Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

SARNIA FIREMEN’S ARBITRATION AWARD

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to supply the following statement concerning the Sarnia firemen’s arbitration award:

Pursuant to the arbitration provisions in the Fire Departments Act, an award providing for a 20 per cent increase retroactive to January, 1975, has been made in favour of the full-time firefighters in the city of Sarnia. The municipality became obliged to implement this award on Friday, Dec. 8. 1975. It appears that the maximum allowable increase under the Anti-Inflation Act guidelines is 11.4 per cent; and the City of Sarnia has proceeded to pay this amount.

I am advised that the firefighters have instituted legal proceedings to enforce payment of increases to the full extent of the arbitration award.

I have been asked to comment on the relationship between the requirements of the provincial law, which makes this arbitration award binding upon the parties and the operation of the Anti-Inflation Act guidelines at this point in time. I would like to underline the latter.

Mr. Renwick: At what point in time?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Although the Anti-Inflation Act is now law in Canada and everybody has been requested to comply voluntarily, its enforcement provisions will not come to bear with respect to the public sector in Ontario until such time as the agreement to that effect has been executed between the governments of Ontario and Canada.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister said that wasn’t necessary.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The arbitration award in question will be subject, ultimately --

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister said that wasn’t necessary.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- to the requirements of the Anti-Inflation Act. If the award is found to be in excess of the applicable guidelines, the Act empowers the administrator to make appropriate orders to enforce compliance with the guidelines. Accordingly, I’m of the view that the municipality is obliged, at this time, to comply with the terms of the arbitration award and thereby pay the increase agreed upon.

When the enforcement provisions of the Anti-Inflation Act come into effect in Ontario, an order rolling back the excess may be made by the administrator. Thank you.

Mr. Bullbrook: That is just a complete reversal of what the minister said last week.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bullbrook: It certainly is.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would suggest the hon. member opposite check Hansard, Mr. Speaker.

DRINKING DRIVERS

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in the House today a report by a special interministerial committee proposing new counter measures against drinking driving in Ontario.

As many of us are aware, prosecutions under the Criminal Code for impaired driving, refusal to take a breathalyser test or having a reading over the legal limit of 0.08, have not significantly reduced cur drinking-driving problem. Death and injuries have continued to escalate.

The present system has three main drawbacks. First, the police officer must have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the driver is impaired. This places a very great onus on the officer and may dissuade further action in cases where an investigation may be warranted.

Secondly, the breathalyser machine is a complex instrument which requires a trained technician located at the station, and not at the roadside. The policing time involved is, therefore, greatly increased, acting as a further disincentive to arrest as well as adding to the cost of law enforcement.

Finally, the 0.08 legal limit is obviously somewhat arbitrary when applied across the driving population as a whole. Extensive scientific evidence indicates that a large percentage of the driving public is dangerous when the complex task of operating a vehicle is combined with blood-alcohol levels which are below 0.08.

Clearly, a new approach is needed. The report I am tabling today may offer part of the solution. Among other things, it recommends a 24-hour licence suspension on suspicion that the driver has been drinking “in such quantity as to affect the driver’s physical or mental ability.”

It also recommends random roadside checks by police officers without prior warning or evidence of drinking driving; a public education programme designed to inform drivers of the implications of drinking driving and the significantly improved chances of being caught by a random roadside check.

Mr. Speaker, programmes of this nature are already in operation in Alberta and British Columbia, where major benefits have been noted, including: Better detection of drinking drivers before they are involved in accidents; a flexible system of getting them off the road quickly without the necessity of highly involved criminal proceedings; more effective prevention as more motorists become aware of the implications of drinking driving.

The report also notes several weaknesses in the Alberta and BC programmes. In particular, these provinces have found it somewhat difficult to enforce 24-hour suspensions and to ensure that the programmes do present some difficulties in laying criminal charges where such charges are appropriate.

The Ontario report proposes impounding car keys or vehicles to ensure compliance with licence suspensions. It also recommends training programmes and adequate instructions to police officers to assist them in recognizing a drinking driver, at the same time distinguishing those cases which should be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. The report also suggests that unlike the other two provinces, a central record of 24-hour suspensions be maintained as part of the current system of licence review. Repeat offenders could then be made subject to tougher penalties by provincial authorities.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting report, worthy of examination by the House and the public at large. I hope it will earn general support. In the next several weeks I will be reviewing these recommendations with my officials and my colleagues to determine the most effective approach. There can be no mistaking the seriousness of the problem posed by the drinking driver. We must be prepared to get tougher. I know that all members of the House share our concern.

EXPOSURE STANDARDS FOR RADON IN AIR

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, over the past few days there has been quite proper concern expressed through questions in the House and articles in the press about the radiation levels in the schools in the Port Hope area.

In the last couple of days I have said that I would like to consider the value of releasing the data that was obtained before doing it and, in fact, yesterday suggested that I talk to certain members of this Legislature about it.

I have had an opportunity to consider it over the past 24 hours and have concluded that in fact this information should be available and I will table it today. I would like to refer to it briefly at this point, and I would also like to give this bit of background information, that the normal naturally-occurring concentration of radon in the atmosphere are in the order of one picocurie per litre, depending on location and weather conditions. Everyone breathes these concentrations all the time, without discernible harm.

For people designated as atomic radiation workers who are exposed to radon in their working environment 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, the maximum allowable average concentration is 30 picocuries per litre. By averaging, it is intended that this figure may be exceeded, pro rata, for exposures of shorter duration than a full 40-hour work week. No ill-effects have been observed in workers in such an exposure regime for many more years than children spend in grade school.

For members of the public who are not classified as radiation workers -- and this would include school staff and children, of course -- a limit of three picocuries per litre is used as an indicator of the need for control action. However, concentrations of up to three picocuries per litre and even higher sometimes occur unavoidable in concrete buildings simply because of naturally-occurring radium in the earth’s crust and in building materials.

Most of the areas giving the high readings are in places not occupied for long periods by the children. This is in the school. It is on this basis, plus the experience of radiation workers with much higher exposures, that we assert that the children are at no significant risk.

I would like to refer to the figures, if I may, and give you the order or magnitude. In the school classrooms all figures but one were below 10. In fact, that one was 16 on one day. The next day we checked it -- one day later -- it was 0.3, to give an indication of the rate of change that it went through.

The rooms that showed the highest concentration were the main floor janitors’ storage at 13; a staff room, which one day was 12 and the next day was 0.6; the principal’s office, which one day was 12 and the next day was 2; the auditorium or gym, which appears to be the worst --

Mr. Sargent: What is the safe ratio?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have read that to you.

Mr. Sargent: We can’t hear you back here.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The auditorium or gym, which appears to be the worst, was 23 on one day and 18 on the next; and the auditorium below the stage -- which is obviously an area that a child would never be in -- at 27; the girls’ change-room had a level of 30; and the kitchen off the auditorium on one date was 63 -- which was the worst reading -- 58 on the second date, 17 on the third date.

That will give people a concept of where in the school the problems resulted and the relative level of those. I’ll table that with the House.

One more thing before I sit down, if I may. It is our intent to ask co-operation with the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to have a special instrument mounted on a vehicle --

[2:15]

Mr. Nixon: What corporation?

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- and driven through the streets of the local area in an attempt to identify unsuspected areas within the community which have a high level.

Mr. Moffatt: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: On a point of order.

Mr. Moffatt: The minister was obviously referring to questions raised in the House, and since it is of urgent public importance I would ask that you might request the minister to table the entire report with regard to the areas which are not confined to the particular school, as his report seems to be.

Mr. Speaker: That is not really a point of order. You might raise that question during the question period, I think, appropriately.

Oral questions.

EXPOSURE STANDARDS FOR RADON IN AIR

Mr. Deans: The Minister of Health has heard the comment of my colleague. Is the minister prepared to table all the documentation, not only with regard to the school but in regard to all the surrounding area as it applies to the dumping of radioactive materials?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I believe it is not my privilege to do so. It is my understanding that in regard to private homes I have not got the right to release the information. I will be glad to get a legal opinion on that.

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, is it not possible that with the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Health co-operating, we could have some kind of comprehensive report about this problem, which has only come to the surface in a public way in the last couple of days or week but has gone on for a number of years? The Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food have been involved with this problem over an ongoing period of time. It seems to me that we can expect --

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Moffatt: The question is: Will the minister co-operate with those other ministries to table a full and comprehensive report about the Port Hope, Hope township and Port Granby areas where all of this has taken place?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to talk to the other ministers about this and see what steps need to be taken.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary: I wonder if the minister could explain to the House why there are no possibilities of testing the young people, the teachers and the caretakers involved in the school for possible radiation contamination? Is there any programme of testing that his experts are considering?

Hon. F. S. Miller: In an area like this I obviously have to depend upon information given to me because I don’t know firsthand what kind of tests can be done. It is simply this: Experts tell me there is no testing that can be done to determine any problem. It is not a question of going around with a Geiger counter, for example, and determining if a person is carrying an above normal level of radioactive substance. That is not the issue.

Mr. Nixon: Why not, if they have been breathing in radons?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Simply because it does not happen that way, I am told. I am just trying to point this out to you. The medical people tell me there are no tests available.

Mrs. Campbell: A supplementary: Has the minister any report on any examination of those who have been in that school during the period to table in this House? Is he going to conduct such an inquiry?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Even if I had a report on an individual I am sure the hon. member knows I could not table information about an individual.

Mrs. Campbell: All right; exclude the name.

Mr. Deans: But it doesn’t only concern those people; it concerns the entire population.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The individual’s report is the individual’s own right to release not mine.

Mr. Moffatt: You could exclude the name.

Mr. Roy: You could ask.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Secondly, I don’t have any such reports to begin with.

Mr. Speaker: We will allow another supplementary.

Mr. Bounsall: A final supplementary: I can understand why the minister can’t have a report on someone who has been exposed to it over the past but until the ventilation system or whatever it is is finally cleared up, has he considered the possibility, at least for those persons in the school, of wearing radiation cards so one can check in the future what their exposure has been from this time on?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That may, of course, become necessary and as the member knows we do that in certain high risk areas in industry. I am quite willing to consider it if it is of use. I think we will have to look at the levels we find established after Christmas. I can assure the member that we will be monitoring the area very carefully until we are satisfied that no risks exist and then we will decide if that is useful.

Mr. Deans: A question for the Attorney General: Does the Attorney General know of any legal impediment which might restrict the Minister of Health from revealing this information which could have an adverse effect on not only the people involved but the entire community?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, I know several, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Moffatt: What are they?

Mr. Deans: Would the Attorney General care to tell the House what they might be?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: A number of them would relate to all the circumstances related to the taking of the tests and --

Mr. Renwick: How could you say there are several impediments when you don’t know what they are?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Well, consent is one. It has already been mentioned.

Mr. Renwick: There is no application to consent.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: Everyone is telling me they don’t have to be identified. Maybe the Attorney General could consider that.

A question of the Minister of the Environment: Is the Minister of the Environment currently conducting any tests in the area and if so, what are the tests, in what areas are they being conducted, and does he intend to make the findings public?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, our Peterborough office industrial abatement staff regularly monitors air and water emissions from the Eldorado plant, as well as submitting water samples to the Ministry of Health labs for radioactivity analysis. We are also monitoring ground and ground water runoff in the vicinity of the plant’s landfill sites. Our cooling water effluent has been monitored regularly since about 1967 and the landfill sites themselves are checked about six times a year. So far, the sampling indicates that the plant itself and the areas which we have monitored are meeting our requirements for emissions and effluent.

Mr. Deans: Could the minister explain how it could be that the landfill sites are monitored six times a year and yet this project was permitted to go forward on land which evidently is emitting radioactive levels far higher than those acceptable in this community?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I think the hon. member realizes that this particular school had been built long before the date I gave as far as monitoring was concerned. It is also important to remember that the Atomic Energy Control Board has the responsibility of looking after the site and of all the monitoring and checking as far as emissions and effluents and the concern about health is concerned. This is their responsibility. In conjunction with our monitoring, we assume that they have been meeting this responsibility and --

Mr. Deans: You assume that they have? They obviously haven’t. How can you assume they have when they obviously haven’t?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We are assuming that the monitoring that we are talking about, that is a responsibility of the federal government, has been done. The information we have now is that there may be levels that are higher than they should be. This is a result of monitoring by the federal government.

DRINKING DRIVERS

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Attorney General. Now that the federal government is abdicating its responsibilities -- or moving out of the field, I suppose is better -- with regard to the suspensions, disqualifications and whatever in the matter of driving while drunk or impaired, is the Attorney General prepared to move out of the glare of the cameras into the Legislature and produce legislation for this House to deal with?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have indicated our intention to do that. I should also say, Mr. Speaker, that at this moment I am hopeful at least that the federal government is not going to abdicate its responsibility, as put by my friend, in relation to driving suspensions. I have communicated with the Minister of Justice as recently as this week and I understand the matter is still under consideration.

Mr. Deans: Is it not true that those matters are currently before the federal House under Bill C-71?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am advised by the federal Minister of Justice that Bill C-71 will not be passed before the new year.

Mr. Deans: Given that it won’t be passed before the new year, is it possible then for the Attorney General to put before this House in some form a legislative proposal that can be dealt with, in order that we won’t have to go to the public forever and make statements to them about our intent but never have to fulfil our obligations, as the Attorney General is wont to do?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: My friend opposite should be aware of the fact that the criminal laws are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Perhaps his friend, the hon. member for Riverdale, would like to give him a little constitutional lecture and then we would be pleased to discuss it further.

Mr. Renwick: By way of supplementary question --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe we should give the first supplementary to the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Yes, supplementary: I would like to ask the Attorney General why he leaves the members here with the impression that that jurisdiction is left with the federal government? Does he not realize that under the Highway Traffic Act he could impose any suspension he wanted, if he decided to do so? Why does he leave the impression with the House that he is waiting for the feds to do something? He has full jurisdiction now.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there an answer?

Mrs. Campbell: Well why? Answer it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I didn’t hear a question. I heard a brief leadership speech but not a question.

Mr. Nixon: That’s not the answer. He said: Aren’t you aware?

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: Next you’ll be making leadership speeches.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the member place a brief question?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: An intelligent question would be answered.

Mr. Bullbrook: It was a good question, and you know it was a good question.

Mrs. Campbell: You just don’t have the answers.

Mr. Cassidy: So now you heard it, eh?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. minister have an answer?

Mr. Edighoffer: He wasn’t much good in hockey either.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We recognize the fact that in the Highway Traffic Act we can provide for suspensions under the Act. But our position has been, and will be, that it makes a good deal of sense for the trial judge -- as the member should know -- who actually hears the case to make the proper determination as to what should be the suspension in the circumstances.

Mr. Bullbrook: It’s been going on for 10 years and you’ve done nothing about it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale with a supplementary.

Mr. Renwick: I have a supplementary question. My colleague and I always consult about matters related to the relevant jurisdictions of this Legislature and the federal House --

An hon. member: Speak up.

Mrs. Campbell: Can we hear?

Mr. Renwick: I say to the Attorney General, since Bill C-71 specifically eliminates the power of a judge on a conviction for any of the offences related to impaired driving, or driving of any kind, what request has he made to the Hon. Ronald Basford, the Minister of Justice in Ottawa, with respect to the insertion or the re-insertion in Bill C-71 of some responsibility for the federal government? How does that tie in with the report, and the minister’s intended actions in this Legislature with respect to driving on the highways of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: First, Mr. Speaker, we have made a request -- I’ve made the request personally on several occasions to Mr. Basford -- that the Criminal Code retain the right for a provincial court judge, in exercising the jurisdiction of a magistrate, to impose suspensions, indeed beyond the three-year period which is presently in the Code.

