has never been any question of the province’s willingness to take ultimate responsibility for that watchfulness.

To reinforce this responsibility the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development announced in this House last April that the government of Ontario had decided to establish an advisory council on occupational and environmental health. This council will provide the formal mechanism for industry, labour and other interested parties to advise government on health standards and to recommend new policies and programmes. It will also assist government in defining how health safeguards can be engineered into new plants at the design stage.

As the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development also announced at that time, responsibility for inspecting, monitoring and enforcing health standards remains with the ministries of Labour, Natural Resources and Environment, but the advisory council will report to the Minister of Health. The Ministry of Health, and particularly its occupational health protection branch, will be the focal point for the setting of standards and for research applying to human health. The Ministry of Health will have clearly delineated responsibilities to assure that the standards are properly applied.

I have given this brief summary, really for those members who weren’t here in the last session --

Mr. Wildman: There are a lot of us.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- to remind all members of this House of this background, since today I wish to announce the appointment of the Advisory Council on Occupational and Environmental Health, and these are the names:

Dr. Maurice Adelman, associate dean of graduate studies at the University of Windsor; Mr. Clifford Basken, international safety and health representative of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers; Dr. Carol Burnham of S. N. C. Consultants Ltd.; Mr. P. F. Clarke, vice-president of Texasgulf Canada Ltd.; Mr. Sidney Liswood, executive vice-president of the Mount Sinai Hospital; Mr. J. H. Lumb, director of employee services, Westinghouse Canada Ltd.; Dr. R. H. Martin, medical director of Dominion Foundries and Steel Ltd.; Mr. V. I. McCallum, executive assistant to the vice-president, nickel division, of Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. --

Mr. Martel: That’s like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just hold on now, your turn’s coming.

Mr. Martel: How can you have such people on it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Larry Sheffe, international safety and health representative of the United Automobile Workers. Is that Dracula?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Okay?

Mr. Martel: No, it’s just to correct the imbalance. You’ve got one --

Hon. F. S. Miller: There is an exact balance -- wait till I finish!

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Throw him out, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Reid: Name him, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: How come all the employers are in the first half of the alphabet?

Hon. F. S. Miller: They weren’t all employers.

Mr. Thomas Sloan, Canadian director of the International Chemical Workers’ Union; Mr. K. Valentine, assistant director of the education department of the United Steelworkers of America; Mr. Edward Waddell, director of social services, Ontario Federation of Labour; and Mr. W. A. Webb of Telephone City Gravel Materials Ltd.

I would also remind members of this House that the council is fortunate in having as its chairman --

Mr. Roy: I think the minister has covered the whole province, yes.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- Dr. H. Rocke Robertson, whose appointment was announced last July by the Premier (Mr. Davis). Dr. Robertson was, from 1959 to 1962, both surgeon-in-chief at the Montreal General Hospital and professor of surgery at McGill. From 1963 to 1970 he was vice-chancellor and principal of McGill. Among his other distinctions, Dr. Robertson is president of the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada, and a member of the National Health Grant Committee, so that he is eminently qualified to chair the advisory council.

I would add that members of all government departments and agencies concerned will, from time to time and as required, attend meetings of the advisory council.

I am well satisfied, in fact, that the council as it is constituted gives proper, balanced representation of all the many interests concerned, and it is composed of well-qualified people, capable of a co-operative effort that will show that the province’s health and commercial prosperity can remain mutually compatible objectives.

The council has a major task, and I am sure all members of this House will want to join me in wishing it the fullest success.

Mr. Speaker: The provincial Treasurer.

ONTARIO CREDIT RATING

Mr. Foulds: Now for the bad news.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In response to questions from members opposite, as I recall from the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), and, I believe, the leader of the third party, had certain observations about the Premier’s --

Mr. Roy: That really makes you feel good, doesn’t it?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I believe the leader of the third party had certain observations about the Premier’s luncheon habits or dinner habits or something. I thought, although this is a matter of public knowledge today in the press, that it would be appropriate, and in answer to members’ questions and so that the record is complete, to put on the record the information which was contained in the Globe this morning, which is to the effect that Ontario had maintained its triple-A rating in the New York market.

[Applause]

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Triple-A, triple-A.

An hon. member: That’s triple-A in everything.

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: You’ve got to have one good day.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Don’t look so disappointed.

Mr. Gaunt: Did the Treasurer rehearse this?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I guess you guys are really disappointed.

Mr. Cassidy: Did you set this up in caucus this morning?

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: Is this conditional on the Treasurer’s resignation?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of embarrassing my friend, the leader of the third party, I think that I should put on the record an extract from the wire which was received:

“The province continues to exhibit economic strength, per capita debt remains moderate, and increases in provincial product remain substantial in a recessionary period.”

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of embarrassing my friend, the leader of the third party --

Mr. Reid: We are concerned about spiralling deficits.

Mr. Nixon: Read the rest of it, Darcy; put it all on the record.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Treasurer please continue with his statement?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would very much like to, although I must say I’m relishing this, Mr. Speaker, let’s string it out a little longer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You guys weren’t too impressed a year ago. It’s amazing the way you’ve changed.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I believe members on all sides will agree that we should not become in any way complacent about our credit standing.

Mr. Reid: Not as long as you are Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In expressing some concern, the rating agencies have identified a real problem area -- the fiscal responsibility provincial jurisdictions should shoulder without corresponding revenue gathering capacity. They have recognized that we in Ontario have been successful in maintaining economic strength during the recent recessionary period. We have recognized fiscal stimulus cannot be provided indefinitely without impinging on our credit standing and general financial integrity. With this in mind, I’m confident that the programmes of restraint which I have announced recently and the collective efforts of Ontario citizens in support of the national anti-inflation programme, will help to maintain the continued confidence these institutions place in the management of this great Province of Ontario.

Mr. Roy: The minister can be forgiven.

Mr. Bullbrook: The constitution from Wall St., is that it?

Mr. Sargent: Two million dollar deficit.

Mr. Foulds: Has Lorne Henderson got a statement?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Hon Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, following the announcement last night of the results of the vote taken by the secondary school teachers of Metropolitan Toronto on the board’s last offer and whether they were in favour of a strike or not, I have spoken with the Education Relations Commission, and they have informed me that Mr. William Dickie of the Ministry of Labour has been named to inquire into the situation, beginning immediately, and to see if he can help the parties reach an agreement. I spoke to Mr. Dickie about an hour ago and he is now attempting to arrange meetings with the parties this afternoon.

I want to say this: I believe that a strike in Metro Toronto’s high schools can and should be averted, and I hope that both sides will work very diligently with Mr. Dickie over the next few days to come to a satisfactory agreement,

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Lewis: It has been quite a day, Mr. Speaker. I would like to congratulate the Ministers of Housing, Attorney General and Health and say that in the next election we are running on our record.

May I begin by addressing a question to the Minister of Education: Does the minister not feel that the appointment of Mr. Dickie really comes rather late in the day to effect a reconciliation at the bargaining table? Would he not, even at this point, respond to a plea for personal intervention on his part for these last five or six days, in order to avoid what seems imminent next Wednesday?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The answer to the first question is no, I do not. I might say that I count this kind of involvement as a form of personal involvement by the minister in this dispute.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is naive.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since it is quite within the realm of possibility that this House will have to deal with a continuing strike -- that is, some time before prorogation in December -- would the minister not agree that if he or one of his colleagues asks us to deal with legislation to end the strike some days, weeks, months from now, it would mean that his position was somewhat weakened if he had not attended a special meeting himself between the teachers and the board, hopefully in the presence of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and possibly in the presence of representatives of the Ottawa price control board before it goes to the point where the schools are closed.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding of how mediation occurs and how these matters are settled. I indicated in this House the other day that I have been in contact -- in fact probably every other day -- with both sides in this particular dispute. They know that I’m available if they wish to use my services at any particular time. As I said, I have been talking with them several times over the past four or five days.

There is going to have to be some very determined 24-hour work by people to help avert this strike. I just said a few minutes ago that I didn’t think it should happen; I don’t think it needs to happen. I count the kind of involvement that the Education Relations Commission has decided to ask Mr. Dickie to undertake on all our behalf as the involvement that involves me in it.

Mr. Lewis: It comes too late.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If either of the parties wants to talk to me at any time and to ask me personally to meet with them, I stand ready to meet with them. Mr. Dickie is one of the outstanding --

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Dickie has had difficulty in the public sector; don’t forget that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- mediators in this province and he is ready to work on this non-stop for the next five days to avert this walkout, I think we should give him the support that he deserves.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary: Would the minister not agree that his being available is not sufficient and that he has to speak for the parents and the people in this community who agree with the minister and everybody else that we do not want the schools closed? Would the minister not agree that eventually he must shoulder the responsibility of keeping the schools open or reopening them at some future date -- and we have done this in this House before -- and that if he allows the schools to close without some kind of personal, maybe public intervention, that it cannot be said that he has done everything possible to avert the strike?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, everything possible will be done before any strike happens or occurs in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: It is too late.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Everything possible will be done by this government, this ministry and anyone who has anything to do with the situation.

Mr. Lewis: I find it very difficult to ask this question but I’m going to ask it anyway. Does the minister not think that it’s rather late at this point in the day to introduce the old traditional wheeling and dealing, passing back and forth messages in the hotel corridors between parties as a last-minute effort to avert a strike in the public sector? Does he not think it would make a thousand times more sense for he himself to bring the parties together in his office or in a room with him in attendance and push them, constrain them, persuade them until we finally get a settlement? Isn’t that what he now does? He knows what is going to happen if they strike.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I have to say with great respect to my friend, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think that is the kind of approach that would work at this particular time.

Mr. Lewis: Okay.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary on the minister’s answer to my leader. I wonder if I could ask the minister, in view of his comment that everything will be done and in view of his comment of yesterday or the day before that he feels that there are some special concessions that should go to teachers vis-à-vis the inflationary board in Ottawa, has he been in touch with the board? Is he in a position to tell the teachers what sort of concessions the board might look at?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the comments which were attributed to me and which were correct in the press yesterday had nothing to do with the Metropolitan Toronto secondary school teachers and their dispute with the board.

Mr. Roy: But you have been talking to the board.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I was referring to the Metropolitan Toronto separate school teachers and their indication that they had a signed, or at least some form of agreement on monetary matters before Oct. 14 and were attempting to get a determination from Ottawa as to whether that is considered to have been an agreement under their guidelines, and that therefore the guidelines they have announced would not apply to that contract because there was an agreement before Oct. 14. That is what we’ve been talking to Ottawa about but not, and I emphasize, anything to do with the Metro Toronto secondary school dispute.

The line of action that will have to be followed there is that they will have to come to a signed contract and then they will have to go to Ottawa and talk to them about whether they’re entitled to special consideration or not. The Anti-Inflation Review Board will have to rule on that at some time in the future.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Lewis: A question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Now that it appears conclusive that the automobile insurance companies will be raising the premiums in the next several months, based on rate determinations of some few months ago, is the minister prepared to intervene on behalf of the consumers of Ontario to protect them against illegitimate price increases by way of premiums of 35 to 50 per cent in some cases, given the anti-inflationary guidelines to which the minister subscribes?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows very well, we intervene all the time in rate setting.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on.

Mr. Cassidy: We are not aware of it. You do it behind closed doors.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The headline on which the question is based is a slight indulgence in unwarranted hysteria. These rates took effect in January and July of this year. I have to assume that somebody recently got a rate increase and suddenly realized auto insurance rates in Ontario have gone up. Speaking of rate increases, I understand the Premier of the province just west of us is not very happy about the 35 per cent rate increase on his car, and he’s got publicly-owned auto insurance.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, would the minister not consider it a pig-at-the-trough attitude on the part of the automobile insurance companies -- to use the minister’s delicate phrasing -- in view of their intent to extort from the consumers of Ontario who pay premiums more than they should take, without public justification and apparently with agreement on the part of this government despite its stand on the guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has to borrow somebody else’s phrases in order to be fairly explicit.

Mr. Lewis: That is right.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am flattered, I truly am. I feel that the Anti-Inflation Review Board in Ottawa may very well be shirking its responsibility in not looking at the increases. However, the excuse that they use for not looking at them is that they were all approved prior to the adoption of the price increases.

Mr. Nixon: By the provincial authorities.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We will look at them .in a continuous way, and to the best of my knowledge there has been no application put before my ministry for rate increases since the adoption of the guidelines.

Mrs. Campbell: Look at them is right. But they do nothing.

Mr. Martel: That will only be three this year.

Mr. Singer: Would the minister not agree that the time has come for this government to publicly examine insurance rates and in public, so that the people can see just how it happens? And could he explain to us what kind of application is ever put before him for increasing the rates? It is done unilaterally.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the question has been asked before, and the answer is the same. I do not believe this is the right time to start intervening in rate setting in the private sector.

An hon. member: When is the time?

Mr. Nixon: This is the time.

Mr. Lewis: On wages it is all right; but premiums, no.

Mr. Moffatt: In light of the answer the minister gave to the leader of the official opposition, I would like to ask him whether he really intends to investigate the complaints which have been lodged with his ministry with regard to exorbitant rate increases in the taxi cab industry, which is apparently controlled by a monopoly?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is not a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, certainly we investigate every complaint that is lodged with the ministry. As to specifics, I’ve had one letter on taxi insurance rates. As far as I know that particular situation has been favourably resolved. There are some increases, and they are due to cost increases and repairs. There is nothing secret about the method whereby rates are established. If costs go up, rates go up -- and that’s a natural thing.

Mr. Speaker: This is the final supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Minister, in view of the fact that Ottawa has stated that there would be no rollback in this case -- and this is just as important as the price of gasoline, because everyone has to pay it -- when is the time that the minister will review this? When will he make them open their hooks and show cause why they have these increases of 25 to 50 per cent; when is the time?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: As I have already said, if a new application for a rate increase comes before my ministry, we will deal with it in the same way that any price increase is dealt with in this province.

Mr. Singer: There doesn’t have to be an application at all; they do it unilaterally. The minister knows that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We have opted into the Ottawa guidelines and we think that the Anti-Inflation Review Board should be looking at these things. That’s their responsibility.

Mr. Singer: Point of order. Surely the minister has to recognize there doesn’t have to be, there is never an application for a rate increase.

Mr. Speaker: That’s not a point of order.

Mr. Singer: He is misleading us. He is misleading the House.

Mr. McNeil: The member for Wilson Heights is speaking to the gallery.

Mr. Singer: No, I am talking to you, so that even you will understand -- that is, the member for Elgin.

[2:45]

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Treasurer: Is not his statement of last Thursday reduced to travesty when the government of Ontario refuses to intervene to govern the rate-setting of the automobile insurance companies, which clearly exceeds dramatically the guidelines which the government would otherwise wish to enforce?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the government intend this particular price increase for the consumers simply to be imposed by the automobile insurance companies -- with no books open, no questions answered, no accountability -- and maintain its position that wages should be tightly controlled?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this question has already been answered, and very adequately, by my colleague.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s a rubber stamp.

PAYMENTS TO DOCTORS

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Health. Would he report to the House the present situation in his negotiations with the medical practitioners on an increase in payments to them under the provisions of our provincial legislation? Can he assure us that the negotiations that he says are close to fruition are not going to be based on any increase which would give the doctors more than $2,400 a year extra or would break the guidelines that have been referred to so frequently by the Treasurer?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the discussions have been going on and, as in the case of many discussions that are closing in to an agreement, there has been virtually a news blackout on them. I think it is wise that this should be maintained. I only point out that I have been encouraged by the fact that in the negotiations the people on both sides of the Clawson committee have been trying to interpret the government’s guidelines and to live within them. That, as I said yesterday, was a refreshing change.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary to the minister: Has he naturally put a rider on his negotiations with the doctors that whatever the agreement might be, it would be referred to the wage and price control board in Ottawa under the circumstances we’ve been talking about?