With respect to the report that has just been tabled in the House, there are provisions in Bill C-71 related to roadside screening which are of some importance. I gather from talking to the Minister of Justice within the last 24 hours that those provisions are receiving somewhat of a rocky road through the House at the moment and the legislation will not be finalized until sometime in the new year.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary; the member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Singer: Did I understand the Attorney General correctly that if the federal government does certain things he is prepared to recommend that this Legislature remove from the Highway Traffic Act all those suspension provisions that are presently there; notwithstanding the fact they’ve been there for many years, and seem to be working quite well? They’re not discretionary and seem to be working quite well in Ontario now.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: At no time have I said any such thing or made any such suggestion. Nor have I, in my view, left that impression with any reasonable listener.

Mr. Sargent: You’re getting like McKeough.

Mr. Riddell: You must get your shirts laundered at the same place.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Wentworth wished to ask a question.

KOKOTOW LUMBER LTD.

Mr. Deans: A question for the Premier: Does the Premier recall answering a telegram from the Kirkland Lake Chamber of Commerce with regard to the Kokotow mill; and can he take this House into his confidence and tell us what brings him to feel that mill will be saved and in what way will it be saved?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ll have to get a copy of the telegram; I’ll be delighted to give that to the hon. member tomorrow.

Mr. Deans: Has the Premier not had the benefit of seeing the headline in the Northern Daily News, which says “Davis Confident Mill Will Return”?

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

Mr. Deans: I’m sorry, but you sit so far away. Try another seat.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can assume no responsibility for headlines. I wish I could.

Mr. Deans: It takes it out of the Premier’s telegram.

Mr. Speaker: We will allow a supplementary.

Mr. Bain: When the Premier replies to the pre ions question, could he also tell us whether or not he is aware that the two companies at least which are willing to buy Kokotow’s have said the operation would not be feasible unless the government is willing to guarantee 40 million bd. ft. for the mill per year as an absolute minimum; and that’s what the holdup is right now in getting a new buyer?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I certainly would be delighted to have that information. That sort of determination is not made by me. As I said to the acting leader of the member’s party, I will be delighted to bring him a copy of the telegram tomorrow. I will take as information that statement made by the hon. member representing that part of the province of Ontario and what he feels is a solution to a part of the problem.

ELDORADO DUMP AT PORT HOPE

Mr. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Since his own figures, now to be tabled, indicate that the levels, at least part of the time, in the school at Port Hope are seriously above that which is generally deemed to be acceptable even in the workplace, has he any plan to order the closing of the school or its relocation, as has happened in other jurisdictions when situations like this have occurred?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I emphasized in my brief comments beforehand that the level was in the kitchen and that the classroom areas, with the exception of the gymnasium, were not really high by a lot of standards. We are putting in better ventilating equipment, I am told. The school will be tested and I can assure the member if it isn’t satisfactory our staff will recommend its closure.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Is he concerned that the level of acceptable radiation from, let us say, the Bureau of National Standards in Washington, would indicate that what is being permitted in that school, over a large number of years now -- and it must have been going on since the school was built

-- can have very serious and long-range detrimental effects? The minister’s own indication that it varies from very high levels in parts of the school, somewhere around 60 picocuries -- whatever they are -- down to something less than one, indicates we really don’t know what the dangers are and that the minister must accept some of the responsibility for protecting the kids and the teachers.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I tried to point out that radiation is an accumulative poison. One has to absorb a certain quantity of it, and not necessarily over a certain period of time, for it to be considered hazardous, unless one is exposed to very high levels, this is what I’m told.

It has been the opinion of staff who have checked it that two or three things apply: the levels in any given spot appear to vary considerably; they are considerably above desirable levels in many places; the duration of exposure of children in those rooms of high rate would be very low. Therefore they came to the conclusion that the risk per child was so close to zero as to be virtually negligible.

We will continue to monitor it and if I’m not satisfied or my staff isn’t satisfied on my behalf, members can rest assured we would take action.

Mr. Godfrey: Supplementary: Does the Minister of Health now have plans to do a follow-up study epidemiologically of the children who obviously have been exposed; in small amounts it is true, over the last X years.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The hon. member is a doctor. He’ll know more about epidemiological surveys than I will. I would suspect there are a lot of epidemiological surveys upon people with much higher concentrations than this particular group upon which to base our conclusions.

I’m quite willing to listen to reason. I’m just saying that I don’t know, maybe the member does know. If he does know, that’s fine. I’m willing to listen to the advice I get from my staff as to the need to do some of these surveys. I’m glad to act on that when it is given to me.

CHARGES BY ANAESTHETISTS

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he is aware that at Scarborough General Hospital, since Oct. 8, all 12 of the approved anaesthetists place in the hands of their patient the morning before an operation notice that OHIP covers only 60 per cent of that particular charge? Is he aware that under our provincial laws no anaesthetists can practise there except on approval of the hospital board, that none of them will accept the OHIP levels; and, therefore, they are running a cartel which is surely not to the benefit of those patients who want to use that public facility?

Hon. F. S. Miller: While I am not specifically aware of Scarborough General’s anaesthetists, I am aware that the specialists at times have done this in hospitals and I do not like the practice. I clearly state that.

Mr. Reid: What are you going to do about it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I put them at risk; when they start playing games like that, they are asking for government action.

Mr. Reid: How long are you going to wait?

Mrs. Campbell: Such as what?

Mr. Cassidy: Be specific.

Mr. Nixon: I feel the minister’s answer is a valuable one. What kind of action? Is it possible the policy will be that properly qualified doctors will have access to these public hospitals without going through this fine-mesh screening which has been so much to the preferment of certain specific practitioners?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Oh come on now. The member is dragging another red herring in and he knows it.

Mr. Shore: There’s no red herring there.

Mr. Nixon: What are you going to do about it? What can you do?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can do a number of things. One thing I’m assured of -- and I’ll check in this particular instance -- is that when a general practitioner or other physician has recommended a patient go to an opt-out physician and the patient could not afford that differential, it has never been charged. I’ll cheek on that in this particular instance.

SARNIA FIREMEN’S ARBITRATION AWARD

Mr. Nixon: I’d like to put a question to the Attorney General. Further to his statement on the situation involving arbitration payments to the Sarnia firefighters, did he not change his position in his statement today from that which he enunciated a week ago, when he indicated that in fact the payment would now depend upon the signing of a suitable agreement handing over to the government of Canada the responsibilities that this government has had and continues to have in this particular area?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I am quite confident that I did not. I certainly had not intended to say anything different and I’m really quite certain that I did not.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Can he assure people such as myself and my colleague the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) and others, who are concerned about the constitutionality of this government simply saying to the government of Canada that it may take over our responsibilities, that he has out assured the Premier (Mr. Davis) and his cabinet colleagues that such an agreement does not require the authorization of this sovereign Legislature, when obviously it does?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: At no time have we said to the government of Canada that they are going to take over any of our constitutional responsibilities.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary, if I may: Let us please stop playing games with this most important issue. I ask two supplementaries of the Attorney General. First of all, has the minister advised his cabinet colleagues that an agreement is not required as to the surrendering of this government’s statutory rights and responsibilities in the light of the enactment of C-73? Second, if there is to be an agreement containing a constitutional ramification or abdication, is it the Attorney General’s opinion as chief law officer of the Crown that he must come to this assembly and secure its legislative approval and enactment? I want an unequivocal answer to these questions.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, there’ll be no playing of any games on this side of the House.

Mr. Bullbrook: You are. Do you want me to read from last week’s Hansard for you?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon minister is replying to the question.

Mr. Yakabuski: He’s not talking about a hockey game either.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I must say that at this time, in a matter of national emergency, political game-playing should not be played on either side of the House --

Interjections.

Mr. Bullbrook: Right. On a point of order --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- and that is exactly what’s going on.

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order. Do you hear me, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. What’s the point of order?

Mr. Bullbrook: My point of order is the imputation of motives to me never proven.

Some hon. members: Oh.

Mr. Bullbrook: You see, they don’t understand what that is, and it’s parliamentary procedure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You people do it all the time.

Mr. Bullbrook: For eight weeks, sir, pursuant to my point of order, I’ve been asking this government where it is going in this most important field; and for eight weeks -- my colleagues who are lawyers agree -- we’ve been going full circle. That’s why I want the questions answered. There’s no gamesmanship about this. The federal government is as bad as you people are.

An hon. member: Worse.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Does the hon. minister have answers to the questions that were asked?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: To answer the question as I recall it; yes, I have advised my colleagues that it is possible to enter into an agreement with the federal government with respect to the implementation of its anti-inflation programme in Ontario, and that it does not require formal legislation in this House.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Nixon: I’d like to ask my usual question of the Minister of Education. What has he got to report on the continuing strike in Metropolitan Toronto? Is he still prepared to say simply that we must wait on the good offices and abilities of the mediators who have now been working behind closed doors for these many days?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think my answer is the same as yesterday; the mediators are still working at the Royal York and, as far as I am aware, the mediation is continuing.

Mr. Nixon: Can the minister advise us if the commission is holding any hearings, as is its legal responsibility, as to whether, at this stage, the educational future of the students is in any jeopardy?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe the commission is holding any hearings. They are receiving briefs on this particular matter.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Has the minister asked them for any advice in this regard, since it would seem to be simply common sense that the strike is now having a serious, deleterious effect on the education of the students?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have not asked them for any particular advice on this matter, because I know they are doing their job, they are receiving briefs and they are in communication with the parties in this particular matter. I wish my friend, who is great at standing up and asking questions, would tell us exactly what he thinks should be done. Does he want to see these teachers legislated back at this time? Tell us that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary question, if you will permit it: Is the minister not aware that the stand this party has taken it that we would have implementation of wage and price controls in this province, with a provincial implementation board, so that the Minister of Education would have some direct input and not absolutely abdicate his responsibility, as he has done?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not going to solve anything.

Mr. Nixon: I would say to the Premier that he should find another word than silly. I know he’s got a lot of them and it doesn’t become him.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, it is silly.

Mr. Yakabuski: All things to all people, Bob.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have further questions? Is there an answer?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would just like to say to my friend that I think he is probably asking me these questions because he is embarrassed by one of the leadership contenders in his party who has flow put that party firmly on the record as being opposed to teachers’ strikes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Just one moment. May I just point out that the leadoff questions, with their supplementaries, have flow taken up 27 minutes of the question period?

Mr. Nixon: Yes, seven minutes for us.

Mrs. Campbell: Who took them up?

Mr. Speaker: No, really; with many of the questions being repeated day after day we have to give these other members who wish to ask questions the opportunity. Does the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk have a further question?

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you suggesting that it is perhaps repetitive for me to ask the Minister of Education about this strike? Would you care to clarify your comment?

Mr. Speaker: Well we allow repetitive questions, but please, I would ask that you keep it within reason because there are other members who wish to ask questions.

Are there further questions?

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think you are keeping careful time here. I think the question period started at 2:10 --

Mr. Speaker: The question period started at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: You asked me, sir, to ask questions later than 2:20 p.m.; and under your direction, of course, I turn over the floor to whomever you choose.

Mr. Speaker: This is the question period. If the member has further questions, fine.

Mr. Nixon: I have no more questions at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Correctional Services has the answer to a question.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: State your point of order, please.

Mr. Roy: The point of order is that the minister made a statement about a leadership candidate being opposed to teachers to us which member of the caucus is against that?

Mr. Nixon: The silly statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Thank you. I think we can keep the political remarks out of the question period.

Mr. Nixon: Why don’t you bring it to his attention?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am making that remark to the whole assembly, not just to part of it.

Mr. Cassidy: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have called on the Minister of Correctional Services. Your point of order is what?

Mr. Cassidy: If the minister’s reply is to the question of the member for Peterborough (Ms. Sandeman), could he possibly wait for a day until she is back in the House?

Hon. J. R. Smith: This can wait until tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

[2:45]

MERCURY LAMP HAZARDS

Hon. F. S. Miller: On Nov. 25, the hon. member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Burr) asked me a question concerning mercury lamp hazards.

Under conditions of improper use, high-pressure mercury vapour lamps can be a source of damaging levels of ultraviolet radiation. To achieve sufficient strength at high operating temperatures, the arc is usually contained in a quartz tube. Quartz is very transparent to ultraviolet radiation. Consequently, the strong ultraviolet component of the output from the high-pressure mercury arc is available outside the arc containment tube.

However, such lamps are often manufactured with a second protective glass envelope and then installed in a fixture consisting of a further glass enclosure. Hazardous levels of ultraviolet radiation will be emitted only if the outer fixture and protective glass envelope are broken without damaging the quartz tube. Safety is mainly a question of careful maintenance.

Even if the lamps are damaged, as they are designed for flood illumination in parking lots, arenas and commercial establishments the emitted energy is spread over a large area. For members of the general public, direct eye and skin exposures are further limited as there is little cause or need to look directly at the lamps for an extended period of time. In industrial applications, individual situations are dealt with on the basis of intensity and exposure duration, and protective goggles, masks and clothing are recommended as required.

A few incidents have occurred recently outside of Ontario in gymnasia where the protective glass has been broken but the lamp has continued to function. Under these conditions, people playing indoor sports such as volleyball or basketball, with reason to be looking upward, have suffered sunburn and inflammation of the sensitive lining of the eyelids and the cornea.

The problems will not arise if damaged lighting units are repaired or replaced promptly.

I’ve read that answer at the request of the member.

Mr. Burr: A supplementary. Since the health hazard exists whenever the outer protective bulb is broken and only prompt replacement of the whole lamp can end the hazard, would it not be advisable to follow the Food and Drug Administration’s recommendation that these mercury lamps be redesigned so that whenever the outer protective bulb is broken the whole lamp ceases to function and thereby presents no health hazard?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion sounds sensible. I have no idea of the engineering costs involved in the process but I’ll be glad to have some of my staff tell me what they think of it.

BELL CANADA INVESTIGATION

Ms. Gigantes: In the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice and Solicitor General. If, as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations reported to the House on Oct. 30, Bell Canada has been found to be involved in very few misrepresentations under the Business Practices Act involving delays in equipment installation, why is Bell Canada able to misrepresent the cause of these delays as being a financial constraint requiring higher rates for service when the same company, Bell Canada, is regularly leaving behind such expensive equipment as this Princess telephone when new equipment is being installed in residences?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I’m not an authority on “Mother Bell”. I will take that question as notice for my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

YORK CONDOMINIUM CORP. 141

Mr. Shore: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to have addressed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman), but since he is not here I would like to direct it to the Minister of Energy as an intermediate question. Is the minister aware of the problem in his own riding, Don Mills, faced by a corporation known as York Condominium Corp. 141 which is being operated and managed by a management company and which has no funds available now to pay large Hydro bills? Is he aware of that, please?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’m very well aware of the problem York Condominium Corp. 141 has been experiencing with its property manager. As a matter of fact, I believe North York Hydro met with an adjacent condominium corporation, York Condominium 43 -- if I remember the number correctly, or 34 -- about six weeks ago and went over the question with them and pointed out that they have lower Hydro rates than single-family residences immediately to the north.

Mr. Shore: Supplementary: In view of the apparent evidence that the power may he cut off in this condominium this week, is the minister going to allow Hydro to cut off services to these 440 homes.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is a matter for North York Hydro; it has nothing to do with Ontario Hydro. As a local member, I am making inquiries myself with North York Hydro.

An hon. member: The hydro won’t go off and you know it.

Mr. Yakabuski: The matter is well in hand.