Hon. F. S. Miller: As I understand it, I wouldn’t need to pot that rider on; whether I wanted them referred or not, they are subject to that referral.

PAYMENT FOR CATTLE PURCHASES

Mr. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Correctional Services. Can he now give us a fuller statement in this House as to the relationship between the government and Essex Packers, since there continue to be reports from farmers who have supplied livestock to Essex Packers at the facilities at the Guelph Correctional Centre that the livestock have not been properly paid for?

Would the minister not agree that under those circumstances there is almost inherent in the business relationships between the farmers and Essex Packers a relationship involving the government of Ontario, since for so many years livestock did go into the Guelph Correctional Centre and was paid for directly by the government?

Hon. J. R. Smith: In responding to the question, I think the leader of the Liberal Party should be aware that it is a licensing agreement between the Ministry of Correctional Services and Essex Packers of Hamilton. Through this agreement the farmers are selling directly to Essex Packers, who in effect are operating the abattoir at the Guelph institution. They are not selling their cattle to the Ministry of Correctional Services.

Mr. Good: Supplementary: In view of the fact that most farmers feel that because the cattle were going into a provincial institution, and since a million dollars of provincial money was going into the abattoir to update its facilities, does the minister not agree that there is some kind of moral obligation on the part of government to have an investigation to see what some of the facts are?

Would the minister comment first on the rumour or report that before the receivers went into the operation, people from the bank that forced the receivership were in there saying selectively which farmers should be paid and which farmers should not be paid prior to the receivership? Would the minister ascertain whether there is any truth to the report that the farmers who were paid were those farmers who owed the bank that forced the receivership?

Hon. J. R. Smith: I am also concerned about the farmers who have received NSF cheques. As to what the hon. member has said, the receiver appointed by the Bank of Nova Scotia, Laventhol and Horwath, in fact did not go into the plant and make any such determinations. The only involvement of our ministry is that, in co-operation with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman), we did obtain a legal opinion as to whether or not we could force Essex Packers or the receiver to pay the $165,000 which has been approved for the overall cost of equipment on the total installation to the farmers for their cattle. We understand and have been told that legally there is no way they can be bound to use that money to pay the farmers for these cattle.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary question: May I ask the minister when this legal opinion was rendered?

Hon. J. R. Smith: Last week.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: May I say the Minister of Agriculture and Food wasn’t aware of it. Did the minister pass along this opinion to the Minister of Agriculture and Food?

Hon. J. R. Smith: I wish to assure the hon. member that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is very much concerned with this and has done everything possible to try to get payment.

Mr. Roy: The minister didn’t answer the question.

Interjections.

Hon. J. R. Smith: Yes, he was aware.

Mr. Worton: In view of the fact that the minister indicated that all persons who supplied beef after Oct. 17 were receiving their payment for their steers or their cattle, and an individual who sold on Aug. 23 had his cheque returned NSF, would he not agree that somebody was selective about who got paid and who didn’t?

Hon. J. R. Smith: I have not had an opportunity to receive a statement from the receiver or the management of Essex Packers as to which farmers were paid.

Mr. Roy: Would the minister look at it and report back to the House?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk have any further questions?

Mr. Nixon: Not at this time.

MISSISSAUGA INQUIRY

Mr. Gregory: I’d like to direct a question to the Attorney General. In the matter of the judicial inquiry into the affairs of the city of Mississauga and in view of the decision by the divisional court yesterday, is it the intention of the Attorney General to take a look at section 240 of the Municipal Act which permits a municipal council to direct a judge of an adjoining county to conduct an inquiry?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I recall the decision of the divisional court, they stated that the attempted use of section 240 in these circumstances was, to quote the divisional court, “unnerving”. In the circumstances, we are going to review the matter thoroughly to determine whether or not any amendments to the Act would be appropriate.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary.

Mr. Gregory: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Since it is the member for Mississauga East’s question, he should be allowed a supplementary first.

Mr. Gregory: Further to the same question, in light of the ruling and the resultant cost which is being assessed against the city of Mississauga, would the Attorney General consider requesting the Ontario Provincial Police or the Peel regional police to investigate the motivation behind the calling of the inquiry?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Such a request would fail clearly outside the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. I think that if there are any parties to these proceedings who feel they have been abused there are civil remedies that are available.

Mr. Singer: Is the review that the Attorney General talks about likely to be retroactive in its effect, if he comes to the conclusion that the statute should be changed, or is it henceforth and forever more?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Generally speaking, I don’t think in these circumstances I would support any principle of retroactivity.

TELSO STRIKE

Mr. Mackenzie: To the Minister of Labour: Would the minister consider a quick appointment of a disputes advisory committee as provided for in the recent amendments to the Labour Relations Act to try to deal with the difficult strike at Telso in Tillsonburg, which involves some 48 women, mostly making about $2.60 an hour, and is now the longest strike in the Province of Ontario, over 14 months’ duration?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, my predecessor in this office was asked that question and did consider the appointment of a disputes advisory board and decided that because of the length of the strike and the character of the strike the disputes advisory board mechanism would be unlikely to be useful. Therefore, a specific individual with much experience in labour relations -- who was, at that time, the retired president of one of the major unions in Canada -- was appointed to investigate this problem. This he has done. He has reported directly to both parties but we have not as yet had the report from that gentleman. When we do, we hope we shall also hear something from the parties to the dispute.

Mr. Mackenzie: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that as of right now employees are being called up individually by the company in this dispute and given two weeks to make up their minds whether they are going to stay with the company or be finished once and for all?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I was not aware.

HYDRO EXPLORATIONS

Mr. Peterson: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Was he consulted and did he approve of Hydro’s excursion into the exploration business, by way of joint venture, to the tune of about $9.5 million?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I fully concurred.

Mr. Peterson: Is it the minister’s understanding that Hydro has unfettered discretion to enter into exploration agreements, in view of the fact that Ontario Energy Corp. was formed for this purpose?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Mancini: Energy at cost?

Mr. Sargent: What did he say? We can’t hear him.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the member wouldn’t babble so much, he would hear.

I said no.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is suggesting he knows what he is talking about.

Mr. Lewis: Ontario Hydro is going to hang him yet.

HOUSING ACTION PROGRAMME

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing: As part of the government’s housing action programme whereby his predecessor directed the appropriate government departments involved in land use planning and private and public housing projects to expedite the processing procedure, could he advise the House as to the manner in which the directive was implemented, the degree of success experienced to date and the areas in which this directive could be expanded and further improved upon?

Mr. Roy: That’s really of urgent public importance.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the hon. member what the degree of success has been. I am familiar with some of the --

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you buy him a coffee, John?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- directives which were issued by my predecessor. I can’t tell what degree of success there has been. I do know there has been an improvement in the expediting of material through the ministry to get decisions on planning for subdivisions and severances. That has been increased. The only thing I can say is that we will be meeting the various ministers in the policy field involved with land in particular to see if we can speed up the process even more.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation and Communications has the answer to a previous question.

KRAUSS-MAFFEI SYSTEM

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker: In response to a question concerning my predecessor’s commitment to table before this Legislature the final cost and settlement concerning the Krauss-Maffei programme, I would like to provide this summary. During the contract, MTC paid Krauss-Maffei --

Mr. Sargent: Take the marbles out of your mouth. We can’t hear you.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Take the hay out of your ears.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is too much noise in the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that these figures were published about two or three months ago but I am I only too happy to give them again. During the contract MTC paid Krauss-Maffei $6.4 million. We now have that amount repaid to us, and in addition we have been paid another $2.8 million which covers the complete cost of staff salaries, MTC legal costs, travel and housing in Germany and all other costs directly related to this contract.

[3:00]

In addition, all subcontracts were settled at no cost to the ministry and all restoration of the CNE was accomplished to the unanimous satisfaction of the CNE officials.

Mr. Cassidy: As if it never took place.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As a result of this settlement, the ministry received repayment of all its costs, and the Krauss-Maffei project has not resulted in any cost or expenditure by the Ontario taxpayers.

I am advised that this summary includes all travel and expenses associated with the contract on behalf of both MTC and the Urban Transit Development Corp. However, to avoid any confusion, it does not include the cost of the ministry advertising campaign in 1974.

Mr. Reid: That’s a big one. That’s a biggie.

Hon. Mr. Snow: This campaign included the promotion of the new capital subsidy policy, the dial-a-bus experiment, the staggered work hour programme, the GO Transit programme, the transit fare stabilization programme, driver safety and the TATOA initial expenses. The total cost for promotion of all aspects directly related to the CNE GO-Urban project is estimated at $67,157.

Mr. Good: That wouldn’t even pay for the trees.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would point out that the total costs of the payouts for this programme were $9,186,880. The receipts were $9.2 million. Taking into consideration the $67,000 in promotional costs for the GO-Urban project, and taking into consideration $48,657 received in provincial sales tax, including all the promotion expenses, the net cost to the taxpayers of Ontario was $5,379.

Mr. Reid: Little more than a thin dime.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary: Could the minister tell us if the cost of the Scarborough route study is included, if Mr. Foley’s salary is included and if the costs of all of the people assisting Mr. Foley are included, and the extent of those costs?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have the complete information here, which I will table and send over to the member. He can examine these figures, and if he has any further questions after that, I’ll be pleased to answer them.

Mr. Germa: A supplementary: Could I ask the minister if all our engineers have been returned from the Krauss-Maffei plant in Germany? In other words, have all expenditures ceased as they relate to the Krauss-Maffei project?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Certainly all expenditures relating to the Krauss-Maffei magnetic levitation system are included in this, and there is no further work going on regarding that project.

Mr. Singer: When did it stop?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We do have other research projects going on at the present time in research and development work regarding the light rail system and the linear induction motor.

Mr. Roy: The Premier (Mr. Davis) should send his medal back to Florida.

Mr. Singer: Could the minister tell us when the relationship with Krauss-Maffei stopped? That isn’t the last thing the Premier told us. When we stopped the present experiment he said we were continuing a relationship with Krauss-Maffei. When did it finish?

Mr. Nixon: Because we had North American rights to this great programme.

Mr. Roy: Yes, you considered putting wheels on it.

Mr. Singer: When did it finish?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t have the exact date here, but I will get it for the member.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister not agree that even if we got almost every nickel back, money alone will not buy the three years of initiative and time we have lost, which could have been used in developing an adequate transit system for the needs of the Province of Ontario?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I would not agree with that at all, because research and development on other projects has been under way all this time; there has not been time lost.

Interjections.

INJURED WORKMEN’S DEMONSTRATION

Mr. di Santo: Thanks to my friends on my right, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that some police officers who are qualifying themselves as community relations officers, are visiting some injured workers who took part in the demonstration at the opening of the Legislature, would the minister tell us what is the purpose of this investigation, which seems not to be part of the official investigation held by the Speaker of this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I don’t understand the question. Is the member suggesting that there are two investigations going on?

Mr. Foulds: Among other things.

Mr. di Santo: There is an official investigation which is conducted by the Speaker of this House, but I have been informed that police officers are visiting injured workmen who took part in the demonstration and asking some peculiar questions, and this is the reason I am asking the Solicitor General the purpose of this parallel investigation.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how many investigations are going on. I know the Premier had announced that he has asked for an investigation and I assume the various security forces involved, including the Metropolitan Toronto police and our own forces here, will be questioned as to what did happen.

I know that investigation is going on. I haven’t seen the report as yet. We will follow it up as quickly as we can so that we can get that report into the hands of the members, but I don’t know that there is any more than one investigation going on. There are probably many inquiries, but all part of the one investigation.

Mr. di Santo: A supplementary: Since the Speaker of the Legislature has assured me that he has never asked a police officer to get involved in his investigation, would the minister investigate this matter and report to this Legislature, and if so, when?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best, sir.

LIQUOR BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Given the recent announcement from Mr. Mackey about his impending retirement, is the minister about to avail himself of what is clearly a splendid opportunity to modernize that medieval mockery that we all know to be the LLBO? Further to that, would the minister consider the appointment of an erstwhile cabinet minister and Hanover haberdasher as the right place to start with such a reorganization and modernization?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If I may answer, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Lewis: He’ll last about as long as Paul Taylor.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If I may have the opportunity of answering a question addressed to the Hon. André Ouellet, I would be glad to do so.

Mr. Roy: Oh, don’t get smart. It is pretty close anyway.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If the hon. member had been here a few months ago he might have heard the debate in which many members participated --

Mr. Roy: The minister didn’t know the name of the ministry until two weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- in the modernization of the Liquor Licence Act an-1 the Liquor Control Act. Those Acts have been passed, they will be proclaimed shortly, and appointments to the boards will be announced shortly.

Mr. Conway: Appoint Winkler, I dare you. Appoint Winkler. You will be sitting ducks all right. Just try it. Go head, boys, just try it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will you show a little courtesy to the member who is trying to ask a question?

VIOLENCE IN HOCKEY

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Attorney General: In view of the shocking circumstances that we saw at Maple Leaf Gardens last night, in view of those shocking incidents, and in view of the comments that he has made as to what his direction would be in such an occurrence, could the Attorney General please advise us as to what action he may be taking or might have taken?

Mr. Givens: He can ask that in his own caucus, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the game at Maple Leaf Gardens last night, I can advise my colleagues that a charge of assault causing bodily harm has been laid by the Crown attorney of the county of York against a Detroit hockey player by the name of Dan Maloney.

Mr. Roy: Is the Attorney General going to proceed by way of summary conviction or indictment on this charge?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the member his counsel? Is he trying to get a ruling?

Mr. Roy: No I just want to know. It’s the minister’s election.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the question is a good one.

An hon. member: It will be the first one.

Mr. Roy: Tell the Premier that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I just have to advise my hon. colleague that I am not in receipt of sufficient enough information, and I don’t know if the Crown attorney is yet, to make that determination at this time. I can tell members that the investigation is not yet complete and it’s only when the investigation has been completed that the Crown attorney, who has conducted the case, will be able to make the determination whether to proceed by summary conviction or by indictment.

Mr. Good: Check it out with Harold Ballard, too.

Mr. Roy: Doesn’t it seem strange that the minister would lay charges before completing the investigation?

Mr. Renwick: Not at all -- not at all.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No.

Interjections.

HOMES ON TORONTO ISLAND

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Attorney General, although he may wish to transfer it to the House leader. In view of the support of the majority of this House for the preservation of the homes on Toronto Island, including the new Attorney General, and in view of the fact that a private member’s bill would not normally come to a vote in this House, will the minister commit the government to make such a bill a government order in order that is can be passed, and will he also commit the government to ensure that royal assent will be given if the bill is passed by the House?

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: Ask him if he is going to move back.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: My support for maintaining the island community is well known and certainly predates my election to this House, and my views have not changed, but of course I am in no position to commit the government to any particular course of action at this time.

PAYMENT FOR CATTLE PURCHASES

Mr. Gaunt: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. When did the minister become aware of the legal decision rendered in connection with the Essex Packers matter? Does he agree with it? If so, what steps is he taking in order to guarantee the payment of the farmers?

Hon. W. Newman: I did have an opinion yesterday. That doesn’t necessarily --

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: It doesn’t necessarily say that I particularly agree with it, and at this point in time I’m still looking at the matter to see what can be done to make sure the farmers do get paid. We are still holding the cheque that the Province of Ontario is owing at this point in time.

WATER POLLUTION TEST RESULTS

Mr. Angus: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. What conclusion has his ministry made in the astounding results of the many water quality studies conducted downstream from the pulp and paper mills that are at present shut down in Thunder Bay? Secondly, has the ministry not done the same intense examination of the water downstream from the many other mills in this province? If he has, could we please have those results? Thirdly, would the minister advise me why the testing related to the Great Lakes Paper Co.’s pulp and paper mill --

Mr. Sargent: Question.