PORT ARTHUR CLINIC STRIKE

Hon. B. Stephenson: To answer at least two of my hon. colleagues who had wanted to know the membership of the disputes advisory committee appointed for the Port Arthur clinic in Thunder Bay, I can tell them today that they are Mr. Gordon Holt of Thunder Bay, who is and has been an industrial relations negotiator and is presently teaching at Confederation College in Thunder Bay; and Mr. H. Landon Ladd, presently of Burlington, Ontario, who was the former Canadian director of the International Woodworkers of America and knows the area well because he was living in the area for a period of time and worked there. They are having a conference this afternoon. They will begin work tomorrow morning.

ASSISTANCE FOR NORTHERN MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Laughren: I have a question of the Treasurer. In view of the fact that several communities in northern Ontario, which are in effect dormitory communities for resource development centres, have inadequate tax bases, and indeed several have come under trusteeship of the OMB recently, despite the resource equalization grants, the general grants and the northern Ontario grants --

An hon. member: Question!

Mr. Laughren: -- what does the Treasurer see as the solution for those small communities in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The only two communities, to my knowledge, Which are in that position at the moment have both experienced problems of very rapid growth. Both of them have benefited, I think, from the increased grant structure. Both, I think it is fair to say -- and I don’t say this in any critical way -- have made some mistakes, as all of us do from time to time, in terms of their financial wellbeing. We would hope to be of assistance through the ministry, and I am sure through the board, in getting those problems straightened away. The longer-run problems in terms of single-industry or resource-based communities continue to be of concern to the government.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary. In view of the fact that the Treasurer has reneged on two years of promises to the unorganized communities in the north, would he not consider recommending to the Premier (Mr. Davis) that a committee of this Legislature be struck to look into the problems, not only of the unorganized communities in northern Ontario but also of the organized communities as well since they all have insufficient tax bases?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Recognizing that taxes on the average house in northern Ontario are something neatly $100 lower than they are on the average house in southern Ontario --

Mr. Laughren: That is why they are going bankrupt.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think it should be recognized even over there that the well is not bottomless and the member knows that.

Interjections.

Mrs. Campbell: If in doubt, shout.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: I would ask the Treasurer if he is aware that in northern Ontario we have nowhere near the services for the taxes we pay as opposed to southern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary question?

Mr. Reid: My other supplementary is more important. How can the Treasurer stand in his place and make a statement like that when all his minions in northern Ontario knew these communities were going to be in financial trouble.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: They had to get into financial trouble to provide the services. When is he going to admit his responsibility and do something about the problem?

Mr. Shore: Never.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We very much recognize our responsibility in this matter, and that is why we have, through the Ontario Municipal Board, moved to --

Mr. Roy: That’s why they have such a big majority over there now.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- place the two municipalities under supervision, as the member well knows.

Mr. Yakabuski: There is nothing wrong at the local level?

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Why did the ministry refuse to allow Noranda Mines to be annexed to the town of Ignace, which it was willing to do so, so that the town could assess municipal taxes against that mine for which they must provide services to people living in Ignace?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not aware of that situation.

BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on Dec. 15 the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) asked if I was aware that Sudbury is one of the two areas in all of Canada which is not plugged into the national blood transfusion service, and if I was aware that this is causing disruption in the surgical schedules in Sudbury. The hon. member asked how I could continue to deny the necessary funding to ensure that Sudbury can get plugged into this service and eliminate the hardship this is causing.

I am advised that in 1958, as a local decision, Sudbury declined an offer to enter the Red Cross national blood transfusion service.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Up to the present, therefore, virtually all blood required for Sudbury is collected by the local Red Cross blood donor clinic, with some fractionated blood supplied from Toronto. The blood collected by the clinic is processed in the laboratories of the Sudbury hospitals. I am told that in total it appears an adequate amount of blood is collected by the Sudbury clinic, although there are periods of peaks and valleys of supply normally experienced by such centres.

In recent years, the local Sudbury hospitals have considered joining the national blood transfusion service, and the ministry funded a study on the functions and locations of such a service. The study was conducted in late 1974 and presupposed that a centre would be established in Sudbury to serve all of northeastern Ontario. All hospitals outside of Sudbury were, and still are, supplied with blood from the Toronto blood transfusion service.

In early 1975, the Ministry of Health informed the Red Cross Society that funding could not be made available for a centre in Sudbury in 1975-1976; however, the ministry did not state, nor has it ever stated, that Sudbury should not join the national blood transfusion service.

In order to assist both the Red Cross national blood transfusion service, the local hospitals and those in Sudbury and the rest of northeastern Ontario who will need a constant and reliable source of blood, ministry officials are now involved in a series of meetings in Sudbury to deal with the major issues involved. These are: assuring that adequate blood supplies are maintained until a link with the national blood transfusion service is established; assessing the need for a separate centre in Sudbury, rather than supplying all blood for northeastern Ontario, including Sudbury, from Toronto; and, if it is decided a Sudbury centre is necessary, determining the site of that centre.

It is planned that a resolution of the “need” and “site” issues will be made within two months. In the interim period, the present service will continue. Local efforts are being made to assure the continuing participation of a satisfactory number of community doctors to supervise the taking of blood in the Sudbury clinic.

In summary then, the ministry does not oppose a link with the national blood transfusion service, in fact we welcome it. The ministry, rather than stating that a blood transfusion service would not be funded at all, stated that a centre could not be funded this year but that consideration would be given for next year. The ministry does not oppose the construction of a blood transfusion centre in Sudbury if this proves more desirable than supplies being received from Toronto.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: No, a question over here from the member for Welland.

PAPERWORKERS’ STRIKE

Mr. Swart: My question is directed to the Minister of Labour and, as the minister may expect, it concerns the strike in the paper mill industry. Am I correct in my understanding that two of the middle-sized paper mill companies are now in apparently meaningful negotiations? And if I am correct in this, and in view of the fact that the Abitibi company has constantly refused to negotiate in good faith --

Mr. Mancini: This is a speech, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Swart: -- and in view of the fact that this company has extensive --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are debating and we have too many “in view of the facts” which may not be facts, as I mentioned earlier. Will you get to the question, please?

Mr. Swart: I will. The final fact -- in view of the fact that this company has wide cutting rights in this province --

Mr. Speaker: I don’t know whether that is a fact. The question?

Mr. Swart: Is the Minister of Labour now prepared to make a recommendation to start proceedings to bring this company under public ownership?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You know what happened in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. minister have an answer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Public support to the private schools and nationalization of the resource industries.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The hon. member is not totally correct in his first assumption. One of the larger paper companies in the Province of Ontario will be negotiating in a meaningful way tomorrow with the Canadian Paperworkers’ Union and with the other eight unions involved in that plant.

Mr. Laughren: That’s fast action.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The answer to his second question is “no.”

An hon. member: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Because of the length of that question, I will allow the member for Grey-Bruce to ask a question.

[3:00]

SPECIAL PROGRAMME REVIEW

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, some information from the Premier, if I may: In view of what he calls his cost reduction austerity programme -- the capital letters spell out what I think of it --

An hon. member: Good boy, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: -- would the Premier tell this House --

Mr. Bullbrook: Did he have to explain that to you? He did? Your House leader had to explain that to you.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we have the question?

An hon. member: He just thought about it.

An hon. member: Spell that out again, Eddie.

An hon. member: What was that, Eddie? Say it again.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we go ahead with the question? Thank you.

Mr. Sargent: Yes, sir. Would the Premier advise the House if the five per cent salary donation his ministers are making is for the length of this Legislature, for this year or for four years? Second, what kind of restraint does he call it in giving Mr. Fleck $50,000, when he is cutting back on senior civil servants?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the voluntary contribution and reduction by the ministers of the Crown on this side of the House, which went into effect in the early part of January, 1975, is terminated as of Jan. 1, 1976.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I didn’t notice the member for Grey-Bruce making any contributions for any period of time.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: None whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: He is not getting $40,000 either.

Mr. Roy: Compare your salary with his.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would also say to the member for Grey-Bruce, if he is looking for proper phraseology, the term “crud” has been used in this House and has been regarded as parliamentary; and I was not referring to his question in that sort of way.

With respect to the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I can’t give you the exact amount paid to the Secretary of Cabinet, except that it is consistent with being a contract employee and not having the same advantages in terms of others, and this is true of other contract employees. I would say to the hon. member that Dr. Fleck is also going to become the Deputy Minister of Industry and Tourism. He will become part of the public service and he will be paid in that category as a deputy minister, consistent with the other salaries that are paid.

Mr. Shore: Not more than the minister gets.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are 2% minutes over the question period.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Welch presented the annual report of the McMichael Canadian Collection, 1974-1975.

Hon. Mr. Wells presented the annual report of the Ministry of Education for the fiscal year 1974-1975.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that on Thursday, Dec. 18, the House will meet at 10 a.m., with a luncheon interval from 12:30 until 2, at which time the routine proceedings will be called.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

PROPERTY TAX LIMITATION ACT

Mr. Eaton moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to limit Mill Rate Increases.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, is this a private member’s bill or a government hill?

Mr. Speaker: I presume it’s a private member’s bill.

Mr. Roy: Is it?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have an explanation?

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I feel that all the action being taken on rent controls helps a certain segment of our society and that no consideration is being given to persons trying to own their own homes. This bill does so by limiting tax increases through limiting mill rate increases to eight per cent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table answers to questions 1, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24 and 30 standing on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved second reading of Bill 48, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps it might be useful in this circumstance, Mr. Speaker, if the Treasurer could give his statement with respect to the bill at this point, as I understand it is simply to correct a certain situation as viewed by the courts.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No I don’t. The member is correct; I have nothing further to add other than what I said in introducing the bill. It’s something I think which the municipalities and the lawyers and everybody else assumed has been there all this time, and it was brought to attention by a court case in North York, I think.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, we support the principle of this bill. I don’t think there is any doubt that it is needed to fill the void in legislation which has prevented the city of Toronto from doing what it wanted to do and perhaps what it ought to do.

However, I’d like to suggest to the Treasurer that perhaps we could use this opportunity to include in this bill, if we went into committee, the inclusion of the words in the fifth line, “and the power to regulate places or things includes the power to regulate the hours of operation,” and adding the words, “including a system of rotation.”

We will soon be discussing Bill 5, which closes many places on Sunday, which institutes the pause day, and on which in the committee there has been a great deal of discussion on the matter of drug stores and the hours of certain other businesses. There is a desire on the part of many drug stores, particularly in the small and middle-sixe communities, to have authority to institute a system of rotation, and in fact they are doing it in many places. They find the difficulty is that the chain drug stores such as Shoppers Drug Mart are moving into many of these areas and are keeping their drug stores open every Sunday, and the small drug stores, the privately owned drug stores, are finding that they now, too, are having to open all their stores on Sunday if they want to keep the business.

I’m wondering if the Treasurer would be willing to consider the inclusion of this clause in this bill. It seems to fit here appropriately rather than in Bill 5, and would permit municipal councils to institute a rotation system for drug stores and other businesses to carry out what is the wish of the majority of them. It is my understanding from officials in the ministry that they do not now have this power so to do. The municipalities do not have this power; would he be willing to include it in this bill because the issue is before us now because of Bill 5?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that question, I don’t really see that it’s necessary to have rotation -- I just can’t see that that’s going to be a problem -- insofar as this particular group is concerned, which includes car washes and bowling alleys. There may be some who think that the hours of body-rub parlours should be rotated or body-rub parlours, period, should be rotated. Perhaps it would be better not to go into that whole subject, though, at the moment.

I can see no harm in the amendment; I just don’t think it’s necessary for this particular group.

Mr. Swart: Can we pursue this question further? I don’t think the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not the place for that sort of debate. If you wish it to go to committee, then we don’t give unanimous consent for automatic third reading. On second reading, each member, as you know, has the opportunity to speak once on the principle of this particular bill. Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill? Does the hon. minister have anything further to add?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would say that this bill does not deal with the question of drug stores or store hours generally which seemed to be raised by my friend from Welland. It’s already been indicated, I think, that the government proposes to deal with that question at another session in different legislation. I think the points he is raising should be covered at that time and should not confuse this particular bill.

Mr. Haggerty: Does this include garages, when it says shops?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Haggerty: Garages or automobile shops?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This section doesn’t include that.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Committee of the whole House, Mr. Minister?

Agreed.

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

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 48, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

On section 1:

Mr. Swart: It is section 1 which deals with section 246 of the Act. In subsection 2a, in the sixth line after the word “operation,” I would move the insertion of the words “including a system of rotation.”

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to be argumentative and I couldn’t care less about this particular amendment one way or another but I don’t think that anybody wants or needs the power to rotate the hours of body-rub parlours or shoe-shine shops or hat cleaning or blocking businesses. I don’t think it’s necessary but if it pleases the hon. member in some way, I’ll accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: In any event, we would have to have the amendment in writing.

Mr. Swart: Yes, I shall give it to you in writing in just a minute, Mr. Chairman. May I say that my understanding -- perhaps wrongly so -- is that its application is a bit broader than that intimated by the Treasurer and includes the power to regulate the hours of operation of a trade, calling, business, occupation, place or thing. Could he assure me that this does not include the operation of drug stores?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It doesn’t.

Mr. Swart: Perhaps we should let it go then.

Mr. Chairman: I take it that there is no amendment then.

Any further comment to any section of Bill 48?

Bill 48 reported.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill without amendment, and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Clerk of the House: The eighth order, consideration of the Dec. 15 interim report of the select committee inquiring into Hydro’s proposed bulk power rates.

HYDRO RATE INCREASE

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the select committee inquiring into Hydro’s hulk power rates, I welcome this opportunity to lead off in the legislative consideration of the interim report.

The terms of reference of this committee laid major emphasis on two areas. One was a review of the 1976 proposed increase in bulk power rates, which had been suggested at a 25 per cent level, and the second one was, in the light of the anti-inflation programme enunciated by the federal government and this government’s commitment to it, what reconciliation was possible between the 1976 proposed bulk power rates and these anti-inflation guidelines which were going to fix rather rigid limits for the incomes of the consumers.

Interestingly enough, these two objectives really become one, or potentially could become one, and you will note in the report, a copy of which was placed on the desk of each of the members when it was introduced into the House last week, that in the conclusion section, the first paragraph reads:

“The entire committee approached its responsibilities with a single objective: to find some way to reduce responsibly the rate increase proposed by Ontario Hydro.”

It was our belief that everybody would certainly like to examine the possibility for that increase. Indeed, it was my personal belief that the committee would not have been established if the government itself wasn’t interested to explore the possibilities for such a reduction. If conceivably that reduction could be brought down to a point where the impact upon the consumer was 10 or 12 per cent, then the two major areas of emphasis would have become completely reconciled.

What the committee did was to examine the components which go into making up the rate increase, and they are three major areas: first, fuel costs; second, the capital costs; and third, the overhead on operations, maintenance and administration. We immediately ran into the serious problem that this committee faced throughout all its deliberations, and that is that for the year 1976 -- given the nature of the operation of Hydro, the very great complexity of its system, and the fact that in expanding the system you need a lead time of anywhere from 10 to 12 or even 14 years to add to it -- the costs for 1976 were very significantly locked in; in fact, so much locked in that in our examination we did not feel any of these costs could be responsibly reduced for the year 1976.

It was for that reason that the committee laid very heavy emphasis on one of its recommendations, namely that it’s time for a final report should be extended until March 31, so that there would be an opportunity for a very detailed examination of the components I have mentioned and others on the rate increase, and the whole impact upon that rate increase of the expansion programme, because it is conceded by everybody that the main determinant in the 1976 rate increase as well as for each subsequent year, is the expansion programme that Hydro is now engaged in.