Mr. Angus: -- is done a mile away, while others are done as close as a quarter of a mile with almost similar results --

Mr. Sargent: Question.

Mr. Angus: And finally, in light of these remarkable revelations, what is the government prepared to do to correct the situation?

Mr. Cassidy: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: My first conclusion is that if you don’t have any pulp mills in the province, you won’t have any contamination downstream from those mills.

Mr. Lewis: That’s great.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There’s very little time left in question period.

Mr. Bullbrook: Thank God.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As far as other mills are concerned, yes, we have the same type of surveillance and continuous analysis of the waters downstream. That information is on file at the various regional labs, as well as the ministry offices here. The analysis of the Great Lakes Paper Co. mill was made a mile away, as the hon. member said, and also closer -- although a mean average was given for results of that particular mill. If the hon. member wants some specific information closer, that is available to him. As far as correcting these situations is concerned we will continue to enforce the orders we have against these mills to make sure, particularly when they start up again, that their abatement programmes are on time.

[3:15]

Mr. Angus: Could the minister advise the House what those regulations and requests have been and what those pollution abatement programmes are of those mills?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: These are long-standing orders. They have been in effect now for four or five years. It’s a matter of making sure that they are on schedule; that they are complying with the staging requirements and if possible are even ahead of that in the event that there’s extraordinary contamination of the receiving waters.

Mr. Sweeney: Like Dow Chemical -- four or five years.

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

Mr. Givens: I’ve been getting up for ages. Can you see this far back?

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I make an appeal on behalf of the member for Armourdale? He has been excluded and should surely take priority.

Mr. Speaker: You are wasting the question period.

EXPANSION OF GO-URBAN

Mr. Reid: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Can the minister indicate to the House how much his ministry is spending this year in the expansion of GO-Urban, bringing commuters into downtown Toronto? How much is it costing the Treasury and how many more people does he feel are going to use this expanded service?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Trying to establish an urban base?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’ll have to get those figures of course, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know whether the hon. member wants those figures for the last 12-month period, for this current calendar year on this current fiscal year, and which lines he is referring to.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary: How does the minister square his policy of expanding GO-Urban to bring people into the downtown core of Metro Toronto when other government studies, COLUC, the Toronto-centred region plan, and even the city of Toronto are trying to decentralize? His policy is to centralize everything in downtown Toronto. How does the minister explain that conflict?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That’s very easy to explain, Mr. Speaker, because I don’t think the hon. member understands that these trains run both ways.

Interjections.

Mr. Morrow: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that time is running out I’m willing to surrender my time to the hon. member for Armourdale who seems to have an urgent question.

Mr. Givens: Thank you, no.

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

Mr. Martel: A question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation.

Interjections.

Mr. Morrow: If the hon. member for Armourdale is not to take my turn I will take it myself.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Edighoffer from the standing estimates committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976:

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TOURISM

Ministry central office ...........$705,000

Industry development .........$7,034,000

Trade development .............$2,578,000

Tourism development ........$7,326,000

Operations ........................$6,501,000

Communications ..................$860,000

Administration ...................$1,601,000

Ontario Place Corp. ...........$3,795,000

Industrial incentives and development ......... $15,550,000

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for the Review of Rents in respect of Residential Premises.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Foulds: Seconding that bill is the best thing the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) has done.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The great northern legislation bill.

Mr. Martel: Not his greatest hour.

Mr. Singer: Whatever happened to the Unconscionable Transactions Act? We didn’t hear a thing about that this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It was just a thought.

Mr. Singer: No Act to amend the Unconscionable Transactions Act?

Mr. Lewis: But the minister told me in that debate that it meant everything.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 1, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have a statement?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No.

Mr. Lawlor: This is a housekeeping bill. It won’t take a great deal of time. It’s a missed cross-reference under the Judicature Act, subsection 5, referring over to section 20 of the Financial Administration Act. Section 20, as it presently stands, has to do with guarantees of government investments only and substituting section 12 of that Act which has to do with the range and types of investments which the Treasurer has power over. It brings the Judicature Act and the moneys paid into court under this particular head.

One other point that I wish to mention is that the Financial Administration Act itself has been amended in 1973 to extend and elaborate the powers of the Treasurer, so that there are very wide investment powers indeed. I don’t think the matter requires any further particulars.

Rather than send it into committee, as far as I am concerned I would ask the minister to tell me who the three people are who are on the finance committee touching the matter of the investment of court funds. That’s the only question I wish to know about.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am sorry I can’t answer that question as to the identity of these people, but I will have that information for my friend by tomorrow morning.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I might just point out that the hon. minister introducing the bill and moving second reading will have the opportunity to reply to any questions, propositions or proposals made by any of the members. In other words, he will speak last.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Attorney General for discovering the necessity for this bill and bringing it in. It certainly effects a major change in the law. I would have thought that he would have been talking this afternoon about amendments to the Unconscionable Transactions Act but instead he chose to amend the Judicature Act in such a meaningful way that we can nothing else but support the bill before us.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I rise only because I’m delighted to see the correction which he has made, but I regret that there is a further error in the bill. I understood that this was the first session of the 30th Parliament and his bill provides that it will be known as the Judicature Amendment Act, 1975, second session.

Mr. Singer: Ah! That is so they can have the bill for February.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill?

Mr. Deans: The bill surely can’t go ahead.

Mr. Renwick: The bill must go to committee, obviously, for amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I don’t have a copy of the bill. Is there a technical error in it?

Mr. Good: No, it says “first session”.

Mr. Singer: They want a technical error so they can amend it next time.

Mr. Speaker: Apparently it’s in order. Do any other hon. members wish to speak? The hon. Attorney General?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I have nothing further, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Renwick: No, it will have to go to committee to make some corrections.

Mr. Speaker: I haven’t been informed. Is there an error?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The clerk advises me there is no error in it. He mentions that it refers to the 2nd session of 1975. I don’t see it myself, just glancing at it quickly.

Mr. Good: It is in section 3.

Mr. Singer: Yes, but it doesn’t say 30th Parliament.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order; on the front of the bill we have the first session of the 30th Legislature and I am going to be told now that this is the second session in 1975. Is that rational? All of the bills that are before us today have this error. I don’t mind how they are corrected but let’s not quibble about it.

Mr. Speaker: It’s not exactly contradictory. It’s a little unusual; I think I agree with that.

Mr. Singer: Let’s have an election on this important issue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This is as relative as the member’s amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I am advised by the clerk, who is the expert in protocol and procedures here, that it is in order.

Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 2, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, our caucus agrees with the principle of the bill which prohibits the operation on a highway of a vehicle of a class prescribed by a regulation unless a sticker evidencing compliance with the inspection and performance requirements is displayed. We don’t feel it should be referred to a committee, but we have serious reservations about some of its applications as they affect the dump truck industry. We would like to know, or have the minister explain, what leads him to license dump trucks on a regional basis rather than having province-wide control of entry into the industry. Surely in order to make a living drivers should be able to operate and to move about the industry to follow available work.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, probably we should be dealing with Bills 2 and 3 at the same time. We have no objections to the bill. We might be interested in the details, exactly how these inspections are going to be carried out, and how often they are going to be carried out. But this has been a move for which the trucking industry itself has been asking for some time and we are in agreement with the principle of the bill.

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, the bill is the result of the inquiry into this particular industry. The report of the inquiry has 47 specific recommendations and the ministry has responded by including four of those recommendations in this particular legislation. While the four are valid and are certainly necessary, it seems to me that one of the things we should really be doing is making sure that when we bring forth legislation, such as that called for in the particular bill, it should not be passed in isolation, when there are other ministries which of necessity must take action to guarantee there will not be hardship as a result of the action of the government. I suggest to the minister that is what is going to happen.

With this particular bill all of the items in the report which dealt with limiting the activities and actions of the trucking industry are in some way dealt with. But the trucking industry in its brief and the many briefs that were submitted to the inquiry specified and detailed the fact that if legislation, for instance, 55 brought forward which requires that all loads carried in open dump trucks should have a tarpaulin attached when that load is being transported over a hard-surfaced road, then obviously 10 to 12 minutes will be added to the delivery time for that particular load. What will happen is that the truck driver over the course of a day, because he works on a fee-per-load basis, will End that he is short one load or more each day; he is going to be penalized for complying with this particular act.

[3:30]

I submit to the minister that the whole business will result in a lot of cheating by the operators unless they are given some way by which they can recoup those particular financial losses. What obviously will happen is that, for the first week of enforcement, every load will be covered with a tarpaulin; in the second week some of the loads won’t be; and by the third, fourth or fifth week, all the loads will be back where we are right now.

It would seem to me that it would be in the interests of the minister and of the industry to make sure, if regulations are placed upon the operators, that the regulations are reasonable and do not impose the kind of financial hardship that this particular one is going to.

I checked with operators in this particular industry and they informed me that it takes 10 to 12 minutes to tarp-cover the average kind of gravel truck. Larger ones will take significantly longer and, of course, smaller trucks will take a few minutes less. But over 10 or 12 loads, an hour and a half will be added to the working time or that amount will be subtracted from delivery time.

What seems to me also to have happened on this particular bill is that it has ignored the request of the industry itself to make sure there is recognition of the fact that overloading has been encouraged by previous legislation and that operators have purchased licences which are in excess of the safe limits for their vehicles; but that was provided for in the previous Act. Because they have overloaded and overloaded, the price per load has gone down. What is going to happen is we are going to impose these new limits and the price per load is going to stay where it is. That’s going to work a hardship on those people because, by virtue of Bill 111, they are prohibited from taking collective bargaining action.

It seems to me that through his connection with this government, the minister really should have made sure that particular action by his ministry was not in conflict with what another ministry was saying. I plead with the minister and encourage the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) to deal with that particular clause at the earliest possible moment, because it is going to cause the kind of hardship in that industry that will see a number of small, one-unit operators go into bankruptcy. I am not trying to tell horror stories, but I am advised by a significant number of single-unit owners that is exactly what will happen. Those people, without benefit of any kind of collective organization or any ability to negotiate fair prices, are at the mercy of the construction industry on the one hand and of the aggregate industry on the other hand. The person in the middle, the small businessman in the middle, is the one in this case who is going to be penalized.

It is not by accident that those particular points were the first ones raised in every brief that was submitted to this inquiry by the aggregate industry itself. The people in the aggregate industry know full well that if collective action by the dump truck operators is allowed, the aggregate industry will be faced immediately with higher rates, because those kinds of higher rates will be necessary as a result of the provision that is included in this bill.

Further, nowhere in the bill is there any kind of provision which will cover the brokers who deal in aggregates at this time. The brokers are not controlled in any fashion at all. It is not required that they post any kind of bond. It is not required that they have 30 days’ payment time or anything like that -- and some of the payments for work done in the spring are not made until December of the same year. I realize it’s not part of the job of the Minister of Transportation and Communications to pass that legislation, but it seems to me that kind of concerted effort by the government should have been taken in this case.

Also, the whole question of the boundary crossing between Ontario and Quebec, which was one of the major points of the operators in eastern Ontario, has not been investigated at all to my way of thinking. Obviously, we need some kind of agreement between the provincial government in Quebec and this government, but nothing has happened. It’s fine for operators to come in from Quebec, as long as reciprocal arrangements are provided the other way. But, because of the licensing in Quebec, that cannot be done.

Just in conclusion, what I would like to say to the minister is that I think the legislation he has proposed is a good first step. Let’s bring the other shoe down as quickly as possible so that this particular legislation will be the kind with which the operators can comply. I suggest to him that if he doesn’t he is going to have tremendous difficulties in enforcement, and I think that will lead to greater cost over the long run.

Mr. Speaker: Do any I other hon. members wish to speak to this bill?

Mr. Young: This bill is the culmination of years of difficulty in this whole industry. Those of us who have been in this House have seen over the --

Mr. Ruston: On a point of order please. Would you advise me; I understood that we called order No. 3, which is Bill 2 -- was that correct?

Mr. Speaker: Bill No. 2.

Mr. Reid: The previous speaker was speaking about Bill 3. Which one are you on?

Mr. Martel: Why doesn’t he wake up.

Mr. Young: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted --

Mr. Reid: The member was talking about Bill 3 wasn’t he?

Mr. Martel: Two bills and they are mixed up.

Mr. Young: This bill is the beginning of the culmination of a long process of struggle.

During the past few years those of us who have been here have seen dump trucks parked outside this building on several occasions and we have seen the frustration and the desperation of those men who drive those trucks as they faced bankruptcy.

Mr. Reid: On a point of order. I hate to do this, but I am confused. I listened to the previous member speak; he was speaking about Bill 3. Now it appears my hon. friend is also speaking about Bill 3. Are we on Bill 2 or are we on Bill 3?

Mr. Speaker: We are on Bill 2; I had difficulty at first. I did find the section which the hon. member for Durham East was speaking on, so I presume he was in order dealing with the covering of vehicles and so on, which is covered here.

Mr. Reid: We are talking about safety specifically.

Mr. Speaker: This has to do with further safety inspections and so on; I haven’t considered that the hon. member for Yorkview was out of order.

Mr. Deans: He’s not out of order at all. He is perfectly in order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview may continue.

Mr. Reid: He was on Bill 3.

Mr. Deans: If the member for Rainy River would read the bill before he stands up.

Mr. Reid: Oh, shut up Deans!

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: Take your pomposity somewhere else, and let’s deal with the business of the House.

Mr. Young: There is obviously great frustration in the party to my left.

Mr. Martel: The aspirant to the leadership.

Mr. Young: That may well be.

Mr. Martel: Where’s Bob?

Mr. Young: In any case, as far as this party is concerned, we welcome this beginning in the implementation of the Rapoport report. This was the man who was appointed as a commissioner to look into the whole problem of the dump truck industry, and this bill is right on that problem.

Mr. Good: Nothing to do with Bill 2; it is Bill 3 you are talking about.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, there seems to be a difference of opinion. I suggest there is quite an overlapping of the two bills having to do with the various loads, and so on. I would think that with the approval of the House you might be allowed to stray from one to the other. We can only deal with one at a time, but since they are overlapping I don’t see how you can completely separate them in your discussions. If the hon. member will continue, we will try to ensure that there will not be repetition by the same member in the second Act.

Mr. Reid: We are going to get the same thing on the next bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: But we hope it will be different, fair enough.

Mr. Young: I did not intend to speak at any great length. I think what has been said already is fairly adequate. However, I do want to add my urging to the minister that he speak with his fellow ministers in this government and that a bundle of legislation be brought in to supplement this particular bill; the legislation which will deal with fundamental problems dealt with the Rapoport commission, problems dealing with bonding and with pay with the matter in Bill 111.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Sorry. I didn’t get the member’s first remarks.

Mr. Young: Problems dealing with bonding, with the brokers and the bonding, because this is all part and parcel of this whole problem. As the hon. member for Durham has pointed out, if we implement this suggestion and tarps are used, then of course the bargaining position of these people who must use the tarps is seriously affected. We would hope that the Minister of Labour will bring in supplementary legislation to clear up that particular point.

The thing that disturbs me just a bit; the Rapoport commission makes certain recommendations but the hon. minister’s bill, in respect to inspection for example, simply says that “the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations;” the commission recommended some annual inspections.

We also know that the tarping of a load was recommended, but again the bill simply said: “the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,” prescribing this thing. I would hope that the minister will indicate to us, as he replies, what his plans are to make these matters of regulations effective and to bring them to a logical conclusion.

I would simply like to point out too that the matter of transportation and loading is not covered in this bill. Perhaps I’m just a little bit out of order here. As far as the Minister of Transportation and Communications is concerned, unless the Rapoport commission and its recommendations are looked at and unless this minister thinks seriously in terms of shared responsibility as far as overloading is concerned, then again his legislation is frustrating.