If the committee is granted that right to examine it further, I think it is interesting for the House to note that it will be the first time any body has examined that expansion programme with a view to assessing the socioeconomic factors and their impact upon that programme.

We recognize the Ontario Energy Board in the 1974 rate hearing did examine the expansion programme but it did it more within the parameters of Hydro’s traditional approach to a certain power need and therefore the engineers’ devising of the best procedures and mix of new generation capacity to meet that need. It did not take account of all of these new socioeconomic factors which are now making it necessary for the government to intervene as it has already this year, rather abruptly, with two decisions that have very serious consequences.

I refer to the decision in July of this year when $1 billion was cut out under the direction of the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) from its capital expansion programme; and again later this fall there was an instruction that the borrowing of Hydro for 1976 would have to be reduced by some $400 million.

Because of the fact that we were locked in to these costs in 1976 and therefore could not find within them any area for a reduction in the rate increase, we then turned our attention in the committee to looking at the cash flow and examining what leeway there might be between the cash flow, the revenues and what were left of these revenues after you covered all your costs of operation and your interest requirements to cover the capital outlay.

We discovered, for example, that the cash flow for Ontario Hydro is forecast for the year 1976 be some $630 million. This is made up of course from depreciation, from the statutory debt allowance, and from this new approach that has been created in the last year or so, a system expansion charge, which really means that the consumers of today are making a contribution for the future capital needs of the whole system.

At the beginning of the year, that system expansion charge was fixed at some $144 million. As they took account of the sizable increase -- if I may use the phrase of the provincial Treasurer, the appalling increase -- that emerged from the rate review of last summer by the OEB, a rate increase then of some 29 per cent or so, Hydro voluntarily reduced their system expansion charge to some $72 million.

But I repeat, their cash flow after meeting all of their expenses was some $630 million. Their net interest charges were some $555 million, so the margin upon which Hydro has to operate in the coming year in terms of cash flow was $75 million. A rather narrow margin in a system where the revenues are approximately $1.5 billion.

It was the feeling of the majority of the committee that you couldn’t cut all of that margin, because if you did you would be leaving Hydro in a very precarious position, because it is faced with the necessity of going to the market some three or four times a year for further capital and bond issues here in Canada, or in the United States, or sometimes offshore. If you were to cut it to so short a margin that you began to encroach upon what is described as the financial integrity of the system, then you would have serious consequences in the bond market.

So the very delicate balance that the committee focused its attention on was, to what extent could that margin be cut, partly to reduce rates, partly to live within the overall spirit of the anti-inflation guidelines that the government is committed to? It was our conclusion that one could responsibly cut that margin of some $75 million by three percentage points on the proposed rate increase, which approximates $31.5 million. In other words, you reduce the margin of the cash flow from $75 million to approximately $43 million.

May I point out that the reason why the committee felt it couldn’t go any further, is that if perchance the forecast of load, and therefore of sale of power in the coming year were to drop, they would very quickly be getting into serious difficulties. And that drop could take place if the forecast for domestic consumption in the Province of Ontario proved to be wrong. In other words, if the state of the economy of the province tends to lag, if it doesn’t pick up as some people are forecasting, then less power would be consumed and less revenue would be coming in.

Even more precarious is Hydro’s forecast of the revenue it may get from so-called secondary power; namely, the power it is able to export to the United States from its surplus production that it now has in fairly copious degrees.

The power market in the United States at the present time is very soft. It is very soft partly because the economy is soft and, secondly, because many of the utilities in the United States have surplus power too, so that we are in a very competitive market as we seek to market our surplus across the line. In short, there is some prospect that the forecasts may be wrong and, therefore, it was the majority of the committee’s feeling that we could not risk going below a three per cent cut at this present time.

That would mean, if I may just draw attention to the impact of it -- I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, before I draw attention to the impact I should remind the House rather emphatically that this proposal we are making takes the proposed increase from 25 per cent down to 22 per cent; but that the provincial Treasurer has already instructed Hydro they must cut their borrowings for the coming year by some $400 million.

The committee laboured under some extrema difficulties, because Hydro was not in a position at the time to indicate how that cut would be made and, indeed, whether or not they could make all of that cut. Figures varied anywhere from $200 million to $300 million to $400 million.

If I may make a hypothetical illustration of it, if the whole $400 million were to be cut, and if all that money were borrowed at the beginning of the year, then you would have a saving of close to $40 million, making it possible to make another sizable cut in rates. Indeed, it was estimated by our staff that a proposed further cut of at least two points, bringing it not only from 25 down to 22, but also down to 20, is a very likely impact of the implementation of this cutback in borrowings that the provincial Treasurer has directed Hydro to do for 1976.

Let me return, Mr. Speaker, as I was going to a moment ago, to the impact of this cutback from 25 per cent to 22 per cent for the proposed bulk power rate increase next year. When the local public utility retails this power, it has other costs that are in addition to the bulk power. You can calculate that a 22 per cent cut in bulk power rates works out for the retail level at 16.5 per cent. Indeed, one can go one step further.

Since the mix of retail sales by any local public utility ranges from the residential consumer to the commercial consumer to the industrial consumer, it is possible to make a calculation on the average for that average mythical, typical, residential consumer. The figure that this works out to for that mythical, typical residential consumer is 13.9 per cent.

In short, a cut in the bulk power rates back to 22 per cent takes the average retail rate to 16.5 per cent and the average rate for the consumer down to 13.9 per cent. That’s within reaching distance of the 12 per cent that would sort of reconcile with the wage level that the guidelines are going to impose upon the consumers. The further reduction would amount to about another 30 cents a month.

I come back to my earlier point, Mr. Speaker. The majority of the committee felt that to make that further cut in the cash flow of Hydro, with all of the possible consequences it would have upon Hydro’s financial integrity and its capacity to seek capital in the market, was just not a risk we felt could and should be taken at the present time.

[3:30]

I should add, so that the House is very clear on this, that that majority view was held by all of the Conservative members of the committee, the New Democratic members of the committee and one Liberal member. Two Liberal members, namely Messrs. Bullbrook and Peterson, dissented and felt they could go further for reasons which undoubtedly they will be explaining to the House.

Since we are hoping to restrain the amount of time used for this debate, I don’t intend to go very much further. I understand that we will be having a round robin among the parties and that the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) would like to have some concluding remarks in the legislative consideration of this report, I would like to deal with two other matters briefly.

As a person who has been in this House and sat on many select committees throughout the last 20 years, I must say that I found this select committee a very rewarding experience for a particular reason. Older members of the House will recognize that there have been few topics of more sustained frustration in the Ontario Legislature than the inadequacies of the mechanism for reviewing the operations of many of oar Crown Corporations, these emanations of the Crown, the leading one of which, of course, is Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Good: Workmen’s Compensation Board, too.

Mr. MacDonald: There’s Workmen’s Compensation Board, too, but it’s a different kind of operation. This is a business operation.

Every year we have had people from Ontario Hydro coming before the old standing committee and government commissions and giving us a half-hour report on the operations of Hydro. Members of the Legislature who were very busy and didn’t have the benefit of a staff couldn’t really dig into that report and get any clear picture at all of the operation of Hydro.

I think in this committee, at least in the preliminary stage, we have begun to get for the first time, as far as members of the Legislature are concerned, a detailed picture of the operation of Hydro. Because of the new ball game, so to speak, that we have moved into with the Hydro people, they can’t operate on their own, doing their business, assessing what the power needs are, going on with no possibility or little likelihood of anybody intervening and developing new generating capacities to meet that. Because we have moved into a situation in which the capital needs of the province combined with these incredible increases in the capital needs of Hydro have made it necessary for the provincial Treasurer to intervene and cut that capital programme arbitrarily and now he has cut borrowings arbitrarily, I think it becomes absolutely necessary that somebody outside the closed relationship between government and Hydro should become part of this examination. I think it has been an extremely useful exercise that members of the Legislature have had an opportunity to get a detailed account of how Hydro operates and its problems.

My final comment -- I would be remiss if I didn’t make it -- would be to express appreciation to a number of people in relation to the committee.

First to the committee members themselves. This was a hardworking committee. With the permission which I understand is going to be granted for another three months’ work in the new year it is going to be an extremely hardworking committee tackling a very difficult task for a layman but a task which laymen have to learn to appreciate because Hydro must be brought in within the ken of the Legislature itself. To the members of the committee, I want to express appreciation.

I want to express appreciation to Hydro because down through the years -- I think I am not misrepresenting the situation -- the general fueling on the part of the average member of the Legislature was that he couldn’t find out what was happening in Hydro. I can say, without any fear of contradiction, that Hydro’s co-operation in terms of answering our questions, of personnel coming, of the preparing of memoranda and of documents was absolutely unstinting. The continuation of that kind of co-operation, I am convinced, will make any extended and more intensive examination a very fruitful kind of operation in the new year.

My final comment, however, would be an expression of appreciation to the staff. Again I repeat: Of all the select committees it has been my pleasure to operate on and to sit on, I don’t ever recall one in which there was a staff which was a better team in terms of meeting the needs of the committee and who have worked far beyond the call of duty -- literally around the clock on one or two occasions in the latter stages of the committee’s operation. They really completed the team in a very admirable fashion, along with Andy Richardson, who was our clerk. I hope that the government and the House can see fit -- I presume it is the House I am addressing myself to, rather than the government -- to adopt this report so that the committee can continue the work on your behalf in the new year.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise and to comment on this matter. As you are aware, I was a member of this committee and I was unable to sign the report.

I am very concerned about the way we started, I am very concerned that we didn’t get a proper look at this programme and I am very concerned that we are presenting to the House a very superficial solution, particularly at this time of great economic hardship for many people.

I believe that the obligation of government at this particular time should be to lead and let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, the decision of this committee was a highly arbitrary one. There are many other approaches that this committee could have taken with imagination and with purpose and with resolve, to solve some of the very serious financial problems we face today. I believe the committee failed in that regard.

Mr. Deans: You failed. The rest of us succeeded.

Mr. Peterson: I would like to discuss some of the reasons where I think we could exercise strong leadership to bring hydro rates under more reasonable management at this particular time.

I just want to discuss some of these briefly. We are talking in terms of the expenses of Hydro and are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that every percentage point reduction affects the revenue of Hydro by about $10.5 million? We are paying water rentals of $16 million. There is a nuclear agreement by which Hydro pays out $33 million a year. There was an arbitrary cut by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) of some $400 million, which is going to reduce the interest payments; it could affect the Hydro rate by two per cent to three per cent, depending on many other contingencies.

There was an arbitrary cut in operation, maintenance and administration of $30 million. We still have not been able to monitor the effects of the wage and price controls on the entire Hydro operation. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that at the very best of times this committee could only be arbitrary, because what happened, and why we are asking for an extension to study this problem further in depth, is that we didn’t have the time. We got a very superficial view; we looked at it only from Hydro’s point of view and Hydro’s perspectives. They were Hydro’s numbers that we operated upon. We didn’t have outside verification of any of those figures. We didn’t look at fuel contracts.

Those are the very major kinds of questions that we have to go into in depth. I fully support the view of the committee that it should be continuing on an ongoing basis, and that we should look at the premises and we should be asking Hydro if we need a 33 per cent reserve margin. Do we need this kind of fantastic capital expenditure? Isn’t there any other way that we can attack this problem, that is going to affect many aspects of everyone’s life in this province unless it is brought under some kind of political control?

The problem with this entire Hydro situation is that it has not been under political control. I agree very much with the chairman of the committee. I think it is important now that we take political control of the entire Hydro operation. The decisions that are going to be made are not of a technical nature. The decisions that are going to be made are of a socioeconomic and political nature. How much are we prepared to risk? How much are we prepared to spend? What kind of benefits are we going to get? These kinds of decisions have to be brought back here. As a result of that, I fully support this ongoing committee and I think it is part of the process by which the legislative people -- as difficult as the task is -- can subject it to their independent review and scrutiny.

We have had a very rocky road to this particular committee and I don’t think it’s satisfactory from anybody’s point of view. We are facing a rate increase in the month of January, which is about two weeks from now. We have been very unfair to Hydro. Hydro has had no evidence on which to plan because they didn’t know what the rates would be. There was their original price submission of 30 per cent. Then the Treasurer said it was appalling and it was lowered to 25 per cent; then it went to the Ontario Energy Board and came out at 27 per cent; then it came back to the government where it was too hot to handle and was put into a select committee.

I think it is a very cumbersome, unwieldy procedure and it’s my very profound belief that we have to assist Hydro in their planning and we have to help them with their planning over the next five or 10 years. There is no mechanism by which they know how much money will be available, what the public can stand or how much of a rate increase we are prepared to tolerate as politicians representing the people and the consumers of this province.

I would like to quote from the report, and it is overwhelmingly in evidence, where we have failed and where the government has failed Hydro. Mr. Taylor, the chairman, said this and many other people said it:

“For its part, Ontario Hydro has consistently stated that it is not its place to establish policies in these areas [and I am talking about loads and capital requirements] but rather it is bound to accept and act upon these matters when so directed by the government.”

I think it’s a marvellous opportunity, through this ongoing committee, for the government to examine all of the premises and all of the bases on which they operate.

The argument is one of financial integrity. Let me assure members that that’s not a correct argument because Ontario Hydro does not have a worthwhile independent financial status. Its rating at best would be a B++. Its financial integrity is totally dependent on that of the Ontario government. That was clearly brought forth in the evidence. If Hydro runs into any financial problem whatsoever it is because the province is in bad shape economically and it is because of these accumulating deficits and because of this great growth in expenditures outstripping revenues. That’s why Hydro has to reassess their borrowing position today. It is not because of Hydro. It is a totally derivative position dependent on provincial guarantees and provincial borrowing. Let us not be fooled by that.

I would say that we are going to have to take some very strong directions in the very near future and we are going to have to redirect Hydro. The initiatives that should be directed in my opinion are lower reserves, for example. In the present year, at most times in the operating day, Hydro has 50 per cent more reserve than is required and even at peak periods it is in the order of 33 per cent. This is a luxury we can no longer afford.

There is no reason that we can’t change the rate structure. I can’t justify in any way a system whereby the more you use, the less you pay. Certainly we can turn that around into a progressive rate structure and start charging those people who are consuming more than their fair share of the resources. Clearly we have to force Hydro into encouraging conservation and cutting demand. There have been no attempts. It has been treated superficially and facilely by all of the ministers who we have talked to and by all of the Hydro people. They are not fully apprised of how grievous the situation is, in my opinion. There are lots of things that can be done.

Let me leave with you, Mr. Speaker, one interesting fact that was brought up in testimony before our committee. If, on a 10 year-basis, we could cut our demand for hydro-electric energy by one per cent over 10 years, that would save the development of a $2-billion nuclear generating station, a 2,000-megawatt factory.

Clearly our directions are wrong. I don’t blame Hydro; I blame the government. The government has to start talking about these things and start making it to everyone’s benefit to conserve and to do those kinds of things. I see no evidence to date of any direction from the government. Hydro is looking for direction, the people of Ontario are looking for direction and the consumers are looking for direction.

The justification of the ongoing committee is to review the system expansion programme. Indeed, everyone agreed that the major cost in the Hydro programme this year was the system expansion and it was also agreed that we haven’t time to look at it.

[3:45]

I would suggest that any recommendation made by our committee is arbitrary at best. If we’re going to be arbitrary, let us lead; let us clearly take the view that we have to be in the forefront of the fight against inflation. We are asking every consumer in this province to cut his income. When we are asking them to observe certain guidelines, then clearly we’re in a position to show government leadership and hold the retail price level at 12 per cent. That is the problem. I can see very clearly that, in every wage negotiation that comes up this year, it’s going to be said, “Well, look, hydro’s going up this much. Why can’t I have that much?”

When government controls this organization, why doesn’t it assert itself? Why doesn’t it clearly control it and say, “We have an obligation to lead. Let’s do what’s right in the interests of the consuming public of Ontario”?

If the worst comes to the worst and we are very wrong in our approach, then the new committee will be reporting in March, April or May and we can clearly correct any mistakes. But when it’s so arbitrary, when we’re not exactly sure of the ongoing position of Hydro or of all the premises upon which they operate, then I say the overwhelming obligation of all of us clearly is to provide the lead and to assist every consumer in this province to fight inflation.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee, I feel obliged, firstly, to get back to reality and, secondly, to deal with what perhaps may be the feeling in this House, that the committee acted entirely on an arbitrary basis, and to deal with the suggestion that in some manner of speaking we didn’t really get into some of the gut issues. I totally reject that suggestion. Within the terms of reference of our committee, I think our committee and our staff went a fair distance into the components making up the 1976 rates. We drew specific, well-founded, well-reasoned and, I think, rather straightforward conclusions from our investigations.

With regard to the 1976 projected costs of Hydro, we dealt with projected energy costs, and all the evidence before us was that Hydro’s record, in their forecasts in this regard, was pretty good. The evidence was that to a great extent the energy costs for 1976 were fixed in, either by way of contract or commitment, and that there was no serious way in which we could suggest the projected energy costs for 1976 were not accurate or valid.

On operations, maintenance and administration, we drew the same conclusion. I might add, as has been noted previously here, that conclusion was drawn after O, M and A had already been stripped of some $30 million.

Interest, another component, was also straightforward. The interest charges are fixed to the amounts of money that are borrowed and have to be repaid in a given year; and however the interest is allocated, the fixed amount of that interest payment is there.

The other component of Hydro’s estimates is capital, of course, made up of depreciation, debt retirement and system expansion. There is no question, as previous speakers have mentioned here, that the key item is system expansion. The evidence also before us was that, as regards 1976, not only were we committed to leave the system expansion programme and charges in place as they are -- because we certainly couldn’t just pull something off the line without incurring enormous costs in terms of penalties prior to the time at which we had an opportunity to adequately assess it -- but also, we were rather pleased, I think, to learn that to whatever extent possible, Hydro was prudent and reasonable enough to hold back any expenditures which in any way would inhibit the implementation of any of the conclusions that this committee should reach over the next several months. In other words, they did not continue to let contracts where it wasn’t necessary, in view of the fact that this committee was reviewing the entire systems expansion programme -- or rather wanted to in the spring of next year.

Really, to suggest that the committee was being arbitrary is a lot different from suggesting it is negligently arbitrary, or that it is arbitrary in a vacuum. Because while we had to make a decision to stick to 25 per cent or go lower, our decision to go lower could clearly not be fixed to cutting off any specific element of Hydro’s programme. We couldn’t point to a generating station; we couldn’t point to holding off a new project; we could not delete some part of their O, M and A programme; we couldn’t possibly find a way in which we could allocate a large portion of the reduction to a specific item.

Given that fact, we were left with a situation in which we were able to effect a reduction -- not an arbitrary one, but a reasoned one -- on the basis of current obligations, current expenditures. Before we did this, we had some of the top financial people in North America before us. They spent a good part of a day with us and were subject to very many hours of cross-examination. The one thing that became clear was that of all the factors they deal with on the bond market in both Toronto and New York, one easy, most-often-used one is the matter of interest coverage. We concluded that we must maintain a reasonable interest coverage, in terms of generated revenues, in order that the bonds that Hydro and the province attempt to market in New York and Toronto will continue to sell. That’s the immediate political reality.

It was no different from going to one’s wife and saying: “Look, we are trying to save some money. Now, out of the money we try to put in the bank every month, let’s have a look at that, and see how much we must continue to save in order that our credit rating at the bank and other places will be maintained, so that we will have a balance in our bank account which we can show when we attempt to get credit.” When one reviews one’s household expenditures, one finds that one is either committed to certain payments or one is committed to other payments which are necessities. That’s much the same situation we concluded after six weeks of rather intensive work.

Then the question is: How much of our generated revenues can we lop off; how much can we do without this year; and how little can we save in certain terms? That would be the interest coverage figure. We very carefully, calmly and deliberately worried over this one item. How much could we give away, how much could we do without, and still retain some credibility on the bond markets? For anyone to suggest that 22 per cent was a pig in a poke, or a figure that was picked out of the hat, is reckless and negligent. That just isn’t the case.

We went down to a figure which, in view of the current economic situation, would retain our integrity on the various bond markets. That figure was arrived at by determining how far down we could reduce the proposed rate increase, and find an interest coverage figure that was larger than last year’s, and therefore indicated an upward trend in the financial integrity of Hydro. We found that figure just slightly above last year’s interest coverage. That’s how we arrived at the 22 per cent.

No question that our report makes quite clear that even this is a little borderline -- even this is stretching it and we are rather hoping, in view of the continuing review we are going to conduct in the spring, hopefully, that the bond markets will relate that review to a possible future reduction in the expenditures of Hydro, and thus help again to solidify Hydro’s position.

The figure 22 per cent, at least as far as this member of the committee is concerned, was not a figure arbitrarily chosen. It was chosen very carefully in relation to the interest coverage figure we had to have in order not to be irresponsible, in order not to be reckless.

I might say that the House should be aware of the fact that Hydro and their representatives appear to take an open, honest and straightforward attitude. I haven’t had the experience of dealing with Hydro over the years, as some other members of the House had -- although I have had occasion to run into them once in a while in my own little riding -- and I did not truly expect them to be quite as willing to review some of their programmes as they proved to be.

Unlike some members of the Liberal caucus who served on the committee, I neither by application nor by inference suggest that the figures given us by Hydro were wrong. I don’t suggest that they needed to be double-checked. I quite agree, however, that certain policies, certain long-range programmes have to be reassessed in terms of some socioeconomic considerations. Those considerations would include, I would suggest, a study of export sales as a mode of generating more revenue.

We must also review the whole matter of interruptible power because the sales of interruptible power have been at reduced rates. And yet the evidence before the committee was that, in most instances, certainly in class A interruptible power, that power had not been interrupted for, I believe, at least the last six or seven years. That being the case, it’s not really interruptible power. It would seem to this member of the committee that we should either not give a reduction for that power and not interrupt it, or we should interrupt that power if we are giving it at a bargain.

One of the larger matters that we have to review is the issue of whether or not today’s consumers should pay for the benefits accrued to tomorrow’s consumers -- and this would get into the whole issue of fossil stations versus nuclear stations. Yes, of course, it is expensive to today’s consumers to build nuclear stations -- but all the evidence before us was also clear that it resulted in a long-term saving and cheaper power in the long run.

That’s a very important item and that’s something that I think the committee has to deal with in detail before we can really talk about systems expansion programmes and rates.

Another matter was the reserve margin. While there are various ways of calculating it -- we had various percentages before us -- whatever the actual percentage is in a given year, 1975 or 1976, I think some determination has to be made with regard to allocating the cost of that reserve margin as against the possibilities of brownouts and blackouts if that reserve margin is to be changed. That hinges right on a political decision, as well as the socioeconomic one, and we have to do some serious thinking in that regard.

Conservation, of course, is a matter that has been talked of a lot, but not really got into in Ontario. There was conflicting evidence, I thought, with regard to the success of similar conservation programmes in the United States and other places. Of course, one of the paradoxes we face is the fact that lower power rates do not tend to increase conservation of energy. We’ll have to grapple with that problem as well. But I don’t think it can be seriously suggested that any kind of full conservation programme has been implemented in this province. I think we have to study some of them, think deeply about them, and try to determine whether they can and will be effective.

I must say that I had some concerns with Hydro’s attitude with regard to our desire to pursue this matter further. I got the distinct impression from the representatives of Ontario Hydro that they were quite happy at the anticipation of some ultimate firm resolution of some of the long-range goals and parameters under which and within which they are to be providing power in the next many years. My feeling is that Hydro’s people are not taking the attitude any longer that they must just continue to build and build and provide more and more power, but that they are quite aware of their obligation to provide only that amount of power and energy which is required by our ever-expanding economy, and they’re quite prepared, I believe, to understand and appreciate and live within whatever reserve margins are dictated.

[4:00]

After all, it is the government’s responsibility, I would agree, to determine some of these matters with regard to reserve margins, because, after all, regardless of whichever way laws are written, if there are brownouts and blackouts, they will look to government. I must report to the House that I, in any event, felt that Hydro was happy to look toward a further and more firm determination of some of these parameters in which they will work over the next many years. I would join the chairman in noting that Ontario Hydro’s attitude throughout was most open and straightforward, and I think their willingness to cooperate in the future with the committee was fairly evident.

I might say that I had some concern that we were about to tread a little bit on Dr. Porter’s territory, but the House should be aware that Dr. Porter came before us and indicated that he, too, would be happy if we could sort of bridge the gap between today and Dr. Porter’s deliberations with regard to 1983 and beyond. I think we will end up, contrary to what I originally thought, being of assistance to Dr. Porter when he gets right into the swing of his committee’s deliberations.

I think also the Ontario Energy Board indicated to us that they were, as well, aware that there was some gap in some of these considerations and that our committee might fulfil a very important function in determining some of these matters for them.

I would conclude by emphasizing to this House that this member, and I think all of the members of the committee who signed the report, did not deal in a vacuum and were not simply arbitrary. If we were going to be, then we could have just come along and on Day One said, “Listen, it’s the anti-inflation programme. Here’s 12 per cent. Go to it. It’s your worry.” I think most of us felt a little more responsible than just to do that and we were very careful to pick a figure which was not irresponsible. It was a figure very carefully chosen and we don’t suggest it’s a be-all and end-all. It’s an interim situation but a figure that is workable.

I can’t help but remark that it was suggested by the previous speaker that if we went down to 12 per cent and we turned out to be wrong we could just fix it up in the months following. All the evidence before us indicated that serious harm would befall the consumer if, in fact, we were wrong and attempted to recoup some of the lost revenues, and the too-low power rates that would result if we arbitrarily said, “Down you go to 12 per cent.”

That happened on Day Two or Three of the hearings. It was obvious, clear and straightforward that serious damage would occur, there would be serious consequences if we just disregarded everything, took the rate down and then hoped that if we had to bring it back up as a result of our later deliberations we could just inform the consumers and they’d just pay the excess back. That isn’t what I call living within the anti-inflation programme.

Members of the House will see, toward the end of the report, the calculations, done well and carefully by our staff, and will see that not only do the calculations under the anti-inflation programme show that an increase allowed to Hydro of more than we are recommending would still be within the anti-inflation programme, but they would also discover that it’s very questionable as to whether or not the anti-inflation programme can and was intended to apply to Ontario Hydro; but even if it was, it’s patently, unquestionably clear that the rate increase we are recommending would fall within those guidelines as they’re set out. To suggest anything to the contrary just absolutely flies in the face of the facts as carefully worked out by the committee and staff. To do so arbitrarily -- to pick an arbitrary figure that is truly arbitrary, not just called arbitrary -- would mean that those many hours we slaved at that committee would be thrown down the drain.

I reject the suggestion that we accomplished nothing. I reject the suggestion that the committee got off on the wrong foot and did not follow proper criteria and did not work toward a proper conclusion. We were carefully guided all the way down. We knew what perimeters we were working within, and we reached conclusions which were well reasoned, well thought out and I believe the report shows them to be well justified and far from arbitrary.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat some of the points which earlier speakers have made but I would like to pick np some of the criticisms the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) lodged when he explained his reasons for refusing to sign the select committee report.

I would like to try to go into a bit of the logic -- or what he called logic -- of his position. I am sorry he is not here to --

Mr. Bullbrook: He is doing a TV programme as a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party.

An hon. member: On “Sesame St.”?

Ms. Gigantes: On energy? I am sorry he won’t continue his work with the committee, nor will the member for Sarnia. In spite of the loud protestations of their great concern for the future of Hydro, neither of these members will be rejoining the committee when it reassembles alter the new year.

Mr. Bullbrook: We were fired. You can’t continue if you were fired.

Mr. Drea: It was absolutely right and you know it.

Ms. Gigantes: That is a great disappointment to me because, given the kind of background we got in our preliminary few weeks’ work which permitted us to bring in an interim report, I think the people who were members in those first few weeks picked up the first level of information which we need to go on to a very extensive investigation of the direction of Ontario Hydro in this province over the next few years.

I do believe that every member of the committee shared those concerns with the two Liberal members for London Centre and for Sarnia who refused to sign the report. Any expression on their part of deep concern, as the member for London Centre said time and again into the microphones of our committee, was shared by each and every member of that committee. I don’t think it was his alone nor is it his now; it continues to be ours even if he doesn’t rejoin us as we meet again in the new year.

He suggested that we had come to a very arbitrary conclusion when we proposed that an interim rate of increase of 22 per cent be allowed Ontario Hydro. It is arbitrary only in the sense that we could have suggested a higher increase or a lower increase but in terms of 22 per cent as a figure, it was not arbitrary.

It was a figure we reached after what work we could do in the very pressed meetings of six weeks. We concluded that that figure would allow Ontario Hydro to go, early in the new year, to foreign bond markets and be able to raise the money it will need for its immediate cash flow simply to cover its existing interest charges in the next few months.

We concluded that it would have been terribly irresponsible of us, given only a few weeks’ work, to put Ontario Hydro, in the short run, in a position in which it faced an unsympathetic bond market and might not be able to receive the funding it needed in the short run to satisfy our political vanity over the next three months.

If we have an extra three months to work on it, the committee concluded -- I went along with the committee -- that we should propose a rate which will allow Ontario Hydro to cover its immediate financial charges and meet the demands of the international financial community in the short run.

I don’t think there is any question in the minds of anybody who sat on that committee that in the long run we must examine not only the points which have been raised but whether or not Ontario Hydro should be limited in its operations by what is called its credibility on the bond market; or what is called its financial integrity. After five weeks’ work, and leaving Ontario Hydro out alone in the bond market, with none of us there promising to buy the bonds, we all felt, I think, that we had to allow Ontario Hydro a few months in which it could get the needed capital flow and in which we could take serious steps to examine the total direction of Ontario Hydro.

I truly believe, as a member of that committee that in the long run we are going to have to make some very serious changes, not only in Ontario Hydro’s so-called expansion programme over the next few years, but also in the way that Ontario Hydro is financed. I think we’re going to have to make the decision that over the long run we cannot leave the growth and direction of Ontario Hydro to the demands of the foreign bond market and we cannot leave it totally vulnerable to the demands of foreign bankers.

I think it’s going to take every day of the three months in which we will have committee meetings for us to be able to develop a programme, an approach and a direction for Ontario Hydro over the next few years and to tell Hydro clearly what this Legislature expects of it and how this Legislature expects to give its support as it grows over the next few years. We have to be able to provide that supportive action for Ontario Hydro before we can send it out sailing into the rough waters of the international financial market in times such as these.

It is for these reasons that I have to disagree with my two Liberal colleagues on the committee when they said that we could choose any figure and we could justify any arbitrary figure. I feel that over the next three months we would be very irresponsible to do that. Over the next three months, Hydro deserves the minimum of support from us until we can build up the other kinds of policy support and political decision support that is going to enable Hydro, with safety, with security and with a correct kind of political direction, to choose new paths of growth in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Drea: I didn’t think you had the nerve.