There is no question that at the present time the aggregate owner, loading the truck, overloads all too often. If the truck owner objects, then he’s told to go home, there is no work; this is a matter of knowledge in the dump truck industry. While the hon. minister may shake his head, the fact is that this often has happened according to information that I have received and the information that the commission received. So I would hope that matter of shared responsibility can be faced up to, or in lieu of that that very stringent inspection be undertaken so that overloading does not take place at the expense of the man who owns the truck and who in desperation may overload because he has a $30,000 or $35,000 investment upon which he must meet payments.

So we do hope this bill will be taken to the committee of the whole House, not outside to the standing committee. We do want to offer certain suggestions at that time, so we recommend that the bill go to the committee of the whole House.

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is one aspect of this bill to which I would like to make reference and that is section 8, dealing with the covering of loads and prescribing the roads on which the various regulations must be enforced.

For eight years we’ve been talking in this Legislature about the hazards to 401 traffic coming towards Toronto with the blowing sand and the dropped gravel along that highway. Any vehicle that travels that road any distance, with any consistency or regularity, normally has the paint chipped off within a very short time because of the dropping of loads.

We’ve been told by former Ministers of Transportation and Communication that regulations were being drafted. They were being drafted. We kept being told they were in effect; that the loads would have to be covered. I think at that time the ministry was putting its whole case on the fact that no vehicle was allowed to drop part of its load on a highway and if they did they would be subject of a fine. Finally, the ministry told us last year that, ah hah, they did catch one load that was dropping things on the highway. It happened to be a farmer taking some corn into market down in the London area.

[3:45]

The big problem has been with the aggregate business hauling gravel into Toronto. We know that they have to do it. If one travels that road it is just unbelievable the number of gravel trucks, tandem trailers, pup trailers and trains coming in on 401 and going back empty; and believe me they move. They are not required by law to stay in one particular lane; and as a traveller of that highway, quite often I have been frustrated more than once with two trucks going abreast down the 401 trying to pass each other and neither achieving his objective.

I would like to just ask the minister if the regulations will be drafted in such a manner that the motoring public can finally have protection from the gravel trucks going down the 401, especially from the areas around Campbellville where the aggregate business is thriving at the foot of the Niagara Escarpment? If this is going to accomplish what the ministry has been pretending it has been enforcing for the last eight years, I will be more than pleased.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a few words on this bill. I would like to make reference to the safety certification section which provides that by regulation the government will require these vehicles to meet certain specific safety standards as they prescribe them.

It has been brought to my attention by the truckers’ association, and I am sure the minister has been made aware of how some vehicles are expanded so that their load limitations can be exceeded. In my mind, and in the mind of the professionals who drive these trucks, the front axle weights allowable are being extended by attaching larger size tires to the front axles -- despite the fact the axle has not in itself been reinforced to take the added load. Neither has the braking system been expanded to restrain the added load capacity that vehicle can take.

The minister is certainly aware that by spreading the distance of rear axles, the load limitations of any particular vehicle can be expanded to a dangerous degree. In the opinion of certain trucking associations they are expanded to the degree that some of these trucks are absolutely unwieldy and their load limitations far exceed what the original vehicle was designed to do. The braking system particularly has not been expanded to accommodate the increase in load which the spacing of axle and the larger tires on the front axle can accommodate.

I would like the minister to respond to this hazard because I am sure he has been made aware of this. Of course the thrust of this legislation will come from regulation. Regulations will prescribe axle distances and tire size and load limitations on the highway, but I think there should also be some regulation as to braking power in order to restrain a vehicle which has been overloaded by these various devices which are used so that it stays within the regulations.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the comments made by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) because I am one of many in the public who happen to have had a cracked windshield as a result of an uncovered gravel truck.

I would like at this time to bring to the minister’s attention one of the approaches used by the state of Michigan in an attempt to resolve the issue. Simply having the truck covered may not necessarily solve the problem if the truck is overloaded in the first place. Furthermore you may have gravel that will fall from the dump body along the side of the covering, especially if the covering isn’t secured properly, and then you can still have gravel dropping.

In the state of Michigan they will not allow the vehicle to be loaded higher than six inches from the top of the body itself. You will say the gravel truck operator wants his vehicle to carry the maximum load. Well, he can extend the body another six inches, but have sort of a tide line like you have on beer glasses in our taverns so that the gravel will not be above that specific line. It would be fairly easy to check, or I think it would be easy to check. I know in the motion of the vehicle some of the gravel may eventually collect at the back end of the body rather than stay evenly dispersed, but I think this suggestion could be followed in the regulations which permit the loading of the vehicle to within six inches of the top of the body. It apparently seems to be solving the problem satisfactorily in that jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments on this bill before the minister replies? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the hon. members for their contributions. The first member to speak, I believe was the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and the matters he spoke to related to Bill 3, I believe, so we can work on that when we get to the next bill.

The member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) was concerned regarding the inspections. The regulations which will follow this bill, of course, define the inspections, the different items which must be inspected, who will be qualified to do these inspections and the fact that the regulation will call for the inspections, of course, every six months. A vehicle, to be legal on the road must have on a sticker dated within a six-month period.

Another change in the bill requires the trailer to have the same sticker. Formerly, any mechanical fitness referred only to the motor vehicle. Now, one of the trains we see would actually have to have three stickers. It would have to have one on the truck -- or tractor shall we call it -- one on the main trader and one on the pup trailer. The regulations and this legislation will give us the necessary authority to require mechanical inspections of the complete unit.

The member for Durham East (Mr. Moffatt) was concerned about the fact that we were not covering all the recommendations of the report. Of course many of the recommendations do not need legislation to be implemented. Some will probably need additional legislation but in order to get the major recommendations of Mr. Rapoport into force as quickly as possible this fall session, we have dealt with the matters which were most important.

He was concerned about the covering of the truck, who was going to pay for it and the cost that would be involved. I can only say that obviously there’s going to be a very nominal additional cost to the operator of the unit. He suggests it’s going to take 12 minutes to cover a truck. I think he’s grossly exaggerating.

I’m sure within a very short time some very ingenious individual or private entrepreneur will come up with a mechanical system whereby all the truck driver will have to do is press a switch or pull a string and a tarp will roll out or roll back on top of the truck.

Mr. Bain: It will freeze in winter up north.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It will be very simple to do. We have a very simple system right now on many of the trucks which haul asphalt. It’s required to cover the asphalt trucks for a different purpose; it’s not so it won’t fall off or blow off, but it’s to maintain the heat. It’s strictly a tarp rolled up and they roll them back and forward; I’m sure it doesn’t take two minutes, let alone 12. I’m not saying there won’t be a minor increase in the cost and, of course, this will have to be built into the rates.

The hon. member spoke about the overloading aspect. This is something we are looking into. Our legal officers are having some problems regarding the joint responsibility for overloading. I’m sure we will be able to come up with a system. It’s very fine for the majority of the loads that would be hauled, because they are hauling from a pit or a plant where there are scales.

Mr. Moffatt: Would the minister permit a question?

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the Speaker will I will.

Mr. Speaker: Normally debate on second reading is on the principle of the bill. If there is a short question for clarification, it would be in order. I understand it’s going to committee of the whole, which means there will be many questions back and forth.

Mr. Moffatt: Just a brief question; I don’t intend to be argumentative. I simply would ask the minister if he is talking particularly about gravel trucks which are now in existence or new ones which are coming into the industry. I think there is some problem, Mr. Minister, with --

Hon. Mr. Snow: With all due respect.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions can be asked in the next stage if it goes to committee.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, where were we? Overloading.

When a truck is hauling from a pit or quarry or a plant where there are scales, then I think it would be relatively easy to determine whether the truck is overloaded or not, of course, and make both parties responsible. But in many cases these types of trucks do not haul from a site where there are scales.

They may be hauling snow off a street -- and, of course, it’s very unlikely that hauling snow or ice could overload a truck but it could, depending on the licence they were carrying; it’s not that heavy. But many times they’re hauling excavated material. We see them here on the streets of Toronto every day hauling material out of these excavations. There are certainly no scales available there to check the load.

When they are hauling rubble from the demolition of buildings; when they’re hauling farm products, and many things such as that, I think the truck driver is in a better position to judge his load. He is used to his own vehicle and able to judge whether he has a sufficient load on or not. Those are technical problems; we’re trying to come up with answers to that and that will probably be dealt with at a later date.

A couple of the members mentioned Bill 111, suggesting that the Ministry of Labour might consider amending Bill 111 -- I believe this is what they were saying -- to bring the independent truckers into the collective bargaining. I just say that at our last out-of-town cabinet meeting at Sault Ste. Marie we had two trucking associations appear before us. They spoke to both myself and the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) and were very concerned in the other direction. These were independent truckers’ organizations from Sudbury and other areas of northern Ontario. As I understand it, they wanted the legislation clarified so that they would be exempt, not brought in.

The matter of brokers is another one that was recommended and which we’re looking at. We have not got the total answer for that one immediately, but we don’t feel that the number of brokers involved in this is really significant, although there are no doubt some.

The hon. member for Durham East also was complaining about the Quebec border. I don’t know whether he expects me to put a barrier up there or not. But one of these two Acts -- incorporating the mechanical fitness requirement we will have means that if a truck does come across the border to work in Ontario, it will have to have mechanical fitness certificates before it would be able to operate in this province. So that would be some deterrent.

When we get to the other bill, the truck operator would have to have the necessary public commercial vehicle licence; and of course under that bill he would have to show Ontario Highway Transport Board the need for the service. So what more do you want me to do than what has been done in these two bills?

[4:00]

The member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) mentioned, again in Bill 111, the suggestions of payment. I am very interested in that recommendation of Mr. Rapoport’s that everybody be paid in 30 days. I think every businessman in Ontario would love to have some legislation that would say his creditors must pay him in 30 days. It’s a noble objective, but I would say unattainable.

Again, that member was inquiring as to the regulations on inspections and, of course, I have already said that they will be semi-annual and what the regulations will cover. The regulations regarding the tarping will define the covering of the loads and will define the types of road that they must be covered on.

Under certain circumstances they will not have to tarp their trucks, and this is mainly where they are working on construction sites and where they are having very short hauls on gravel roads, and we are mainly thinking of a truck working on a bush road or something in northern Ontario.

Any truck hauling a load here, even though the pit may be on a gravel-surfaced road, it’s unlikely that the truck would be able to travel from the pit to the point of delivery without at some time travelling on a surface-treated or asphalt or concrete roadway, which would of course mean that the load would be covered even though it was travelling on the gravel road.

I think I covered the overloading aspect in replying to other comments. I know how concerned the member for Yorkview -- having heard him discuss matters for the past eight years in this House -- is for safety, and I have to agree with many of the comments he made about the axle weights and so on, and also the member for Sudbury about the beefed-up trucks. This is a matter that has been of concern to me and I assure you this is under consideration at the present time. I am very concerned about the fact that a person who buys a strong, heavy, rugged truck is penalized in his earning capacity because it is a heavier unit, with heavier brakes, heavier axles -- it is a safer truck, but he is penalized because the truck weighs more and it won’t haul as much payload legally as someone who buys a light duty truck and puts big tires on it and so on. This is a matter that we are looking into.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) mentioned a regulation that might only allow a truck to be filled up to a certain height within the body. I think in most cases this is the case, but sometimes you will see them filled to the state where they are overflowing and, of course, this will be covered in the regulations. I don’t know whether we will be prepared to regulate a 6-in, draught line, as he was referring to, but we’ll certainly look into that when drafting the legislation. I think that answers the comments of the members.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading? Committee of the whole House?

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the members wish it to go to committee, fine. I will say I have to take the next bill to committee. I have a minor amendment in it.

Mr. Speaker: It is ordered, then, to committee of the whole House.

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 3, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence in allowing the members to discuss both bills. I would hope that the minister would answer the question I pose regarding the reasons for licensing on a regional basis rather than a province-wide basis.

In general we agree with the principle of Bill 3 in repealing the right of the minister to license for transportation without a certificate issued by the board in section 1. But it seems to contradict itself, in that section 6 seems to give back what section 1 removes. I’d like the minister to clarify this. If section 6 is to be transitional, how long is it to last? What are the reasons for it?

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, much of what I was going to say on this bill has been said by my friends to my right, of all places, in regard to the Rapoport committee and others.

I have a number of questions. Probably I should indicate my primary concern which is the same as that of the last speaker. That is the fact that by the bill we are going to have the truckers regulated by the five regions in Ontario. I’ve read the Rapoport report and his reasons for recommending it, but I don’t feel, quite frankly, that they are valid.

I see a number of very serious problems if we proceed to have a register, as the report suggests, of those who are available with trucks. For instance, what happens in the city of Toronto when the demand for such vehicles comes to a sudden end? Does this mean then that those trucks are not able to go into section 4, or region 4, or even so far as northwestern Ontario, if they wish to do so? I want to make it clear that I think the truckers in the region, the local truckers, should have first chance at any available contracts, whether it’s road building or whatever it is. I think the local contractor should get first choice. But I really fail to understand how compartmentalizing into five regions is really going to solve the problem of a possible oversupply of dump trucks in the Province of Ontario. I would think that surely, in some cases, in some region there may be a demand for more trucks. As I understand the Act, it’s going to be impossible for trucks from ether regions to move in.

The other side of the coin, of course, is that if you are in a region and you’re on the register in that particular region and your workload comes to an end -- there is no further work -- what do you do then? Are you idle for eight months or six months or whatever it is? Just what are the constraints actually going to be? In fact, are you not circumventing and constraining the trucking industry too much by regionalizing it in this way?

The Ontario Highway Transport Board requires a hearing of necessity and convenience. Surely they have the power themselves by way of these hearings to regulate the number of people who actually enter the dump truck -- particularly the dump truck -- field. Surely the responsibility should lie with the Highway Transport Board, rather than some kind of regional setup which is going to work, I think --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Who do you think is going to issue the licences?

Mr. Reid: All right, but why not leave it with them to do it on a numbers basis rather than a regional basis, which is what I understand you are going to do?

If you’ve got, let’s say, 200 in region 1, the Highway Transport Board feels that’s all for region 1.

People in region 2 cannot go into region 1. Am I mistaken on that?

Mr. Renwick: Only if you get a certificate.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is not automatic.

Mr. Reid: Am I mistaken on that? I think my friend who spoke before me, and I, would like that cleared up. May I ask a question? If one is given a licence under necessity and convenience, for region 1, is one allowed to operate in region 2, 3, 4, or 5 if there is a demand for the services?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, not automatically.

Mr. Reid: One has got to go back to the board and have another hearing of necessity and convenience? How long is that going to take? Can this be done on a daily or on a weekly basis? What is going to happen? Are we going to make this whole procedure so rigid? I quite frankly don’t have any solutions to this. Obviously, it’s a tough proposition but should we be running back and forth to the transport board to get a new hearing and, supposedly, a new charge? I assume there would be a new charge, a new licence fee, for wanting to operate in another region.

The Ontario Haulers Association has spoken to me concerning this and regionalization is their largest concern. Like I other speakers before me, I’m most concerned that the Rapoport report which covers -- it is a fairly lengthy report; including the bibliographies it is 204 pages and encompasses something like at least 50 recommendations. After this report and the work that has gone into it -- it came before us last June and there has been a great deal of work done, It’s a thick report with many recommendations yet we seem to be dealing with very few of them and perhaps, in some cases, not the most important.

We haven’t touched upon rates. The Rapoport report suggests there should be a minimum rate; a floor rate; the lowest rate or the minimum rate paid by MTC on any contracts in which they require haulers. This, to me, seems a logical programme for the ministry and the minister to follow.