Mr. Bullbrook: My colleague from Scarborough Centre said he didn’t think I had the nerve. I think we’ve developed a kind of a love-hate relationship over the years. I’m afraid he’s going to kiss me one of these days.

Mr. Grossman: I wouldn’t worry about that, but maybe the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes).

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to say that I don’t approach this as my colleague from London Centre (Mr. Peterson) approached it. I found, frankly, a degree of abrasiveness and a degree of confrontation. There is no confrontation here, none whatever. This report is the report of my committee of which I was a member. I just didn’t sign it. This isn’t a majority situation. I didn’t ask to write a dissenting opinion, which I could have, and the discretion of the majority would have then been, I think, resolved in favour of my including it.

I made it amply clear that the reasons put forward were sometimes less than substantial. At most times, they were unsubstantiated but it was a question of approach more than anything else. Before I get into that, since I didn’t sign the report it’s very important for me to make it abundantly aware to this House that the lack of signing the report had nothing to do with the staff. I want to join the chairman without reservation in paying tribute to the staff. We were really well blessed with economic and legal counsel there.

If I can digress just for a moment, on the question of the application, for example, of the federal anti-inflationary guidelines to the energy field, as I think my colleague from St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) mentioned, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that advice given by legal counsel to us was absolutely correct. When I talk about that, it’s the spirit I talk about, not the law. It’s an anomaly in this respect that my charming colleague from Carleton East -- and I hesitate to call her charming because I don’t call my colleague from Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) charming and I think she might get upset if I treat her any differently from the way I would treat him --

Mr. MacDonald: She might come over and kiss you.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m now prepared to undertake calling her charming.

Mr. Renwick: There is no distinction at all. My colleague is charming; I am not charming.

Mr. Bullbrook: In any event, she was the one who, six weeks ago, began the attitude in my mind that led me to come to the conclusion that I couldn’t sign the report. But again -- I will digress for just a moment, and I mean this more sincerely than anything I have said -- we were blessed in this respect, believe me, with a chairman of great experience and talent

Ms. Gigantes: And charm.

Mr. Renwick: And charm. Very charming.

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t want to be kissed by him. That is again without reservation.

Mr. Deans: Who do you want to be kissed by?

Mr. Bullbrook: Sometimes, I must --

Mr. Deans: Did I miss something important?

Mr. Bullbrook: When the member for Wentworth got his hair done, there were moments that I had some equivocation. I’m in no doubt about that.

Mr. Deans: Just listen for a moment. Don’t make the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) jealous.

Mr. Bullbrook: I wondered where she was. In any event, the hon. member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) and I have had our moments of glory over the years, but everybody absolutely and universally not only respects his native talent and common sense, which was more important in the function that he undertook as chairman of the committee, but his work capacity, his ability to cut through -- and to help us cut through at times -- some of the more sophisticated aspects of the evidence to come to conclusions.

Basically, I didn’t sign the report because on the one hand and I am really appreciative also that the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) is here; I wish his other colleagues were here, because my approach has nothing to do with energy --

Ms. Gigantes: Get on with it.

Mr. Bullbrook: No, don’t do that to me. I might take all night. My approach is this:

The cosmetic aspect of this -- the impact on the people, on the mythical, typical average residential ratepayer, in the context of the spirit of the federal guidelines as far as wages are concerned, and the Ontario committee -- is more important than the risk, on an interim basis, to the fiscal integrity of Ontario Hydro. That’s it essentially. That is a value judgement I was prepared to make on the basis of the impact.

It was more important to me or better for us that the average citizen, who was told by Trudeau, rightly or wrongly, “Let’s try to cut wages down to 12 per cent -- eight plus two plus two,” would be told by us, “We have attempted, on an interim basis, to respond to that by maximizing the rate increase that will affect you at 12 per cent.” That was it. That was it entirely. On the other hand, my colleagues felt that they couldn’t go that far because it might have been irresponsible in the context of the borrowing power of Ontario Hydro. I can’t take issue with a protestation of responsibility. It’s like virtue; it is something that I am not in a position to discuss with anybody.

Mr. Drea: Neither integrity.

Mr. Bullbrook: Nor integrity for that matter. I am certainly not in a position to discuss either mine or anybody else’s. So, unlike my colleague the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) -- and I hope that doesn’t hurt him -- decide to begin my comments by dealing with the question of someone’s responsibility or irresponsibility.

I want to say that as far as attacking the fiscal integrity of Ontario Hydro on a three months’ basis is concerned, I find it very difficult to grasp that because, as I understand it, it is the Ontario government that borrows for Ontario Hydro, in effect. The financial experts --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not everywhere.

Mr. Bullbrook: The financial experts who came before us were again unequivocal in saying that the necessity of generating revenue was extremely important to their assessment of bond issues, but there is no doubt in my mind -- I don’t think there is any doubt in anybody’s mind -- that the receptivity on their part of the issues of Ontario Hydro or of the issues of the Ontario government were dependent on the fiscal integrity of the Ontario government --

Mr. Grossman: Which includes Hydro.

Mr. Bullbrook: Which includes Hydro. There’s no doubt about that.

Mr. Grossman: Very much.

Mr. Bullbrook: Very much; I echo “very much.”

Mr. Grossman: Very much.

Mr. Bullbrook: We can keep saying “very much.” If you want to say “very much,” go ahead.

Mr. Grossman: Which includes Hydro.

Mr. Bullbrook: We all agree that it includes -- I think probably too much as a matter of fact, and this deals with the political aspect of things; probably too much.

I think we probably have permitted that chicken and egg relationship to go a little too far. We had better define which comes first -- the Ontario government as far as its impact on capital markets is concerned, or Ontario Hydro as far as it concerns its collateral and its sometimes deleterious impact -- as far as the Ontario government is concerned -- on capital markets. I am prepared to agree with that.

One consideration that I had, therefore, was making that type of balanced judgement. I want to emphasize again that on a three months’ basis I didn’t think it was that bad because, basically, as the chairman so aptly put it, what our counsel tried to bring to our attention was that we had to protect, at least from a cash point of view, the financial integrity of Ontario Hydro. It was dependent to some extent on the question of economic conditions -- whether the load forecast was really as sound and stable as it might be and whether perhaps any impact on that would have a significant collateral adverse effect on the ability of Hydro to go to the markets.

The one problem I found -- and I want to direct this comment to the chairman through you, Mr. Speaker -- is that we never had any basis to believe -- there never was any evidence that I can recall nor was there any direction from our counsel to the effect -- that the forecast was an improper one. The contingency was on the basis of economic climate in the future but on a three months’ basis.

I found it very difficult to understand that that projection could not be made at the present time in light of the evidence from Ontario Hydro and, frankly, in light of the fact that I didn’t think economic circumstances would turn around that quickly to the detriment of the revenue expectations of Ontario Hydro during that three-month period.

Mr. MacDonald: Look how quickly the bond market turned around.

Mr. Bullbrook: The bond market is a different thing. It softened not only for Ontario Hydro and the Ontario government but for many people. Although I must say that Delaware, I notice, has just floated an issue which was much more attractively received than Ontario’s and it makes one wonder where we are going.

In any event that was a concern and I tried to come to grips with some method of rationalizing -- that’s the only word I can use -- the approach I wanted to take. The approach I wanted to take was to say, in effect, to the typical mythical average residential ratepayer, “It is 12 per cent for you, buddy, so keep that in mind when you go to your next collective agreement.”

As politicians, we have tried to do, to the best of our ability, albeit only on an interim basis, what the government has committed itself in spirit to do. I thought that was extremely important.

For example, my colleague dealt with the question of the water rentals and the question of the nuclear agreement. I don’t say for one moment that that could be expeditiously substantiated; how are you going to conclude those things so quickly? There seems to me an almost circular anomaly there when we have the situation of the federal and provincial governments saying, “We must cut down and we must benefit the consumers and we must have consumer restraint” and we have money pouring through to those very treasuries as a result of the nuclear agreement.

I had to say to myself why not a moratorium? If we are that sincere in purpose, why not say “All right, Ontario Hydro, let’s not pay that money” for a term certain or uncertain for that matter but during the three-year general guidelines period or at least until August, 1977. I think, frankly, that could have been a rational approach which Hydro might want to take at this time. I think if it had been resisted by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and the Minister of Finance we would have not been the author of the problem but the governments themselves would have been authors of the problem.

The answer we got from the Treasurer of course, was: “To remove that revenue adversely affects the consolidated revenue fund and we have to get it somewhere else.” That premises, of course, as it always does, that we are going to spend the same amount of money; that we are not going to take that $42 million out of those Treasuries -- or $48 million I believe it is -- and say we can’t spend it; we have to cut programmes because we don’t have it.

The second thing I want to mention is something which again the chairman of the committee mentioned. That is the question of the directive by the Treasurer to Ontario Hydro to cut down its borrowings by $400 million. I think there, if any place, we came to a false conclusion. If there is one place where we came to a false conclusion, I think it’s there.

We concluded we couldn’t guarantee that there would be the cutback in borrowing; and I thought that was kind of a negative approach for us to take there. I think we should have concluded that Ontario Hydro to carry out the fiscal policy directed by the government of Ontario, had to reduce their borrowing by $400 million. Concurrently, therefore, there were available to them the two points that we were searching for in additional reductions. I think we should have taken that approach. I think, frankly, that the committee was in error there in the approach that they took.

The next two comments I want to make have to do -- and they are somewhat critical of my report, the committee’s report -- are in connection with the question of O, M and A. We took the approach basically, with respect to operations, maintenance and administration, that it couldn’t be cut any more, Mr. Speaker. We did that, basically, on our analysis that the mini-budget had already restrained it to the tune of $80 million.

I tried to point out in evidence that I was permitted to read in at the final meeting, that Mr. Taylor in his evidence in April before the Ontario Energy Board said that the budget of O, M and A at that time was bare-boned. Therefore, we begin in April with what the administration of Hydro conceives as a bare-boned O, M and A budget. We than have the impact of the mini-budget on that. We then have the response of Ontario Hydro cutting $80 million from O, M and A. I have to come to the conclusion that the original budget wasn’t bare-boned. It wasn’t bare-boned if it could be cut. So for us to then follow the logical sequence and say because it has already been cut once it can’t be cut again, I couldn’t follow. If we were to be arbitrary, I frankly could think of no better place to be arbitrary than in that particular budget situation.

I want to talk, just before I finish, in the context of what is arbitrary and what isn’t arbitrary. The position I take is totally arbitrary. It’s fully arbitrary. It’s the inductive process personified. It’s almost Aristotelian philosophy. It begins with a need. It begins with a need and then it tries to rationalize itself up to that need. Remember St. Thomas. Wasn’t it my colleague the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) who began that way? Or was it hylo-morphism? I guess it was. In any event --

Mr. Lawlor: We might not recognize what you are talking about.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am talking about substance and accidents, and I don’t want any response when I say substance and accidents. The chairman hit upon something that is absolutely correct. It is that everyone throughout has agreed that you can’t really analyse an ability to cut the 1976 rates without analysing the capital expansion programme of Ontario Hydro.

The second step in that particular syllogism is that the committee didn’t have time to analyse it. It wasn’t their fault. When you begin with the concept that you can’t do a proper job, in effect a truly responsible job, unless you analyse the capital expansion programme, you go to the next step and you say: “But we don’t have time to analyse the capital expansion programme.” It follows quite logically to me that you must conclude that the decision made as to any cut doesn’t take into consideration the most focal matter that should have been taken into consideration in making the cut. Therefore, there is at least some degree of arbitrariness in it all -- some degree; a more responsible degree than I wanted it to take, but some degree of arbitrariness.

[4:30]

So, I concluded, in my own warped type of logic, that if you could truly be arbitrary, then be arbitrary to the benefit of the public’s awareness of where government is going. I close in saying I wouldn’t have been able to get through that convolution if it wasn’t begun by my colleague, the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes), who one afternoon said: “But the most important feature of it all is what the public sees the anti-inflation programme to be and what our response to that programme is.”

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have been, on a couple of occasions this afternoon, in an air of complete unreality I would like to go back to some of the record to bring us back to some of the reality. Some of the things I was going to say have been said by the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes), but in any event, I would just like to refer the House to a transcript from Dec. 10, 1975, page H 735-2. It is the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) -- I’m not going to read it out of context, I am going to read it -- and he is talking, obviously, about his friend the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson): “We began, perhaps, with a sense of irresponsibility, that the majority of the committee don’t have.”

I suggest that should really rip away a little bit of the facade that we’ve had this afternoon. We have had a facade that, for political reasons, people did not want to have a report that would confirm the financial integrity of Ontario Hydro, that would place Ontario Hydro and the PUCs or the electric commissions across the province in a position where they could plan adequately for the future, where they could look at their rates, where they could look at their borrowing, where they could do all of the very many things that far too many people consider as essential for the provision of electrical service.

I was flabbergasted this afternoon -- I rather suggest that by tomorrow someone’s going to say that he was taken out of context -- I was rather flabbergasted that the Liberal Party now has a new position concerning the OMEA, and that is that we are going to have a political takeover of Ontario Hydro. That should be magnificent at your convention. I rather suspect that by tomorrow afternoon everyone will say, “Uh, uh, it really didn’t happen.” I for one would say it really didn’t happen except I was here and I heard it, the political takeover of Hydro. The last time there was an attempt at a political takeover of Hydro was in the late 1930s by a Premier of this province, not of my party.

In the post-war years there were blackouts, brownouts and everything else because of that little policy that there was going to be a political takeover of Hydro. All right, Mr. Speaker, you have it in 1975, here we go again. The position of the Liberal Party, rip away the facade, is once again there’s going to be a political takeover of Hydro. There is not going to be an elected commissioner in your community.

Mr. Shore: Where did you get that information from?

Mr. Drea: Your gentleman from London Centre (Mr. Peterson). C’mon, that’s what he said. I sat here; weren’t you here?

Mr. Shore: Oh, is he the leader of the party? I didn’t know that.

Mr. Drea: He hopes to be, so I presume he has enough responsibility within the party that that’s the majority position.

Mr. Shore: If your presumption is based on that you might as well stop and go back to the beginning.

Mr. Drea: I take particular offence this afternoon at the suggestion that we as a committee, which met very long and very hard, failed. I don’t think we failed at all. I think we succeeded in two very distinctly different situations. I don’t think there has ever been an all-party or a select committee in this House that has accomplished within a very limited sphere and in a very limited time the results that this one has.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of the credit goes to the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) as the chairman. A considerable amount of credit should go to the staff. They worked very long and very hard. I can only underline the remarks that were made about them by the committee chairman, the member for York South.

The second thing that bothers me a very great deal is the fact that there was the accusation made here today that the committee only considered Hydro figures. Let me tell you that whether those figures came from the Ministry of Energy, whether they came from Ontario Hydro, or whether they came from bond people in this country or in the United States, our staff went over those figures. The final figures the committee had are extremely accurate and they are extremely independent. I very bitterly resent having someone who didn’t even come to the meetings where those figures were being discussed to say now that a number of people in this House signed a report based upon false or cooked figures. I very bitterly resent that, and I think it’s time that some of these things were said.

In terms of the report, any reasonable person who reads it and any reasonable person who sees the signatures that are attached to it, can only conclude that this province has been very well served at a very crucial time in its economy by a committee of the Legislature that looked long and hard at the figures, looked long and hard at the costs and agonized a great many times over the responsibilities that were inherent upon this committee, because one just doesn’t turn a nuclear plant off stream without causing 10 or 11 or 12 or 15 years of very grievous economic uncertainty.

When the public of this province reads the report, I think they can only come to one conclusion, that at this particular time within the framework of the report the very least amount that Ontario Hydro must have to maintain its financial integrity, to provide the quality of service and to provide for the expansion in the future is the amount recommended by this report.

I look forward in the next few months once again to taking a look at some of the more difficult aspects that there are to analyse in connection with Ontario Hydro. I for one am extremely pleased that a committee of this Legislature, rather than an appointed board, is going to take a look at something so vital in this province as the system expansion and the very future of Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Haggerty: Let me first say thanks to the persons responsible for allowing my name to be placed amongst the 12 members appointed to the select committee inquiring into Hydro’s proposed bulk power rates and to express my thanks to the member for York South, (Mr. MacDonald) the chairman, for a job well done in such a short period of time.

It is my opinion that the report now being debated in the Legislature this afternoon is one of urgent importance to the economic well-being of this province as it affects the fiscal integrity of Ontario. I might also include that as a member of the committee I have not been in agreement with views expressed by other members of the committee on issues that were raised during the hearings. My reservations are strong enough to decide independently in the long run in the interests of the citizens of this province.

Although I disagreed with my two Liberal colleagues who were members of the committee in relation to the signing of the report, I have been informed that the only person required by the Legislature to sign the report is the chairman of the committee. So if any other member wishes to sign the report, I suppose it is based upon courtesy to the chairman or simply to have his signature on the document for posterity’s sake alone.

I do agree with the intent of the Liberal members’ views expressed in the hearings, and a copy of the committee hearings can be available to the members of the Legislature. The basis of text of the three members representing the Liberal caucus on the committee, to try to put it into perceptive views, was that if the spirit of the anti-inflation programme and the Ontario commitment are to be followed then the premise of this committee’s recommendation should be that the average residential retail rate should not exceed 12 per cent and it should be left to Ontario Hydro on an interim basis to live within the spirit of these guidelines. The committee reports states:

“Conclusion. The anti-inflation guidelines, in their current form, provided the committee with no assistance in meeting its objective. The guidelines do not appear to be meant to apply literally to corporations such as Ontario Hydro. Even if the anti-inflation programme was meant to apply strictly, the guidelines, as they currently exist, do not appear to be the appropriate mechanism with which to control Ontario Hydro’s prices.”

At this point it is worthwhile to refresh the member’s minds on just what was said by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) of the province in his report to the Legislature on anti-inflation programme measures of Ontario, Oct. 30, 1975;

“Turning now to the public sector in Ontario, we will ensure that all ministries, agencies, local governments, commissions and Crown corporations will be brought within the guidelines ... the Ontario Energy Board concerning gas utilities and Ontario Hydro rates, Ontario Hydro concerning local hydro utilities rates, and the Ontario Telephone Commission.

“For this reason, we accept the intent of the federal legislation for full inclusion of the province and its emanations. At this critical stage of development of what must admittedly be a very complex and yet often arbitrary programme, we cannot afford to behave in an obstructive manner.

“First, Ontario Hydro’s target level of borrowing for the next year will be reduced. The 1975 level is estimated to be $1.5 billion, and next year, 1976, $1.9 billion.”

I think my colleague the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) already mentioned that there was $400 million sliced off their proposal on borrowing money.

It is not the intent of the Liberal members of the committee to be offensive or obstructive, but to place our views and comments in a constructive manner to the Legislature’s select committee concerning the Hydro increase proposals, and to persuade that there be rational approach to adhere to the anti-inflation guidelines as outlined by the federal government and the Province of Ontario.

Ontario Hydro, until the last two years, has only been accountable in some small way to justify its rate increase proposals in a review before the Ontario Energy Board. Perhaps if this procedure had been made available 10 years ago, we in Ontario would not have had to face a proposed rate of increase of almost 30 per cent for the year 1976. The rate increase has been reduced by some seven percentage points to 22 per cent bulk wholesale rate, which means, using Ontario Hydro exhibit 13 filed with the committee:

“The typical increase in the municipal rate should be about 16.5 per cent. The increase for the mythical, typical residential customer should, based upon the assumption upon which that customer based, be 13.9 per cent. The committee noted that the reduction required to reduce the impact on the mythical, typical residential customer to 12 per cent would result in a savings of approximately 30 cents per month for this customer over the committee’s proposed rate. The committee concluded that the magnitude of the savings did not provide sufficient cause to risk putting Ontario Hydro or the province in a position of being unable to raise needed capital in the period prior to its final report [the capital required by both Hydro and the provincial government].”

Perhaps this was the major issue confronting the select committee. In the case of the province and Ontario Hydro, it’s like the old peanut shell game. You can put one or two of them under a shell and you can shuffle them around and hope that you’re going to pick the right one that’s going to solve the problem. I think this was one of the difficulties with the select committee in trying to make the right choice and saying that Hydro must reduce its borrowing capacities.

[4:45]

The heavy borrowings of Ontario Hydro and the deficit spending of the Ontario government have caused considerable alarm as to where the money can be raised to finance Hydro’s expansion programmes. If Hydro were to obtain approval for its borrowing programme, it would mean a catastrophe to the government of Ontario for the year 1976. There is no doubt about it; it would cause some financial difficulty. In efforts to finance many of its own programmes, the debt load of the province has been unreasonably high and the present economic downturn will add further to the province’s present difficulties in raising funds on the public market.

The province has been fortunate in the past that it could turn to the three major non-public sources of debenture funds: the Canada Pension Investment Fund, the Teachers’ Superannuation Fund and the Ontario Municipal Employee’s Retirement Fund. Non-public debentures were the only source of financing required by the province in the fiscal year 1975. Public borrowings for general purposes in the year 1971 were 29.7 per cent; and in 1975 were 16.6 per cent. It’s pretty nice that you can return to private pensions to reduce public borrowing by the Province of Ontario. Much can be said about the type of easy financing for the government. There is no doubt about it; it is a silent cushion on the provincial debt.

If these funds were not available, I’m sure the province would have difficulties in raising money on the public market. Can one assume any advantage for Ontario’s Triple A rating in the public market? We’ve discussed this matter of the Triple A rating with knowledgeable persons during the committee hearings. I have a little doubt about the matter of the Triple A rating or the B++ rating. With this in mind, the investment dealers who handled the latest $300 million debt issue in New York appeared before the select committee of the Legislature looking at Hydro’s proposed rate increases. They informed the committee of somewhat poor reception of these debentures, thus signalling the need for caution in approaching bond markets.

A chap representing Salomon Brothers, United States underwriter, appeared before the hearing, and wrote the following on Ontario’s condition:

“Hydro’s growing capital demands together with the increased demands of the province itself may affect the credit rating of the province. Hydro’s financial integrity must therefore be regarded within the context of how it affects the province’s credit standing. This means that Hydro’s debt-equity ratio should be disciplined and that it’s financial policies should have as their objective the financial independence of Hydro, having regard for the provincial guarantee and the necessity of complying with provincial fiscal policy.”

What they are saying is that with the increase in the requirements on the part of both Hydro and the credit rating of the province, which in the latest fiscal report is $1.9 billion, and the capital constructions of Hydro, it has become apparent to the rating agencies that not only the credit of the province itself, but also the ability of Hydro to support itself, has to be “more closely scrutinized”.

Mr. Speaker, looking at that comment, perhaps I should make the comment that public spending is out of control. When you combine the two of them, it raises a serious problem in the Province of Ontario and for Hydro. Perhaps if we continue on this spending programme, be it provincial or Hydro, the province could be bankrupt in the near future.

I mentioned during the discussion on this particular question that I thought perhaps Ontario was missing the boat by not issuing its own debentures as it relates to Hydro borrowing. I think I have learned something from experience with Canada Savings Bonds and with War Bonds, where persons on a payroll could buy bonds of $5, $10, $50 or $100. I think this is a programme that maybe the Province of Ontario should be getting into. We could sell the bonds to residents of the Province of Ontario, provided they were offered at a fair interest rate. They could be purchased in amounts from $50 to $100, and perhaps on up to the $5,000 or $25,000 bonds being sold today.

I think the revenue generated from an investment of this type, by assisting Hydro in its financing programme, could reduce the overall increase in power rates. It’s just something that I thought the committee should be looking at. I believe the Ontario Municipal Electric Association -- I guess that is what it is called -- has also suggested this to the committee.

It has worked very well in some communities -- selling debentures locally to residents of a community -- and it has paid off very well. You wouldn’t have to go to the large borrowing companies or borrowing firms and hope that they can help you get rid of your debentures, or sell them to some foreign market in order to assist us in financing our programmes.

Mr. Speaker, these are some of the things I was concerned about. There is also the matter of the committee being able to continue its review of Ontario Hydro rates; that we will be able to continue into the next three months, that the House will concur with the recommendations of the report.

There are many fields that perhaps a committee of the Legislature should be looking at. I suppose one is the possibility that there could be savings in reserve capacity. I am concerned about that. It is presently around 35 per cent. I think, if we took a hard look at that particular area, there perhaps could be a reduction in the expansion programme that is presently sponsored by Ontario Hydro.

This is an area the committee hasn’t had ample time to deal with. I think it is an area that is going to take quite a bit of time to pursue; and hopefully the committee can come up with some solutions to control the expenditures of Ontario Hydro.

I think we are all concerned that if we reduce the present figure by three per cent and lower it to 18 per cent, as has been suggested by some members -- that’s at the bulk rate -- there is a possibility that there are a number of jobs in the Province of Ontario which could disappear in a curtailment of this nature.

With the economy as it is now, perhaps we are heading into a further recession, and employment is one of the key matters concerning the committee. I think we should be looking at employment levels. Hopefully, no jobs will be lost in the Province of Ontario.

I am concerned about the present rate of unemployment. I believe the chairman mentioned during a speaking engagement that some 10,000 to 12,000 jobs are directly involved with Hydro projects. I suppose we also have to have a deeper look into the impact of the fabricating industries in the Province of Ontario. These firms are supplying many of the materials for these projects. If I recall Hydro’s report, I think 65 per cent or 67 per cent of the goods and materials supplied for Hydro come from the Province of Ontario. This is one good thing about their programme; they are creating employment in Ontario.

The other matter I’m concerned about is the gas shortage that is being predicted by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell). He has brought in an amendment to the Ontario Energy Board Act to allocate gas in the case of emergency. This is something which puzzled the committee a little hit, and I think we have to take a serious look at this matter. If gas is not going to be available in large amounts in the next five years, then I think more people are perhaps going to be turning to the use of energy from Ontario Hydro generating stations. All these things have to be taken into consideration.

I know it’s difficult at the present time for Ontario Hydro to know what position the committee is taking and what position the government is taking on their programme. Perhaps, as I said before, if we get the concurrence of the Legislature that the committee can continue to review the questions that I have raised and other members have raised, which need further study and further discussion, then I think the committee can do a far better job in the future.

Mr. Renwick: I’d like to speak laconically about the report. First of all, for the sake of posterity, I would think the Hansard should record who the staff was that played such a brilliant part in our proceedings and, as their names have been omitted, I am going to venture to put them on the record. Mr. James D. Fisher was the consultant to the committee in economic matters, and Mr. Alan M. Schwartz was counsel for the committee. I’m quite certain, in years to come, that people will undoubtedly want to know who served the committee so faithfully.

I’m pleased that the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) saw fit to associate himself with the members of this party and the members of the Conservative Party in signing the report; and, of course, my colleague, the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes), answered the comments made by the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), who did not sign the report. I want to deal only very briefly with a couple of matters raised by the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook). I was pleased that the member for Sarnia, in substance, dissociated himself from many of the positions stated by the member for London Centre. The matters to which I want to make comment show the very narrow margin of disagreement that really existed, so far as I perceived it, between the members of the committee who signed the report and the member for Sarnia.

The member for Sarnia took the position that the guidelines -- the spirit of the guidelines, not the textual or legal content of the guidelines as they were known to us at the time the report was written -- required us to produce a result to the customer of Hydro of an overall increase of 12 per cent. That would have, in the view of the committee, required a reduction on an interim basis at this point in time of six percentage points; and we chose, I believe responsibly, to at this point only reduce it by three percentage points.

I do want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we were not unaware of the Treasurer’s (Mr. McKeough) directive to Ontario Hydro with respect to cutting its expectations in the capital market in the year to come. We, in the report, clearly indicated that if in fact, as a result of the Treasurer’s directive to Hydro, its capital borrowings in 1976 were reduced by $400 million because of the reduction in the interest charges to Hydro as a result of such reduction, we would expect Ontario Hydro, without any further prodding or urging from us, to reduce their bulk power rate by two percentage point, which would have brought us, of course, to a five-percentage-point reduction.

I take it that the member for Sarnia is really saying to us: “Let’s take that chance and do it now and make it a five per cent reduction.” We felt, on balance, that we could not do that until such time as the Treasurer’s directive was implemented by Ontario Hydro. If, as we believe to be so, the Treasurer does adhere to that Hydro directive we would anticipate that in a short period of time Hydro will voluntarily reduce its wholesale bulk power increase by a further two percentage points.

[5:00]

The member for Sarnia, Mr. Speaker, also referred to his concern that we had not dealt with the question of the overhead costs of Hydro and taken the plunge and reduced the rate further because it was possible, obviously, to reduce overhead costs. We didn’t share that view because we didn’t have the time to make the study. I simply want to point out that our report very clearly indicates the very deep concern of the committee about the level of the overhead costs of Hydro.

The acceptance of the 1976 forecasts of overhead costs is not in any way to be taken as an agreement by the committee that they must remain at that level. Indeed, we expressed very clearly that the committee was of the opinion that these overhead costs should be subject to close and careful scrutiny by this committee during the period of its extended life to March 31. We are not ignoring the concern of the member for Sarnia that the overhead costs do require an ongoing and very careful scrutiny.

There was at all times during the committee’s hearings a concern about the so-called nuclear payback because of the Pickering plant, the arrangements made for the original construction of the Pickering plant, and the contributions made by the government of Canada and the government of the Province of Ontario, along with Ontario Hydro, to the financing of that plant.

I do want the Legislature to be aware that we did note that renegotiation of the nuclear payback and the water rental agreements could result in a lowering of energy variable costs. While we were aware of the complexities involved in those matters, we encouraged Hydro to continue its current negotiations to see whether or not it wouldn’t be possible at this time to have a re-arrangement of the financial charges imposed on Hydro under the nuclear payback and water rental agreements which might provide further assistance to Hydro in cuffing its bulk power rate further and therefore benefitting the consumers of the Province of Ontario.

I think it is fair to say we are not very far apart -- those members of the committee who signed the report and the member for Sarnia -- as to the area within which it may well be possible, as a result of our ongoing work, to effect a further reduction together with the directive which the Treasurer made to Ontario Hydro about reducing its capital borrowings.

I am hopeful that the House will consent to an extension of the life of this committee. I assume that ultimately, of course, the government will, in one way or another, have to give an indication that it is prepared to extend the lifetime of the committee and I hope the minister may see fit in his closing remarks in this debate to indicate that that is so.

It is obviously essential that we have an opportunity to look at the capital expansion programme of Hydro over the next period of two, three or four years. This is not simply for the purpose of trying to place ourselves in the position of being experts in that field but rather because it will give us an opportunity to question and examine in some depth some of the traditional assumptions on which Ontario Hydro has operated up to the present time. As we are all aware, and as Ontario Hydro is aware, many of these matters involve social, economic and political decisions which are not part of the role of Ontario Hydro. Ontario Hydro obviously has a role in commenting and making its input into our consideration of those factors on which we are ultimately going to have to make recommendations to this assembly.