I have many people involved in the trucking industry in my area. Mostly they own one truck; some have two or three, but mostly they’re small haulers as are most of the haulers in the Province of Ontario. When the crunch comes, when they’re not working or when there is very little work around, it becomes very cannibalistic and very suicidal. They go around cutting each other’s throats to get any available work. Surely, there must be some kind of minimum which will at least guarantee them a wage and some kind of capital return so they can pay off the cost of the vehicle. That’s one point.

My friend spoke about the recommendations in regard to the border crossings. The minister said, “Perhaps we’ll solve some of those problems with a safety inspection.” I don’t know whether that will do it.

We seem to be getting away from really solving the questions which were raised in this report. I find it strange that the minister would come in with such a weak bill and not touch on many of the problems raised in the report.

We’ve also talked of the responsibility for overloading, whether there should be shared blame between the shipper and the carrier. It’s something the minister hasn’t dealt with. The minister indicates that the bonding provisions perhaps aren’t that bad. There aren’t so many that they are going to cause a problem and so forth but he hasn’t really addressed himself in this bill to many of these problems.

[4:15]

I would like to draw the minister’s attention directly to page 2 of the bill, section 2, subsections (c) and (d). It seems to me those two paragraphs are somewhat contradictory. The minister is indicating there will be a regionalization of the problem and actually restricts the trucking industry by regions and by the maximum number of vehicles which may be operated. In (d) it goes on to say the board:

“shall not limit the rights conferred by the licence to the operation of public commercial vehicles to the transportation of materials of specific consigners or consignees.”

So in one way the minister is I restraining the number and area and in another way he is saying these operators can haul anything that they please. It seems to me somewhat contradictory.

We come to Bill 111 on which we had quite a full discussion in the last session of the Legislature and on which the minister again has touched. It is my feeling that most of the truckers prefer to be classed, or consider themselves, as independent operators or entrepreneurs. They do not feel themselves to be captive of a company where they may have a long-term contract. They do not wish to be put in the position where they may be forced to join a union in those areas where this could be so under Bill 111. It seems to me that the majority of them prefer to be in the position of independent entrepreneurs and do not wish to have the provisions of Bill 111 place them in a position where they might have to join a union.

There are other matters that we will raise in committee. The minister has indicated that he has a minor amendment. I would have thought that he would have indicated what that amendment was when he moved the bill for second reading. Perhaps he can tell the House before we get to the committee stage what it is.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, this bill has come about as a result of long years of frustration by people in the aggregate hauling business. I think the whole problem was created when the government for some unexplained reason decided to deregulate entry into this business. I think it was in 1968. Up until that point in time, the right of entry was controlled by the transport board. Then they deregulated the right of entry and every second person has entered the business. I don’t know why so many people have a desire to own and drive trucks, but since that time we know what has happened. People have entered and there has been great financial hardship. Bankruptcies by the hundreds have been recorded even in the past year. And now the government, at long last, has come in with this bill to regulate the right of entry into the industry.

I would say that eventually it will get control of the matter but what I am wondering about, and my question to the minister is, about the surplus number of trucks presently in the industry. At what point in time are they going to be phased out and how does he plan to assimilate them in or reduce their numbers without causing further financial hardship? Given the price of a truck these days, very many people are deeply in debt. If they do not have the right of entry, just what provisions are there to soften the blow as far as they are concerned when they find that they cannot continue entry in the industry?

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, subsection 7 of section 2 specifies that an operating licence will be given subject to various qualifications, and the right to set maximum numbers is apparently based upon last year’s particular number of vehicles.

What I would like to ask the minister is, in the event that a significant increase in the number of vehicles required becomes evident during this year or next year, how will those new licences be granted? Will they be granted on the basis of application or by lot or by some other less well advised method? I think that there are certain people in the industry who are rather concerned that there may be a gravitation of licences to one or two individuals in each region. I don’t think that would be conducive to the kind of industry that we would like to see.

As for the certificate of mechanical fitness which is being replaced by a safety standards certificate, I assume that --

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is not in the bill.

Mr. Moffatt: Are we on Bill 3, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Reid: The last page of the bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Moffatt: Part 3 changes that wording. I just wonder why the wording is changed and what sort of standards are going to pertain. Will they be the existing standards or will it be rewritten? That whole section appears to me to be rather loose and vague, and I would ask him to explain that in his remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Do any hon. members wish to speak on this bill?

Mr. Young: Again, I think that by and large what needs to be said has been said. I would want to call to the minister’s attention and simply reiterate the problem that we are facing in this whole matter.

He mentioned that in Sault Ste. Marie certain truckers there had not wished bargaining rights and, of course, we do hear a great deal from other truckers who want them. I suppose fundamentally the people who don’t want the bargaining rights are the people who own large fleets of trucks.

Mr. Good: No, that’s wrong. I am going to say something on this.

Mr. Young: Individuals, by and large, are finding themselves at a disadvantage because the broker situation comes in there. Very often the broker owns a fleet of trucks; he gets the contract and he does the work -- the clean work with his own trucks -- and then he hires the others as he needs them at a much lower price than his own figuring would indicate. This is one of the irritations. But I suppose this is the fundamental problem. You have some groups of truckers with very large fleets under their command, and in some cases individuals who have one truck -- and you get a division there.

In connection with this matter of regional licensing, I do want to refer to a map on page 18 of the Rapoport report. I think this is the one that has been accepted. The regions are outlined here and they are large enough to make the matter practical, if it can be practical. But there are certain problems. For example, trucking into the central area -- into the Toronto, Hamilton and Metropolitan regions -- certainly must come in large measure from the southwestern area. It may be that the minister will simply say that people hauling from the southwestern into the central area would get licenses in both. I don’t know, this is an answer we are looking for.

I do want to put on record part of the submission to the minister, from the Ontario Haulers Association, which has some strong opinions about this. They say on page 2 of their submission:

“If licences are issued only on a regional basis, the result is that within each region at some times during the year there will be a surplus of licensed haulers available, and at other times the supply will be inadequate to meet the demand. Rather than license an excess for each region, creating a situation where for many parts of the year there will be an inadequate work to supply haulers who, on the strength of their licence, invest in the purchase of a truck, a province-wide licence issued out of a particular region, so that the persons within a region have a priority in awarding of work within that region, would be a much fairer system.

“Where the work in a particular region exceeds the number of haulers available, the haulers could then be supplied from another region which has an excess at that time. It is true that such a system would require some co-ordination by an agency to obtain information as to whether drivers are required and where drivers are available in each region, so that drivers from other regions could be directed to the area where the need occurs.”

That is the opinion of the Ontario Haulers Association, which may not be the opinion of all the truckers in Ontario, but I did want to put that on record at their request. Again, we are looking for an answer from the minister why he feels that this regionalization must take place.

Mr. Good: I would like to speak to one aspect, and that is dealing with the Rapoport report. It brought forth a great many recommendations which should, if carried through to their finality, bring some order out of the chaos that has resulted in the dump truck industry across the province.

I would like to deal basically with the opinion of the Ontario Trucking Association last July, which appeared to be that the provisions of Bill 111, proposing amendments to the Labour Relations Act, and especially section 3 dealing with dependent contractors, would in fact wipe out the whole effect of the task force report. They held that the inclusion as dependent contractors of about one-third of their association would immediately destroy the effectiveness of their association and of the independent operators.

The argument was put forth that an individual owning a dump truck going to a job was no different from a carpenter who owned his hammer and tools and went to his job. The independent truckers, in my area particularly and those to whom I’ve spoken, certainly didn’t agree with that proposition. This was the proposition put forth by the then Minister of Labour, who happens to be in the House at the present time and who I felt was being led down the garden path by his senior civil servants and some of the other high labour officials, including Mr. Archer who is sifting in the gallery.

The individuals who are doing work mainly for one firm during the year would be considered dependent contractors and employees of that particular institution to whom they were contracted for a year. People owning those dump trucks -- the ones who spoke to me -- didn’t want to have any part of being classified as dependent truckers. They felt that if the recommendations of this task force report were carried through, they would indeed arrive at a beneficial position far in excess of what could be achieved by being declared as dependent contractors.

I’m given to understand that that particular section of that bill has not been proclaimed, even up to the present time. The minister did promise a 30-day or 60-day delay until they looked at it again because, for unfortunate reasons, discussion was cut off very abruptly at the end of that particular bill.

I would hope that the Minister of Transportation and Communications would weigh very thoroughly and give very serious consideration to the implementation of this task force report and, in doing so, consider very carefully what side effects might accrue if the sections of that labour relations bill should ever be proclaimed.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I think most of the comments of the hon. members express pretty much the same concerns. Many of them mentioned the setting up of the five regions. Of course, the five regions are to be the regions of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, as set up.

The grandfather provisions of the Act will provide for a licence to be issued to every operator who was operating us of the date established in the Act -- I believe it was Oct. 31 -- for the number of vehicles that that operator was operating.

The operator will be able to be licensed in the region of his or her choice. In the case of an operator who happens to have his office or home in one area, but most of his work is across the road in another region, he would have his choice of region. Of course, if he also wishes to work in the other region, he can apply to the Highway Transport Board for licensing in one or more of the regions. As a matter of fact, and the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) mentioned it, it would be possible if there is the need for an operator to be licenced in all five regions. It may be quite unlikely, I think, in this business that an operator that works in Ottawa is going to want to work in northwestern Ontario too, but I suppose it would be possible.

[4:30]

The concern was raised regarding periods when there is a lack of work in one region and a lot of work opens up in another region. In the Act there is a provision for the board to grant temporary authority for an operator to operate in the other region without any major delay. If a contractor has a job and needs 50 dump trucks immediately and they’re not available in that region, they’re available in the central region say, they can grant temporary authority very quickly to let those trucks move in.

The member for Algoma mentioned something about section 6. I haven’t been able to --

Mr. Wildman: There are two sections.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Pardon? There’s no section 6 in the bill, I don’t believe. It ends with section 5.

Mr. Wildman: Subsection 6 of section 2.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m sorry, subsection 6 of section 2. I’m getting to where you are now.

Mr. Singer: Yes, it comes after subclause 5.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The Highway Transport Board approves the operating authority. The ministry issues the licence and this allows the minister to issue operating licences for these materials to all those who had an operating licence in the region of the applicant’s choice without a certificate from the board.

Mr. Good: A sort of grandfather clause.

Hon. Mr. Snow: This is the grandfather clause to which I referred. If a man in Algoma has five dump trucks he may want to be in two regions in that area because it’s not too far from the boundary. He would probably apply and be licenced for his five dump trucks in the northern region and then apply to the board for authority to operate in I the northern region if he can show that he had substantial business there. I think this is the only way we’re going to keep reasonable control of entry into the business.

I believe there are something like 10,000 trucks now; 10,000 vehicles now operating, and something like 6,000 operators. So you can see with this ratio of vehicles and operators there are not many cartels with great fleets. I’m not concerned that this will happen, but when there are new licences required, if there is a need in a particular area or the province as a whole for additional licences, then of course the applications will be considered by the board. The board will sit in the different regions to hear local applications and if there is sufficient need and public necessity for additional trucks in that region and they’re not available, I think the first thought would be to allow truckers in other regions to expand their licences. Then their next priority, I would think -- but I can’t instruct the board as to what their policy should be -- would be to give small operators with one truck the opportunity to expand and get another one.

The member for Waterloo North talked about Bill 111, which doesn’t come under my jurisdiction. I’m not totally familiar with the problem in that bill. I know there is some concern as to whether the independent truckers would be included or net. The hon. member for Yorkview said he had great representations from those who wanted to be included. I can’t say for my staff, but I certainly have not heard from anyone who does want to be included, but I did hear from two trucking associations in northern Ontario that certainly did not want to be included. This is a matter that will have to be dealt with by the Ministry of Labour. I would say to the member for Rainy River that I’m sorry I didn’t mention what the amendment was. It’s just a housekeeping amendment adding asphalt mixes to clause (a) of subsection 3. We’ll add that amendment when we go into committee.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered to the committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved second reading of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in my statement on first reading of Bill 4, I dealt with the factors which led the government to propose this legislation at this time. The hen, members may recall I stated then:

“This decision was based on our perception that available supplies from existing areas of production would fall below our requirements before a supplemental supply source, such as frontier areas or coal gasification, was available.”

I noted this view has recently been --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We put up with this for years; we thought we were lucky.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I don’t want to complain again, but there is something wrong with the sound system in this place because we can’t hear what the minister is saying. They should talk into the mike or something. We can’t hear what he is saying back here.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. minister would move a little closer to one of the microphones.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: They’re both on now. Can the member hear?

Mr. Sargent: That’s better.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I noted this view has recently been confirmed by the exhaustive review of Canadian natural gas supply and requirements conducted by our National Energy Board.

The government has been guided by several principles in the preparation of this legislation. First, the jurisdiction to supervise the order and the allocation of natural gas should be placed in an independent government agency.

Second, because the question of allocation has implications for both the rate and facility aspects of the regulation of natural gas distribution in Ontario, which are presently regulated by the Ontario Energy Board, that independent agency should be the Ontario Energy Board.

Third, the only sensible mechanism by which to implement natural gas allocation is the natural gas distributors who have purchased contracts with federally-regulated suppliers such as TransCanada Pipe Lines and who have sales contracts with the ultimate consumers.

Fourth, a matter which I dealt with on introduction of the bill, every person affected by a proposed allocation plan should be able to file an objection or otherwise comment on the allocation plan.

Fifth, the responsibility of natural gas distributors to continue to contract for adequate supplies for consumers should be maintained, and one distributor should only be required to share his contracted supply with another distributor after a public hearing into the reasons for the proposed sharing.

Sixth, all consumers of natural gas, with certain limited exceptions, should, once allocation plans are approved, be required to use gas only in accordance with an allocation plan. Large and economically powerful users should not be able to get around the allocation procedures by purchasing natural gas for themselves directly from producers and solely for their own use.

This latter principle reflects the frequently. stated position of this government that the interests of Ontario consumers in adequate supplies of natural gas can best be protected by the present system which consists of TransCanada PipeLines purchasing substantially all of the gas for Ontario markets and having that gas sold to the ultimate consumers by regulated natural gas distribution utilities. This position has become increasingly important at a time when it is widely recognized that natural gas allocation on both inter- and intra-provincial levels is necessary. The exceptions to this principle, which will be reflected in the regulations, will be rural residents who have their own modest natural gas production, and refiners and other manufacturers who manufacture gas as one part of an industrial process and who utilize it in another integrated part of that industrial process.

These are the major principles contained in Bill 4. It is my intent at the committee stage to discuss the government’s present thinking on the detailed application of these principles.

Mr. Burr: Bill 4, an Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, is designed to make provision for the fair rationing of natural gas supplies. Inasmuch as planning has always been a cornerstone of this party’s social and economic philosophy, we support the principle of this bill.

The minister used the expression “the orderly allocation.” During the Second World War we had an orderly allocation of available supplies of such things as gasoline, tea, sugar and meat; but in those days we used the term rationing.

The main principle of this bill seems to be rationing if necessary, but not necessarily rationing. This leads one to feel that this is a Liberal bill in the Liberal-inspired tradition of Mackenzie King. Nevertheless, we have some --

Mr. Singer: But you could still support it?

Mr. Burr: Oh yes.

Mr. Singer: That’s good. We were worried about you.

Mr. Burr: Nevertheless, we have some misgivings about the secrecy of the hearings that will be permitted under section 37(g).

We feel also that public disclosure of the coming shortage should be made now in order that the public should be taken into the minister’s confidence. Few individuals in today’s affluent society will take the need for conservation seriously unless and until that need has been demonstrated convincingly and perhaps even dramatically. Until we have some government direction, such as a speed limit of 55 miles per hour on Highways 400 and 401, few people in Ontario will believe that there is a gasoline or oil shortage imminent.

If the government took some action on conservation, for example through reduced speed, and talked about the possibility of the rationing of gasoline, then many citizens would begin to take energy conservation seriously. Some would reduce their travelling for pleasure and others would form car pools for going to work. Conservation of energy would become the fashionable thing to participate in; it would be the course of commendable conduct or, I suppose, the “in” thing.

This bill could have the same effect if the reasons for it are discussed publicly and if the basic facts are provided to the Legislature and the public. It is not good enough to leave the establishing of criteria, principles and guidelines to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and to hold hearings in camera. An informed public will co-operate; an uninformed public will not.

For these reasons, although we support the bill in principle, we ask that it be sent to committee outside the House so that more detailed information may be made available to the members and to the public; and so that the public may acquire a greater awareness of the need for conservation of our natural resources in general, and in this instance of our natural gas supplies in particular.

Mr. Peterson: I would like to address some remarks to this bill also and say at the outset that I am glad the minister’s laryngitis at question period has cleared up this afternoon.

We are supporting this bill in principle and we support the idea of taking it to committee. We are very concerned about several areas in this bill. We are very concerned and we are dismayed that the bill is necessary. We believe that with proper planning, with proper conservation planning and with proper allocation of resources five years ago or 10 years ago, this kind of thing would not now be necessary.

[4:45]

As pointed out by my hon. friend on the right, the progress in the programmes and the performance of this government in conservation has been absolutely dismal. There is a lot of material available. There are lots of strategies available but the government continues to do nothing in all aspects of energy consumption. I refer the government and the hon. minister to the background study on energy conservation for the Science Council by Prof. Knelman. His conclusion is that 30 per cent savings can be instituted, and indeed be operative with little social harm, with the proper planning. I would commend that to the hon. minister.

We have in addition to those concerns, the general framework in which they are made. We wish the minister would direct his ministry to those types of concerns rather than bringing in, after the fact, ex post facto, legislation to catch up on mistakes made.

We have a major concern. We believe this is a very serious bill at this particular time; we believe it is very serious when the government starts going into rationing. This is not widely done in these types of times. We believe the ministry and the government should have the power over allocation of our resources if it is necessary. But I believe and my party believes there could be very serious injustices under the Lieutenant Governor in council’s regulations.

The government has a tendency to rule by regulation, that nefarious and secret part of the law which none of us has the opportunity of seeing or debating in this House. I believe there should be a full and open hearing on these regulations. The government, with help from the other parties, should clearly view all of the alternatives in this rationing procedure.

There are many ways to ration. It can be done with price; with time allocations; with metering; with off-peak usage. There are many ways to control this type of a problem. The way the rate’s on natural gas are presently constructed, they are incentives to use more. The more you use the less you pay; with the same pitfalls that we get into with the Hydro planning.

We support the idea of the bill, regretting very much that it is necessary. We are in favour of a full and open hearing. Our No. 1 obligation as legislators in this process is to make sure the people are not hurt by this procedure. We are against secret hearings. We are against secret priorities of any type to determine the allocation of these kinds of resources.

In closing, I would say that we will appear at committee. We will happily make our input into the regulations and into a complete hearing on this bill, but I would urge the government to act now so that this type of thing would not be necessary.

Mr. Renwick: I only have a brief comment, Mr. Speaker. I am not interested in repeating the points which have been made by my colleague and by the member who has just spoken, all of which are quite valid. We are unalterably opposed to the in-camera hearing and we are unalterably opposed to decisions being made by such boards without a hearing, which is the import of the provision of the bill which excludes certain of the general provisions of the Ontario Energy Board Act.

My concern, basically, is what is the reason the minister had in mind when he limited the application of this allocation procedure simply to gas and not to other petroleum products. I can well understand that the minister wishes, as he stated, to have an allocation system in effect at the point in time when there is the possibility -- perhaps one could say the probability -- there would be such a shortage of natural gas as would require an allocation plan. But everything one reads would indicate that so far as oil is concerned the same situation holds.

I may say that I base this solely upon the fact that, as I understand it, the National Energy Board in October of last year, when it issued its oil report, stated that the nationwide demand for oil would exceed domestic production by 1977. From the statements of this particular minister one would think that was optimistic and that in fact this inability on a national basis to meet our demand from domestic production in fact has already happened.

There is certainly no question that what the minister has said with respect to gas is accurate, because in reporting this year on the question of gas, the board stated that the current inability of supply to meet all requirements for Canadian natural gas is likely to continue at least until supplies in the frontier areas become available. It reinforces my concern in making it applicable only to gas, because if one uses rough percentages, it would appear that in the Province of Ontario the demands for energy which are met by oil exceed the demands for energy which are met from natural gas, and that we use more oil in Ontario than we do natural gas -- at least in rough and ready percentages I understand that to be so.

Therefore, I ask the minister why it is that this allocation plan is limited to gas and if it is the intention of the ministry to provide a similar allocation system, with whatever necessary changes have to be made, to make it applicable to oil at some further date, presumably at a date when perhaps the royal commission or others have made recommendations to the government.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments. As the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, I would like to say that we have had considerable natural gas in our area, but over the past few years the lines have been taken up; consequently, we have lost those resources. We do have private producers in another area who do have new fields but they are unable to sell their products at a cost that would keep them in business; consequently, at the present time they are trying to negotiate better prices.

I wonder if the hon. minister is taking such things into consideration to provide more energy in Ontario by Canadians in Ontario and whether this can be considered and given more attention at this time.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would like to suggest to the minister that I’m not too clear on the all-encompassing things involved in this bill. The things I am concerned about have never come to light. Prior to the minister taking over this ministry, we were told by the former Minister of Energy that there was a budget of about $100 million for this board -- these are things I would like to find out if they are factual -- and he was going to allow --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think that the hon. member really is referring to the Ontario Energy Corp. and its activities and not to anything dealing with allocation, unless he is talking about supply and the activities of that corporation in relation to future supply.

Mr. Sargent: I thank the minister; I didn’t understand that. The things I am concerned about are things like the number of distributors involved and the secrecy of hearings; hut, further than that, we were told that the government was going to open up the deal so that they would have in this area a consortium of five outside firms. In other words, the private sector is going to be involved in this whole operation in so far as the public sector will get a piece of the action. These were the words of the former minister.

I am concerned about things like involvement of large corporations in this area. The minister is smiling and I am laughing too because --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order again. Could the hon. member be a little clearer? I think, again, he is talking about the efforts of my predecessor to get private sector financing for certain energy projects rather than having to have them capitalized with public funds.

Mr. Sargent: I appreciate that. The thing I am talking about is that we don’t know who the five companies are. The minister has never told the House who they are and I would like the minister’s answer to these questions; if he knows who these firms are that are involved from the private sector and whether they are involved as distributors for natural gas or whatever. It is pretty wide in terms of reference in this bill and I would like to know exactly the definition of distributors. Who are they? How many do you have? Let us know who is in this consortium of five firms involved in the energy picture. Whether we are pinpointing this particular bill or not, this is information that the House should know.

Mr. Stokes: I have a brief question I would like to ask the hon. minister on this boll I am concerned about the assured supply of natural gas in areas where it isn’t widely used at the present time. I would like to elicit from the minister some comment with regard to the availability of natural gas for future industrial expansion in areas of northern Ontario. We have two or three enterprises that are going to be large users of natural gas whenever their industrial capacity comes on stream. I have heard some rumours that it may not be possible for the existing suppliers to meet those needs in the future.

On an earlier occasion in the House, the hon. minister said there is no shortage -- and he repeated it -- there is no shortage of natural gas in the Province of Ontario at this time. This would indicate that it was going to be pretty dicey, maybe touch and go, in order to meet additional requirements of natural gas. Are you looking into additional supplies for future expansion, particularly in those areas that aren’t traditional users at the present time but of necessity will have to become users if these new industrial development projects are to come on stream?

I know that it is of concern to some large corporations that are thinking very seriously of establishing in the northwest. It will be absolutely essential that they have an assured supply of this form of energy if they are to go forward and if they are to complete their plans. So if the minister might reply on the possibility of filling that need in the next two, three, four or five years, I am sure it would be much appreciated.

Mrs. Bryden: I would like to address a couple of questions to the hon. minister with regard to this bill. Since he did state quite clearly that there is no natural gas shortage in Ontario, we would like to know why we bring in the bill at this time. He has said it is like buying a fire truck even though you are not expecting a fire. It seems to me that it would be more to the point to be pushing for a curtailment of our exports of natural gas rather than bringing in this kind of legislation, which may make people feel a sense of security and that we can go on exporting our natural gas resources. If we run short it will be rationed here in Ontario.

[5:00]

That seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. I would like to ask the minister, has the government made representations to the federal government pressing for curtailment on a much larger scale of our natural gas exports? We are going to need the natural gas here and it seems to me that the exports that were authorized years ago should not have been authorized and should be curtailed at the present time. Has the government been pressing for that instead of just bringing in allocation legislation?

The second question is: How does the government feel about the Mackenzie Valley pipeline? Could one look at this legislation as part of the psychological buildup in favour of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline? If we have to have allocation legislation in Ontario, does that mean we have to go ahead with the pipeline?

I don’t think we should go ahead with the pipeline. I don’t think the case has been made that we need it at this time, but I have a feeling that this legislation any have some connection with the psychological buildup in favour of it, so I’d like to know what the government’s position is on that pipeline.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to answer the comments of three or four of the hon. members where they referred to secret hearings, in camera hearings -- I guess those were the only adjectives. I want to make it perfectly clear that we’re out talking about secret hearings. We’re talking about publicly-filed documents submitted by the companies. We’re talking about representations to the Ontario Energy Board, he they in writing or be they oral, which will be public. None of this is secret at all.

The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), I believe it was, expressed some concern specifically about 37G. I think the point that has to be made here is that one can anticipate, at least in the first few years that allocation plans are set and reviewed, that the board is going to hold public hearings, that there will be no other way around in at all. There will be considerable interest expressed by individuals and by corporate entities.

I think when we get into committee stage and to the point of discussing the guiding principles for allocation which we’re going to propose, members will understand that probably the ones who will be most upset and who say the most will be the industrial consumers in the province.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. minister answer a question at this point?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister says he will.

Mr. Sargent: How would the hon. minister in light of his statement regarding the companies and their treatment, give fair treatment to all concerned when he has a venture capital deal with, say Shell Oil on energy? How does one sort out that deal? There must be preferential treatment for one company when one has a working arrangement with them in venture capital.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has succeeded again in confusing one issue with another. The issue which was raised by his colleague from London-whatever -- next to the jackal from Renfrew North -- had to do with a particular set of projects dealing with uranium exploration.

Mr. Sargent: Listen, don’t get smart.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The point there is that Ontario Hydro is involved in that project since they are the ones in this province who will be the ultimate purchasers of reserves of uranium in the years to come.

There’s nothing here about preferential treatment. All of this is going to be open. Everyone will have the right to be involved, to submit their concerns in writing or to present themselves to the Ontario Energy Board at various points. There is no preference being shown to anyone. It will be a completely open process.

Going on the hon. member for -- I think the name of his riding changed -- is it Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Burr)? He made the point that governments could disclose the information about the pending shortages. Well if the hon. member hasn’t yet received a copy of the report of the National Energy Board, dated April 1975 but released by the government of Canada in July of 1975, I will be glad to send it to him.

In the process of those hearings a number of individual provincial governments in Canada and a number of firms in the private sector, specifically in the natural gas business, presented to the board their arguments about future supplies and demand for natural gas. I might add that Ontario was a very active participant in those hearings, and that in fact the figures which the board finally came out with were almost exactly what our consultants had submitted on our behalf to the board.

But it’s all public. It’s not that all of a sudden, the day before I introduced this bill, we decided there was a potential problem. In fact we’ve been talking about this in this country for several years and this report of the National Energy Board confirmed it in July of this year.

Several members spoke about conservation. Now I am sure we will get into this in my estimates sometime in the next week or so, but I would like to make it --

Mr. Sargent: We can’t wait.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You can’t wait? Well that’s too bad.

Mr. Sargent: You may resign.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: At that time we will get into the activities to date of the Ontario government through the energy management programme and our activities through Hydro to develop new rate structures. The report is being prepared on that right now and will go to the Ontario Energy Board for hearings next year.

We are looking at the question of speed limits. It’s not a cut and dried situation. We have in this province about 800 miles of high speed highways. We have thousands of miles of highways posted at 50, 55 and 60. There is more energy wasted in this province in an hour on a morning in Metropolitan Toronto --

Mr. Haggerty: Why don’t you do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- than in any time, day or week, on those 800 miles of highway.

And we have acted on that. Take a look at the figures of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the subsidies for public transit, both in terms of operating costs and in terms of capital costs. We will be addressing ourselves to that in the near future. I did meet with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources of Canada on Monday morning and this was one of the subjects we discussed.

Mr. Peterson: Why are you always so slow?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sorry, did somebody have something to add?

Mr. Peterson: Are you always so slow to do anything?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Well I suppose that’s the hon. member’s opinion, to which he is entitled. I know how he feels. I have read from some of his speeches in the last few months -- in press clippings -- that everything is so simple it can be solved with the wave of the Liberal magic wand. They are not that simple.

Mr. Haggerty: It proved successful in the United States.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We are committed to energy conservation in this province.

Mr. Peterson: Thank you for the courtesy. I don’t read yours.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If you will compare the record of this government and what we are doing and what we have accomplished to date, and the goal that we have set to reduce the growth in our energy consumption --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. minister would return to the principle of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and in point of fact you will find that no other jurisdiction has gone as far.

Mr. Sargent: We know the record of the government. The “William Davis Hotel” right across the road. It takes a lot of monkeys to eat the peanuts.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am just trying to figure out some of the points of the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson). I think that’s about all. The member for London Centre mentioned, the question of open hearings. I have already answered that point. He talks about secret hearings, secret priorities. There will be nothing secret about any of this.

The member for Riverdale raised an interesting question. That is: why are we proposing this for natural gas and not for oil? There is a very simple answer to that. We get pretty well all of our natural gas from Canada. There are some contracts with American producers and distributors to bring gas into Canada. I can think of one in particular. Panhandle Gas supplies a fair volume of natural gas to Union Gas, which serves the southwestern Ontario area. But by and large whatever natural gas we have in Ontario comes from Canada, mainly from western Canada.

In the case of oil, we do have alternative sources of oil. The hon. member referred to the October 1974 report of the National Energy Board and their comment that in their opinion our domestic supplies of crude oil will fall below our domestic demand by 1982. What that report refers to was put into the context of the national oil policy of 1961. It refers to the fact that all of Canada west of the Ottawa Valley is supplied with crude oil from western Canada. I would suggest that when they release their next report in the next few weeks it will probably he an earlier date than 1982 when they are suggesting that the supplies will not meet the demand.

But we do have an alternative source of supply -- barring such things as the Yam Kippur War and the repercussions of an event like that when everybody will be in a supply pinch. But we can buy offshore, whereas with natural gas we have no alternative. The Americans are in no position to sell any to us. There are parts of the United States that are going to be 60 per cent short of natural gas this winter.

In the last few winters there have been problems that have necessitated the dosing down of some factories, and once in a while, on a particularly cold day, closing a school. It’s going to get to the point this winter in parts of the United States where they’re going to have to consider closing hospitals and cutting supplies for residential use.

I think it was the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mrs. Bryden) who asked why we were bringing in the bill at this time. I think it’s because of the experience of those jurisdictions in the United States which wish that somebody had had the farsightedness to bring in something in their state or in the country years ago. Then they might better have coped with the situation now.

Obviously, if we’re successful in this country in bringing to the marketplace additional quantities of gas -- whether it be from the Mackenzie Delta, the Beaufort Sea, the eastern arctic islands, or for that matter from off the coast of PEI -- although that’s highly improbable at this point -- if we’re successful in bringing that onstream as quickly as possible, with due regard to all the proper concerns about the environment, native claims, economic and so forth, then we may never have to use this legislation.

Pray to God we don’t have to. But I think it would be only the responsible thing for this government to take action now to have a mechanism in place to deal with the problem if, as and when it may arise.

Mr. Sargent: What about the consortium, the five firms?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The hon. member for Riverdale, I think, suggested that at some time recently I had said or inferred we had already come to the point of being short of natural gas. If I have said anything that led the member to think that, I apologize.

Mr. Renwick: No, no. What I said was you were more pessimistic than the National Energy Board.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It’s a personal philosophy with me that --

Mr. Renwick: To be pessimistic.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, to prepare for the worst. If the worst never comes, well fine” that’s a bonus. If it does, you’re ready for it.

The hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) raised the --

Mr. Renwick: I assume that you buckle up with a philosophy like that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, I do. It’s sort of like Murphy’s law, if something can go wrong it will.

The hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk raised the question of the producers in his area. He phoned my office today or yesterday and spoke with my staff and we will be getting back to him.

I think he mentioned a particular producer who is selling at -- I forget the price now, but less than the $1.25 that the local distributor in that area has to pay TransCanada PipeLines. I will get back to the member on that. It is really, I would suggest, not germane to this bill, Mr. Speaker.

[5:15]

He mentions more Ontario production. At the present time Ontario production of natural gas represents approximately, give or take a bit, one per cent of the quantity that we actually use. There are exploration programmes going on all the time in the area east of the Pelee line. But I would be, again, misleading the House if I didn’t answer that point and say I really don’t foresee at this point in any exploration plan I have looked at, the possibility that we’re going to meet much more than that amount of our needs.

The member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) raised some points that -- again he referred to a consortium. I believe that what the hon. member is referring to there -- I don’t recall the names of the companies involved --

Mr. Sargent: There are five companies.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- was the efforts of my predecessor, the present Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), to involve certain firms in the private sector in the financing of heavy water plants to take off the public Treasury the burden, the need to borrow money to finance those plants.

Mr. Sargent: It has wider terms of reference than that. There are $600 million involved.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill nor, for that matter, natural gas, except to the member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: How do we know that?

Mr. Maeck: He just told you.

Mr. Sargent: Who are the companies?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t recall the names of the companies and I’m sure, since the hon. member is a member of the estimates committee, he’ll raise it at that time, some time later this week or next week.

Mr. Sargent: Do you want me to read it out of Hansard?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: Do you want the facts out of Hansard? I’ve got them here.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Send them over to me.

Mr. Sargent: Do you mean to say that as minister, he doesn’t know the five firms which share $600 million of our money? As a minister he doesn’t know that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, this is totally off the subject.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is totally out of order. I will be glad to discuss it with the member in estimates. He is on the estimates committee and we can discuss it at that time.

Mr. Sargent: Are they involved in this bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has indicated that it does not apply to the principle of this bill. I would assume that any further discussion on this would be out of order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, thank you. The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) was concerned --

Mr. Sargent: He doesn’t know what the hell is going on.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- with the question of future supplies. This is of serious concern to us. As it stands now, with the figures the NEB puts forward, we feel we can confidently say that for the next couple of winters there shouldn’t be any problem. If we have a couple more mild winters such as we’ve had recently -- and, hopefully, which this one is shaping up to be -- we could be in a better position than has been suggested.

I’m not in the position, as the Minister of Energy -- nor, I think, is the utility serving the member’s area -- of giving any firm assurance to any industrial complex that the utilities can give them contracts, with absolute 100 per cent deliverability, much beyond the next two or three years. I don’t think that should inhibit any industrial concern -- because, again, assuming we are able to bring frontier gas on stream by the early 1980s, then at most, one hopes, we would face one or two years of a pinch; but not in the long term.

One of the problems, of course, with the utilities in his particular part of the province is they have little or no storage, whereas the companies here in southern Ontario do have considerable storage in such places as the Don field, where they can inject it into the ground and draw it out for peak use.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine asked about curtailment of exports and had we pressed for curtailment of exports. If she will look at the remarks of my predecessor at the National Energy Board, I think on Dec. 9, 1974; if she will look at such things as mv remarks to the Ontario Natural Gas Association -- if she would like a copy I’ll see she gets one -- on Oct. 2 in London, we have agreed with the NEB that there may have to be curtailment of exports.

The federal government has indicated that it will be moving on this. We have indicated that the shortfalls must be shared between our customers and Canada. We are in a situation here where we are trading energy. I suppose that is the way to put it. Oil exports have been cut down considerably and I expect they will be cut down even more, as a result of the October, 1974, report of the National Energy Board. We do anticipate that natural gas will be cut down. But, Ontario, importing 95 per cent of its coal, for instance, from the United States, has to be a little concerned that we don’t take arbitrary -- ruthless I suppose is the word -- moves that put us in jeopardy in terms of contracts like our coal contracts.

We know that most responsible Americans, legislators and the congress of the United States, will understand a gradual cutback, related to our own needs but also recognizing our responsibilities to our customers. We don’t think it should be just cut off automatically. There are implications, which I am sure you have discussed with the Treasurer, on the balance of payments, and also just straight international relations.

You ask if this bill is in some way an attempt to create a climate for the acceptance of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline. No; what we say is that we must bring to the marketplace, at the earliest possible date, with due consideration to the factors which I mentioned before, as much of that frontier gas as is possible. We are going to need it. What we are talking about here is a problem relating to our supplies from conventional sources. What the National Energy Board is saying, what we are saying, what I hope the public will understand, is that looking at supplies from conventional sources, we face the possibility of shortages that will require allocation plans to be put into effect. I think, Mr. Speaker, that would conclude my reply.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to committee?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this bill and one other, will go to a special select committee. Perhaps if we could just stand that down for the moment until we have finished the next bill, then I can introduce a motion constituting the committee to review this bill and the other bill.

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moved second reading of Bill 5, An Act to Regulate Holiday Closings for Retail Businesses.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, if I might just say one or two words about the bill before the opposition speaks. We do have some extra copies; the Clerk of the House has these available. I realize that there are some new members in the House who may not have seen the original green paper. If they will ask the pages to get one for them, they may have one.

I would like to speak for just a moment to the second reading on holiday closing for retail businesses. As most of the members of the House know, Mr. Speaker, back in 1969 the then Attorney General asked the Law Reform Commission to examine the matter of a common pause day. They came out with their report on Sunday observance legislation in 1971. It’s dated 1970, but actually it came before the House in early 1971. The summary of recommendations is contained there on page 371. You will find when you examine this legislation presently before us, that many of the recommendations in that report of the Law Reform Commission have, in fact, been adopted.

Rather than the approach that the original Lord’s Day Act took in 1906 -- it was a federal Act and took a religious approach -- the Law Reform Commission suggested that a secular approach should be taken, and that is the approach, of course, that is embodied in our legislation. The intent of the legislation is to permit as many people as reasonably as possible to enjoy a common pause day.

I can’t help but make reference to this morning’s Globe and Mail. In the editorial it suggested operating six days a week, but six days of week of the operator’s choice. Of course the purpose of this bill is just the opposite to that; not to suggest that everybody should have a one-day holiday each week -- we have already achieved that through other types of legislation -- but that there should be a day when people can holiday together. So as I have said on several --

Mr. Singer: Except for the exceptions, yes.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: So, as I have said on other occasions, that a daughter may go out with her father or a mother and son, even though they are all working in different fields of employment. As I have said, we have taken a secular rather than a religious approach to this.

It is not easy to come up with legislation that is going to be satisfactory to everybody. I have found in speaking to people that most people feel this kind of legislation is good and desirable, but that each person has their own idea of what should be permitted and what should be excluded and how we should go about it.

The Conservative Party suggested in the recent election that legislation for a common pause day would be forthcoming and this is the legislation that is now before us. We believe that it is in the best interests of the majority of people of this province, for various reasons. One reason is cost, of course; and the other is this way of having a day that the majority of businesses will be closed.

I admit that some parts of the legislation are judgment calls, such as the holidays that are put in there. They are the holidays that are listed to comply with the Employment Standards Act. They are arbitrary holidays, that is, the non-Sunday days. Also, the figure of 2,400 sq. ft. is an arbitrary figure and I am ready -- as I am sure all of us will be -- to listen to suggestions from the members as to any reasonable changes they may want to make.

We hope to keep the intent and purpose of this Act as presented intact, but I am interested in hearing the viewpoints of the members. Eventually, when this goes to committee, there may be some common suggestions that the majority of us can agree to for some changes on those arbitrary figures and positions that are included in the bill.

Mr. Breaugh: I think in general the New Democratic Party is quite prepared to accept a principle that is, in some ways, expressed in this particular bill.

I want to document some very general observations on this. But first of all, a kind of apparent need has been well expressed all over the place, both by political parties and politicians in the midst of the last campaign, and perhaps more important by a great many organized and unorganized groups that happen to abound in the province.

It is now a matter of a good deal of controversy with both sides being rather well armed in terms of their own statistics and in terms of expressing their own opinion. It now appears in the form of some silly abuse or other in terms of rather large corporate entities opening rip their stores even though they are prepared to admit that they don’t want to open up those stores, that they lose money when they open up those stores, and that they are really not doing the business they ought to be doing in opening the stores. They are bound and bent that they are going to open the stores anyway; it seems to defy logic in spots.

Let me refer, as the previous speaker has already done, to the results that were tabled by the Ontario Law Reform Commission. It perhaps is one of the most thorough document that you could care to find. The recommendations to the Attorney General at that time contained a good deal of information from must parties. I think you will find there were about 154 written submissions and something like 191 oral submissions to that particular committee at that time.

It perhaps deals with the gist of this particular legislation, even though the submission by the Law Reform Commission is entitled the “Sunday Observance Legislation.” and this one rather neatly calls itself “Holiday Closings for Retail Businesses.” In effect I think it deals with the same substance.

[5:30]

If you like, though, there are some rather substantial differences and perhaps simply from the point of view that the Law Reform Commission was much more thorough in its work and in its findings than this bill is. For example, if I might call your attention to certain sections of the commission report, particularly in section 9, where it deals with something which is neglected in its entirety throughout this bill and that is making very specific references to the Employment Standards Act, to the Municipal Act, and to the Industrial Standards Act. In other words, it deals with the rights of workers in a very explicit way.

One of the most explicit recommendations in that report was to deal with it from that particular perspective, the rights of the workers. In terms of attempting to deal with something that might be called essential services, it also goes on at great length to try to identify those essential services, to express mechanisms whereby you might be able to classify that to allow for some variance in terms of what is sold, and I think it takes a rather informed and intellectual approach to the whole problem. In terms of several other aspects that are expressed in the bill itself, I think you will find that the observations made by that Law Reform Commission make the bill look rather tacky in spots.

Let me deal with this kind of general, simplistic nature that I think is pretty prevalent in this bill. If you like, there are, as the minister implied, a great many arbitrary choices established throughout the entirety of the bill. In terms of goods, it’s a little difficult, for me anyway, to ascertain how the noxious weed got such status that on holidays it must be sold, and on what basis antique shops are open when other shops are not open. There are a great many choices explicitly named in this particular bill, that I think would be rather difficult to defend --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Some of us like them.

Mr. Breaugh: -- other than the fact that maybe historically all those shops have been open. If you go back into the early ones, where you really couldn’t spit on the street on Sunday, and that kind of legislation which seems to be ridiculous in this day and age, we’re very hard pressed to find solid criteria that have been transposed from ancient legislation into what’s before the House today. In terms of the size of particular stores that might be left open, again someone came up with a magic number -- not the magic number that the Law Reform Commission used, but their own magic number. It tends to be somewhat larger than what I would classify as being a small store.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What is your magic number?

Mr. Breaugh: I’ll give you that later when I’m sitting in your chair and you’re sitting over here. That’s the prerogative of the government, you see.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are already planning your leadership campaign? I will have to talk to your leader about you.

Mr. Martel: You should watch the knives, Bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I never have that problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the member for Oshawa continue?

Mr. Breaugh: I think the pertinent point in attempting to view the bill, though, is that the thing is really a classic and pragmatic Toryism. It has loopholes that you could drive a dump truck through -- if you could get leave from the dump truck legislation to drive a dump truck.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With a tarpaulin.

Mr. Breaugh: With a tarpaulin. I’m not sure whether tarpaulins are allowed on Sundays or not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, but they are required on dump trucks.

Mr. Breaugh: In short, I think what we are going to propose with this bill is some destructive surgery, which of course the minister has invited himself, and I think too that there are some obvious places in there. Perhaps we should start at the beginning and say that due to the clever research staff that we have, we have identified that first Monday in September. In most places in Ontario, that would be recognized as what is commonly known as Labour Day. I just offer the services of our research staff to the government benches and you can use that any time you want. I really think that, in deference to the working people of the province, you shouldn’t be too shy about using that particular word.

Mr. Deans: It is traditional.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There is no such thing as Labour Day.

Mr. Deans: There is. We are going to talk about it.

Mr. Breaugh: There are a number of other days that are conspicuously absent here in terms of things that are recognized as being civic holidays, which seem to me to be very legitimate -- the civic holiday in August, the Boxing Day holiday, if you like, and the other one that’s being considered in the Oshawa riding -- Sept. 18, which is about to become another national holiday. We won’t go into that just now.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Your humility is fantastic.

An hon. member: So is his skill.

Mr. Singer: Is he humble enough to be over there with you fellows?

Mr. Breaugh: In terms of some things that I would suggest to the House are rather unfair in terms of this particular legislation, section 2 does a rather neat thing in that it takes an employee of a particular store that would be allowed to be open and makes him subject to a fine of up to $10,000. Having heard the case and having accepted it perhaps in spots that there are a lot of university students and what not who need weekend employment, that is a rather stiff fine for the employee. I wouldn’t want to be the manager of the store that opens up on Sunday if I am the guy who is eligible for the $10,000 fine.

That seems to be something that is at direct odds to what is being expressed by the Law Reform Commission, for example. The minister didn’t make any attempt to establish a variance procedure which I really think he must do in some form or else he is really going to put the retailers into a bit of a fit. It is difficult to find a store now that doesn’t sell a wide variety of goods, whether that is a corner variety stare that is selling tobacco, milk, eggs, nylons and whatever, or whether that is a gasoline station that is probably selling all those things as well and in addition beach balls and lawn chairs and a number of other items. The minister has got some problems there.

In terms of what perhaps is expressed as being the crux of the thing, that the minister would like to be able to leave small family operations at work, he has put in something that is rather difficult. He has made it explicit in terms of the number of employees who are allowed into the store, if you like, in effect saying three of them. That might be rather difficult to ascertain in a family operation in particular. Which one of the kids is going to receive the sentence because he is the fifth kid in the store at that particular moment?

There are some problems, I suggest, in the criteria that the minister has used to establish this. I think the cute one in all of this is that in effect he is saying that in tourist areas municipalities can use that option. I can’t think of a municipality in the Province of Ontario that doesn’t consider itself to be a tourist area. I would welcome the minister to beautiful downtown Oshawa which has beautiful Parkwood and the McLaughlin gallery. It is a tourist area, a very happy one.

Mr. Moffatt: Even Brampton.

Mr. Breaugh: Even Brampton. It has a historical site there. There are a great many tourist areas in the province. In fact, I would guess that if any of them wanted to have some substantiation that they are a tourist area, they simply go to the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), who already has a regional office set up in that area and is probably promoting it rather quickly as a tourist area. There seem to be some rather specific things in here in this particular Act that I think are going to cause problems.

Mr. Lawlor: Is the minister listening?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, sir.

Mr. Martel: Does the minister want to withdraw the bill now or later?

Mr. Breaugh: Another tough one I think ought to be expressed, because it comes right down to the matter of what is the point of it all about. This bill does not propose to say that there is a minimum fine. It does say that there is $10,000 maximum, which certainly would scare anyone, except that in practice what people have been trying to do with municipal bylaws runs into the stumbling block of the minimum fine. Is the minimum fine going to be $5? Is the minister willing to opt that out to somebody else to make that decision or is he prepared to say, as the Law Reform Commission was, that there ought to be a minimum fine that ought to be applicable? Are we going to hit somebody for $10,000 and somebody else for $5,000 and somebody else for $5? Is he purporting to say that small businesses, for example, would be as liable to the $10,000 fine as, say, Loblaws or Dominion Stores?

I think that are certainly, in the reading of the Act, a great many areas that need to be cleaned up, not the least of which is that I am not at all convinced that the government in this particular instance has made much of a case that it really is a pause day. If I might quote the letter from the Seventh Day Adventists, it really is a deodorized bill to take away, if you like, all the smell of being very sectarian legislation. It strikes me that the government really didn’t make much of an attempt at that at all. I think in their letter to the Premier (Mr. Davis) they made the case that surely that great sophisticated government that we have over there could find the ways and means of doing that, that it could turn it into a pause day as opposed to Sunday legislation. In effect, that is what we have got.

We have, without question, a unique opportunity. This is the first House in something like 32 or 33 years where amendments from the other side of the House may actually become law. This may be one of those occasions -- in fact it will be -- where we are going to present some amendments that we think make some sense. We would also offer the government the opportunity to wisen up in the process and present its own amendments first. We are quite prepared to present amendments that might actually carry. It is an interesting phenomenon and one which is causing a Little consternation on this side of the House as well. We are quite prepared to take you on. It might be a most interesting thing. Let me identify some areas that I think we want to see some substantial movement on. We want to see some effort to establish that it is, in fact, a pause day; that it is not, in fact, the old blue laws or Sunday legislation of the 1800s; that it is, in fact, a pause day. It strikes me that can be done.

The second area is in terms of the rights of those people who are employed in those stores, many of whom are not in organized labour unions. They are entirely on their own, and are subject now to some rather loose labour legislation which is quite open to abuse. This puts them in a rather difficult position of complaining and losing their jobs. But if you like, of course, you can spend your time for the next six or eight months arguing that you really shouldn’t have lost it in the first place.

So there has to be some movement in terms of the rights of the working people in those particular areas. Another interesting little side-shot is that you took a small deviation into the area of uniform store hours. One has to read the fine print and check back through the Municipal Act, but you do find that you did stick your foot in that water and we intend to drag your foot in just a hit further in terms of providing some uniform store hours.

One other area where there seems to be, I think, a rather legitimate case for people who are employed on weekends, if you like, or if you like to use the words “occasional help” -- university students, perhaps some housewives, or whatever, who want to work; people who might be unemployed and could get a couple of days employment during the course of a week. It does not mention anywhere in this bill, or even recognize, that they might be classified as occasional help and given some exemptions. Perhaps it might even be a mechanism that will allow some stores to remain open, whereas the majority of them are closed.

Where I think you are going to have some difficulty, and where I think we are going to have to get our heads together, is on this matter of the enforcement of the Act. Current Acts are very difficult to enforce. In fact, if a police officer has a municipal bylaw in his hot little hand, and wants to enforce it on a pause day or Sunday, all he has to do is get the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to agree to it, and then romp around and try to do it.

It poses some very interesting problems in terms of how the bill that is now presented would specifically be enforced. Are we talking about a complaint system to a JP or to a judge? And nine years hence, we find somebody. Are we talking about sending police officers out to measure the 2,400 sq. ft. or are we asking them to write up reports on the contents of the store which, in effect, would mean the police officer would have to take stock? Are we asking the officer, in that particular instance, to make that judgement whether the two kids are actually working that day or just standing around the store? I think we need to find some mechanism in there in terms of enforcing the Act that really does work.

In summary, I think we have accepted that it is great that you actually did something after all this time. And we accept the fact that it is your prerogative to put the bill on the floor of the House and we are also accepting that in this particular House, it is our joy, pain, whatever, to try to provide some amendments. We are quite prepared to do that. I think this may be one of those occasions when you can trot out all your good speeches about accepting the responsibility of making minority government work -- I call your attention to the last line of that phrase, on this side of the House, where possible.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, this debate is very interesting. I enjoyed the remarks of the hon. member for Oshawa and I think he added several important suggestions to the importance of this statute.

I must admit I was very unimpressed with the first efforts of the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) in this regard. I think he has a bad bill, and I don’t know really how some of these answers are going to come forward. This bill relates to a report of the Law Reform Commission that was brought in four years ago or more -- a long, confusing, voluminous report that made very little sense for anybody trying to write a statute out of that report.

Then we had the green paper by the hon. minister’s predecessor, now the hon. member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr). I don’t know what the green paper was supposed to do. The green paper sat firmly and squarely on both sides of the question at the same time and the minister waved it around and said: “Look what a great fellow I am. I have got a green paper that says all about closing on Sundays or not closing on Sundays. It might please some people. It might not please some others.”

Now we have this and I suppose with all its faults, my colleagues and I are going to vote for it in principle because there seems to be a real concern throughout the province about having a day of pause. You don’t make it secular merely because you call it secular. I think the minister makes it religious in the way that he purports to make it secular. I’m going to deal with that in a few moments.

[5:45]

I have a couple of points. The hon. member for Oshawa mentioned the $10,000 fine. I was fascinated to hear the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) or the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) -- I’ve forgotten which one it was -- when he was talking about fines under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Mr. Givens: Two thousand dollars.

Mr. Singer: Apparently, if you have a square footage of 2,410 sq. ft. you can be fined $10,000, but if you break the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act and throw somebody out into the cold, probably on a stormy night when it’s five below zero and there’s 4 ft. of snow, you can only be fined $2,000. That certainly indicates great consistency and intelligence.

If that doesn’t really work, then this is a statute that certainly bothers me as a lawyer. Having gone to all of this trouble to pass a statute and apparently declare a day of pause, we have this section 4, which says that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can exempt anybody it wants for any reason. We go to all of this trouble -- we have had the Law Reform Commission; we have had green papers; we have had great debates; the Solicitor General beat himself on the breast and said: “What a great boy am I” -- then we have a statute that says: “Don’t really pay any attention to it because if we want to, we’ll exempt anybody we want.” Is that any way to pass a meaningful law? I think it’s nonsense.

If the law is going to mean anything, surely it must apply to the people in Ontario with certain minor exemptions or not apply at all. Why do we need a saving clause that says, in effect, “If we find somebody who we feel is being unfairly treated, we can exempt them for whatever reason and we don’t have to come back and consult you people who inhabit the Legislature; we’ll just do it on our own”?

Look at the exemptions. The hon. member [or Oshawa makes a good point. Is the minister going to have policemen running around with tape measures saying, “Ah, 240 sq. ft.” or, “Do you really employ your son, your daughter, and your cousin, who come in on Sundays? That adds up to four and you’re in breach.” We can’t do it. Or is it meaningful that a particular local council has passed a resolution saying, “Leave us alone. We are a tourist resort”?

With all that, there is an idea here, but I don’t think it is well expressed. One of my colleagues was talking to me about some constituents of his who think it might be appropriate to sell fruit after Oct. 31. I don’t really know what difference it makes whether it’s sold on Oct. 31 or Nov. 1, but he’s going to elaborate on that very shortly. A constituent of mine called me the other day and said, “We sell art books. Are those educational or not?”

Hon. Mr. Davis: Art books?

Mr. Singer: Art books, yes -- paintings, masterpieces --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Be careful.

Mr. Singer: Not the kind the Premier is thinking of -- the masterpieces. The constituent said, “People come in and they browse around our store on Sundays; it’s a good day for browsing. They come in and look at our art books. Is that educational or are we breaking this day of pause Act and are we therefore going to be fined perhaps as much as $10,000?” It’s really not clear.

Are we going to have a mechanism whereby somebody can come to the minister and say, “Mr. Minister, because of the peculiar character of my business, give me an exemption under section 4 and will you please pass an order in council for my store, which is at 555 Yonge St. in the city of Toronto”? I don’t know.

I suppose the thing that bothers me most of all is what appears to be prejudice against minority groups. That is, we are saying, “Our day of pause, the Sunday -- which has no religious connotation; it’s secular only, mind you -- must be observed by you no matter whether your religious convictions force you to pause on another day.” There are persons, many of whom I represent and many of whom other members represent -- Orthodox Jewish people, who are Sabbath observers; Seventh Day Adventists; Moslems; Seventh Day Baptists and others -- who have a different kind of a pause day.

There are Seventh Day Baptists; I was surprised to find that out the other day.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just learned something.

Mr. Singer: Why should that particular day of pause, the Sunday, be imposed upon those people?

I have one lady who lives in my riding who is a very religious and proper person. She takes her Jewish religion most seriously. She runs a shoe store. She doesn’t wait until sundown on Friday. She closes it on Friday at noon and has been in the habit up till now of opening it again on Sunday. She says, “Economically, I will now be deprived of one of my most important days of business -- Sunday -- and I cannot continue in business with that kind of restriction.” I single her out particularly because I know this lady and I know that she believes conscientiously in what she is doing and what she does in her business is dictated by her very serious religious convictions.

I say that the minister is unfairly picking on this person or this type of person when he says they must do it the government’s way or not at all. When we discussed this in our caucus one of my colleagues suggested to me that it was really not a religious restriction, it was an economic restriction. I suggested to my colleague -- he’s not here at the moment but he’ll know that I was talking about him -- that it was really a distinction without a difference.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You had better identify which one you are talking about.

Mr. Singer: One in the Liberal Party.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You wouldn’t want to --

Mr. Singer: He’ll come back and he’ll admit it. I’m not sure that he agrees with me but I suggest quite seriously that it was a distinction without a difference. If you pick on someone’s economic right to carry on their business in a way that is going to prejudice them or hurt them, and say it’s got nothing to do with religion, you are in fact making a distinction that is not a difference at all.

I have to agree with the stand the Globe and Mail took in the editorial this morning, which the minister referred to, that minorities are ignored. I suggest that in framing this law so strictly and not recognizing that there are certain minorities who, by reason of their conscientious religious beliefs, are unable to carry on as other people do -- because you’ve chosen a day for them -- you are picking on those people unfairly.

I will at the appropriate time be introducing an amendment that will say something like this -- that section 2 should not apply to people who run retail business establishments which were closed on the preceding Saturday by reason of the religious convictions of their own.

I would hope that the government will accept that amendment because I believe it should be there. I believe that the government does not want to pick unfairly or unreasonably on people, and they have a tough job in bringing this statute in in a manner where people are not going to be picked on.

I know my colleagues are going to have some other ideas, but I was most interested in what is going to be coming forward from the hon. member from Oshawa and his colleagues. Hopefully we are going to have a statute that we can have a little pride in, not one that is rotten with exceptions and inequitable to certain minorities. We don’t want to prejudice any minority groups in this province or have an unreasonable penalty that can apply unfairly. Neither do we want a statute that turns policemen into -- what? -- building inspectors or employee counters or what have you.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, my colleagues and I are going to support the bill in principle, but we are looking forward to going to committee -- standing committee or outside committee -- I think the House leader called it a select committee. Let us listen to the various people who have views on this. Hopefully we can emerge with a bill which in detail is much better than the one we have before us.

Mr. Ziemba: I too would support this bill to regulate holiday closings for retail businesses. I recognize its intent. I only regret, as my colleague from Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) did, that it doesn’t go further and impose reasonable limits on the hours that retail stores carry on business. We intend, however, to move an amendment to this bill when it comes to committee.

In this province we have seen the coming of what is referred to as the continental retail work week which makes no distinction between individual days of the week. We have come a long way in working conditions, Office and factory hours are becoming shorter and shorter. Retail hours, on the other hand, are becoming longer and longer. Holidays have become meaningless in the retail trade. They are simply “Big Sale Days.”

We live in a consumer-oriented society. It is a fact that shopping is considered by some people to be a form of recreation and in the US, for instance, there are many stores open 24 hours a day, seven days a week -- we’re getting some here now -- for a Los Angeles-type atmosphere of retail activity.

I realize that some customers may want to shop at odd hours, on Sundays and holidays and it is true if a store caters to their whims it may do a good business for a time. Competition has always been composed of price, advertising, quality of goods and service. Lately we’ve seen the introduction of a new competitive device -- shopping hours.

The advantage however, is only temporary. Once all stores open at these odd hours, no advantage remains. They all do the same amount of business only it is spread over a longer period of time. The extended hours of selling simply decrease the efficiency of an operation and the extra costs are charged to the customer.

This was the case when trading stamps were introduced a few years ago. The first stores which offered them did a whale of a business. The other merchants quickly joined in and the competitive advantage of the stamps disappeared. Only the added costs remain.

It is the same with extended hours of selling. When all the stores are open -- and this is a coming trend -- no advantage will remain. All the stores will simply do the same business over longer operating hours. The obvious result is less productivity per hour of opening, increased costs and reduced efficiency. The customer ends up paying more.

Legislating Sunday and holiday closings without legislating hours for the rest of the week, however, would be a mistake. The same stores which are opening on Sundays now would simply extend their weekdays and the same cycle would repeat itself. More overhead, more hardships for the retailers, more inflation.

It would be a bigger mistake to empower municipalities to regulate store hours and I say this knowing that my friends at the rear of the House, the third-party members, might take issue with my rejection of a home-rule concept. A patchwork type of regulation all over the province would be futile. Councils would compete with one another to attract retail developments by offering extended-hour operation. We would have, in bordering municipalities, one side of the street controlled by a bylaw and the other not.

The Conservative government in the past has always legislated in favour of the monopoly operations. The giants in retailing are getting bigger and bigger and small independents face ever-increasing problems just to survive. We saw the large food chains -- the Loblaws, the Dominions -- squeeze out the corner grocer in the 1950s, and the neighbourhood pharmacist faces the same fate today.

In 1962, we had 1,907 pharmacies and in 1974, last year, there were only 1,558 left. They are being replaced by the giant drug chains, like the Shoppers Drug Mart people. The College of Pharmacy, which is supposed to be protecting these small independents, turns its back on them by permitting the chains to locate right next door in some cases to the small independent. As the competition is forced out of business, higher drug prices will follow as the food monopolies demonstrated so well when they got rid of their competition, the corner grocer.

The College of Pharmacy, without any apparent research or evidence -- for instance evidence of abuse -- persuaded the Ontario government to amend the Health Disciplines Act in July, 1975, to declare vitamins above a certain moderate dosage to be drugs. It further ruled that these vitamins above the minimal strength would require that a pharmacist be present for consultation, essentially giving the sale of the vitamins, which are considered a component of any nutritious food, to pharmacists. This legislation, once enforced, would drive 250 small neighbourhood health food stores out of business.

Who would benefit? Not the small pharmacy -- that’s the first thought I had. I’ve since checked it out. I found that because of a shortage of necessary glass-enclosed space for display of this new vitamin stock, as well as the extra cash register that the new Act suggests, they’re not really interested in the sale of the vitamins. They don’t have the facilities or the means; they are busy with their other business.

On the other hand, Shoppers and the Top Drug Mart people do have the facilities and they are quite willing and able to take over the vitamin business. I have always been amazed at how the government could legislate in this way and at the same time pretend it is all for the free enterprisers and the small businessman.

I believe that section 3, subsection (c) of Bill 5 should apply to the large drug chains to limit their Sunday and holiday selling. In other words, the total floor area used for the serving of the public, or the selling or displaying of goods to the public in an establishment, is less than 2,400 sq. ft. I don’t believe that Shoppers Drug Mart operates stores of less than 4,000 sq. ft. in Metropolitan Toronto, and I’d like to see them closed at those times.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would this be a convenient place for the member to break his remarks? He may continue after the dinner hour.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.