It will be a burdensome task, I think, for all members of the committee but I look forward to it because it was a matter of extreme interest to me as it was to the other members of the committee. I would hope that within the time of the extension requested we can report to this assembly and I, for one, do not think there is going to be any need in the long run for there to be some ongoing and continuing committee of this Legislature scrutinizing the affairs of Ontario Hydro.

I think, from time to time and at different periods of time, it is wise for a committee of the assembly to look at Ontario Hydro because of its bedrock importance to the economy and life and well-being of the province but, certainly, there is no requirement that there be any ongoing supervision by this assembly of the affairs of Ontario Hydro. Ontario Hydro is well and capably served by its senior executive officers and I assume that reflects the care and attention given throughout the whole of the Hydro staff to the demands placed on Ontario Hydro for the generation and distribution and supply of electric power in the province.

I do hope the minister will give us the assurance that we will be given an opportunity to complete our work and report as expeditiously as possible to this assembly.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if no other members wish to speak I’d like, if I may, to wind up this afternoon’s discussion. I want first of all to say how much I appreciate -- this is all sounding like a testimonial this afternoon -- the way in which the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) has conducted this committee. I indicated on the day that I moved the motion to establish this select committee that I had served with him a number of years ago and that I had great faith in him. My faith, or my perception of his devotion to duty and his responsible attitude, has not only not been let down, it’s been further enhanced.

I want to say, too, that those of my staff who have worked with and tried to assist the staff of the committee wherever possible have individually and collectively reported to me their admiration for the staff of the committee. I would join with the other members of the House who sat on the select committee in giving them their due for the work they have done.

I would be remiss if I didn’t thank my own staff. Members will appreciate that when this committee was formed I viewed it with a little bit of trepidation, so obviously I have asked my staff from time to time to sit in on some of the proceedings since I am not always able to get away. They have done an excellent job nut only in assisting the staff of the committee when asked but in keeping me briefed on the activities of this group.

I want to say right off the bat how much I appreciate the fact that the chairman of the committee has stressed responsibility, and I have heard this come up time and again in the remarks of all three parties. A couple of members seem to have a different twist on how they perceive responsibility. I was going to read into the record some of the comments from page 735-2 of the select committee transcripts in regard to the feelings of the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) about responsibility or lack thereof. The committee, I feel, has started to come to grips with what is surely one of the most complex fields in government. The members of the committee now start to understand why for the first two or three months after last Jan. 14, this particular member of the House had a few sleepless nights wondering what a megawatt really was, what all of this was really about. They are starting to get into it and they have handed it responsibly.

There are a number of comments that some members made, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to reply to or at least comment on. Before I go any further, let me answer the point raised by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), that being that the government will support and vote for the motion placed by the chairman of the committee to extend the life of the committee, so that it will wind up at the end of March rather than at the end of this month.

The member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) made a number of interesting comments and my colleague from Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) has already touched on one aspect, that being his reference to taking Hydro under political control. This is a subject of course that has been discussed from time to time for as long as Hydro has been around.

It has always been the policy of this party that Hydro, whether it he called Ontario Hydro as it is now or the old Hydro-Electric Power Commission, is best set up as a commission or as a corporation operating under the terms of the legislation of the day, whether it’s called the Power Commission Act or the Power Corporation Act, and coming to government where necessary for approvals of various projects -- and there are 24 or 25 different categories within which Hydro must come to the executive council of this province for approval -- not to involve the politicians in the day to day operations of the corporation, not to make the delivery of what is surely one of the most necessary commodities in this society today subject to the vagaries of political whim.

Several hon. members touched on the question of nuclear paybacks and the water rentals. Let me just express my own feelings on that; this came out somewhat at the select committee in our discussions. My own feeling is that Hydro should be self-sustaining, that Hydro should not be treated any differently when you are talking about the case of water rentals, than you would treat a company like, for instance, Canadian Niagara Power with which the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) is familiar, or for that matter any other element of the private sector.

What the hon. member might have pointed out if he wanted to take his argument a little further is that in the current year, or rather last year -- I haven’t got the figures for this year -- Hydro paid almost $11 million to municipalities as grants in lieu of taxes. If he wanted to -- when I say he, I am mainly referring to the member for London Centre -- he might well have taken the argument further and said that Hydro should not make any payments to any governments, that we should all exempt them in the interests of rates. I don’t think that’s a reasonable position I think that the corporization, if you will, of Hydro that was begun a number of years ago is in the best interests of the customers, that all of its costs are known and defined and that we don’t subsidize them.

A number of members have referred to the questions of reserves, rate structure, conservation and so forth. This is probably going to be one of the more difficult parts of the work of the committee in the next 3½ months. There is no question that we are all concerned about it.

Of course in 1974, the Energy Board, after reviewing the Hydro programme and the rates for 1975, recommended a lowering of the reserve. Subsequent events have made it necessary that that recommendation will be followed, but at the same time that that’s been happening the changes in the economy in the province and with our customers to the south have pushed the reserve up for other reasons.

[5:15]

What you’re going to have to do, of course is to strike some kind of a judgement as to how low is enough? Right now we’re running in the mid-30s, I suppose. I haven’t seen an exact figure for a few weeks. Some of the utilities to the south of us are running reserve margins as high as and in excess of 90 per cent right now because of the economy mainly and hopefully because of some beginnings of a development of a conservation ethic. One hopes for that and we’ll keep stressing that.

The member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) and the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) on the question of their dissent stressed that they wanted to do what was right for the consumer in the short term. They are prepared, if I understand their statements and their arguments correctly, to run the risk that Ontario Hydro’s financial integrity and, therefore, the integrity of the Province of Ontario --

Mr. Reid: That has never been proved. That wasn’t proved in there.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- might be called into question. That’s perhaps one of the points that the member for Rainy River blurts out, and blurts is probably the kindest way to put it.

Mr. Reid: While you show your statesmanlike qualities.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The point is the majority of that committee and the government of this province show a concern that we don’t want to take the risk of finding out if that’s absolutely true.

Mr. Reid: What you’re saying is you don’t know either. You just proved what I said and what the other two members said.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Once you cross that line it’s not a simple matter to fall back behind some safety line.

Mr. Reid: You just proved their whole position with that statement.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The members of the committee have listened to the same kind of advice that the government has been given and they’ve arrived at the same conclusion, that if you’re going to err, err a little higher, and in the long run that is in the best interests of the consumers.

Mr. Reid: That’s been the problem with Hydro for the last 30 years.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had the chance to participate. Perhaps he’s going on tile committee, I don’t know.

Mr. Riddell: You’re being very provocative.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I think you just don’t want to listen to the truth.

Mr. Reid: Just contradictory.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. minister just continue his remarks?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You just don’t want to listen to the truth.

Mr. Riddell: Just give us the facts, forget that nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What the hon. member suggests is a course of action which, if -- and we deal with a lot of ifs, obviously -- it turned out to work against the interests of Hydro and the province could not be reversed overnight. If shattered, the confidence of the investment community, not only abroad but at home in this province and in that utility, could not be restored in a matter of weeks or months; rather it would take years, as we’ve experienced in the history of this province, as between the Hepburn government and the subsequent governments.

Also taking from the remarks of the member for Sarnia, Mr. Speaker, I think some of the things he said point out the dilemma that many of us feel who are involved in the energy field in this province, other provinces and in the Dominion. It’s the dilemma over financial integrity, of whether it’s a publicly-owned hydro utility or a regulated gas utility; of price in wanting to have the lowest possible price for your consumers, and of conservation.

There’s this continuing argument that we’re confronted with from all corners that so long as we keep energy prices below increases in income -- and that has been the trend over the last 15, 20, 25 or 30 years -- we’re never going to be able to achieve any modicum of an effective conservation policy. I don’t have the answers for that. I just throw it out for what it’s worth because it is something that again the committee is going to have to deal with.

The report of the select committee on Hydro rates constitutes a significant contribution to the process of electric energy planning in Ontario. The content of the report indicates, as I’ve said before, that the members of the committee have quickly received an extensive background in many of the complexities of electrical energy supply and demands and, I hope, in the broader energy picture as well. The continuing work of the committee hopefully will contribute further to increased understanding of energy issues, both on the part of members of this Legislature and of the general public whom we represent.

It has been noted, and perhaps it should be reinforced somewhat, that review of Ontario Hydro by a committee of the House is not an unprecedented occurrence. Prior to 1970 -- I think this was mentioned by my friend from York South (Mr. MacDonald) -- there was a standing committee of the Legislature which reviewed Hydro’s plans and operations on an annual basis. Someone implied that that was somehow restricted to perhaps an hour or so; I don’t think that was the case, but rather it was a case of what the members wanted to get into. Perhaps in those days, considering that there had been no rate increases from 1955 to 1965 -- in fact, the rates had gone down -- there just wasn’t the atmosphere that there is today. Perhaps the members of that House just weren’t as concerned as the members of this House are and rightly should be.

At that time, Hydro functioned under what was known as the Power Commission Act, it reported to the Minister of the Environment, and the technical decisions were made by Hydro’s system planners. But again, due to the increasing complexity of electrical energy planning in the social and economic environment of the 1970s and into the foreseeable future, review by an agency with established resources, was seen to be important. Such an agency -- and, of course, I am talking about the Energy Board -- could undertake a more extensive and detailed review than was possible by a standing committee of the Legislature.

Since 1970, Ontario Hydro has been examined from a variety of perspectives. Task Force Hydro was established in 1971 to study the future role and place of Ontario Hydro in the Province of Ontario. This formed part of the overall COGP programme. Task Force Hydro’s report No. 1 outlined objectives of a broad socioeconomic nature winch might be added, by clear policy direction from the government, to Hydro’s traditional and fundamental ones of supply and demand and meeting reliability standards.

Task Force Hydro indicated that changed structures and mechanisms of review and control would be required to allow adequate consideration of the broad spectrum of concerns in electric energy planning. In 1973 the Ministry of Energy was formed, and the then Minister of Energy introduced the Power Corporation Act and the amendments to the Ontario Energy Act, giving himself the authority to approve and direct review of Ontario Hydro’s projects and policies through various bodies. Reviews by the Ontario Energy Board have taken place subsequently of Hydro’s bulk power rate request for 1975 and 1976 and Hydro’s system expansion programme to 1982. Hydro’s financial plans and policies also have been publicly examined by the board, with full rights and opportunities for anyone to intervene.

The OEB will continue in its role as a review agency. Part 2 of the Energy Board’s report on bulk power rates for 1976 is expected in January, and Hydro’s rate request for 1977 will be referred to the board when it is received by the end of April.

Other specific matters, such as Hydro’s study on electricity costing and pricing, which is now under way, will be reviewed by the board when received by me and referred to them.

Individual elements of Ontario Hydro’s capital construction programme have also been examined. Hydro itself initiated a public participation process for transmission and generation projects in 1973. Since that time, this procedure for public involvement has been and is being used for generating stations such as Thunder Bay, Atikokan, Pickering B, Bruce B, Darlington and the North Channel, for the 500-kV transmission lines from Nanticoke to Pickering and Lennox to Oshawa, and for several 230-kV transmission lines, including Prince Edward county. Inquiries were also undertaken by Dr. Omond Solandt on the proposed 500-kV transmission lines from Nanticoke to Pickering and from Lennox to Oshawa. Future Hydro projects will be included in environmental assessment procedures as outlined in the Environmental Assessment Act.

Despite these specific reviews, which had been undertaken in the early 1970s, it became apparent that a system-wide examination in public of the need for Hydro projects in a broad, socioeconomic context had not taken place and would be extremely useful. Such a review would have to examine provincial priorities in planning in relationship to long-range plans for expanding the Ontario Hydro system.

Therefore, the royal commission on electric power planning was established and is now at work at its task in respect to Hydro system expansion programme from 1983 to 1993. The royal commission will be instrumental in helping to establish a direction of long-term electric energy planning. It will give consideration to the need for electrical energy in the context of the total future energy requirements of this province and will examine the supply-demand relationships of primary energy sources. The commission will consider social and economic concerns with special emphasis on those expressed at the proceedings by participants with a broad range of interests.

It should be noted that Ontario Hydro’s capital construction programme in 1982 is not within the terms of reference of the Porter commission since all elements except the Darlington generating station are committed. In fact, for the same reason there were serious reservations about including some early aspects of the 1983-1993 programme. To allow for the orderly continuation of the expansion programme, their inclusion was finally made with the qualifications that they be given priority consideration.

Hydro’s system expansion programme has already been altered by recent policy directives. Deferral of Bruce B generating station and subsequent plants by six months resulted from the perceived need for a reduction in capital expenditures over a period of years to come. Additional alterations to Hydro’s capital construction programme are being considered now due to capital limitations that are foreseen in 1976 and perhaps for the years beyond.

The government is mindful of the fact that further changes could result and probably would result in serious impacts on the labour force, particularly affecting workers on Hydro construction projects and those employed in industries supplying Hydro. Not only new employment opportunities but also existing jobs would be threatened. I’m certain that the further work of the select committee will complement the previous and ongoing examinations of Ontario Hydro. The committee’s meetings will provide a useful forum for consideration of the many problems of supplying adequate amounts of electrical energy in the future at reasonable costs for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to ask a simple question of the minister in regard to his wind-up speech?

Mr. Speaker: Oh, I think so, yes.

Mr. Stokes: Since it seems to be the consensus that it is the wish of the House that the committee continue, would it be possible to expand the terms of reference to allow them to inquire into other forms of energy, such as wind for northern Ontario?

Mr. Renwick: There’s a lot of it here.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The hon. member has written me about this several times and, as he knows, there is a research project which has been commissioned since my time in the ministry into wind energy -- as well as work, for that matter, on solar energy, and wind energy is just a form of solar energy. I would think that the member should take some comfort in that, plus the fact that the Porter commission will be looking at all forms and that is going on right now.

Mr. Stokes: That’s after 1982.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member thinks that in the immediate future we are going to be able to produce as much electricity from windmills as we get from a Pickering, a Bruce or a Nanticoke, then I am afraid we have to disagree.

Mr. Stokes: No, I am speaking of small, remote communities with 50 or 100 houses.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it is pointless to put it to committee because, assuming that the initial stages of our research are as positive as we expect them to be, we are committed to and we intend to do the kind of work -- the application of that research in the north -- that the hon. member refers to. It is not a case that we are trying to fudge it or stuff it away. Assuming there are no budgetary problems -- and that’s like assuming you are never going to get ill -- then we will apply that research, so I really think it would be pointless.

Report agreed to.

[5:30]

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

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS ACT

House in committee on Bill 5, An Act to regulate Holiday Closings for Retail Businesses.

Mr. Chairman: In dealing with Bill 5, the minister has indicated he has an amendment to section 3(2)(c). Are there any comments on any prior section of the bill?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves that clause (c) of subsection 2 of section 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “three” in the last line and inserting in lieu thereof “four.”

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: If I may just speak briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one or two general remarks, with your indulgence.

First of all, I am very pleased with the work of this committee. In saying that, I must say that I think we brought forth a reasonable bill at the start, but I do say that with the co-operation of all parties, I think the bill we have brought forth has been improved upon. I want to thank all members who served on that select committee for their help in doing just that.

I also want to say a brief word of tribute -- and I don’t want to overemphasize it -- to the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), who I think conducted the committee in a most admirable way.

Mr. Samis: She did a great job with the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer).

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I was going to say she had some difficult members to deal with, and she dealt with them fairly and firmly, at least in my opinion; but she also had some delegations whom she also heard in full, and yet didn’t let them ramble away from the point. I just wanted to say those words of tribute, first of all to the members of the committee and then to the chairman.

In regard to the amendment I have just moved, the committee in its wisdom decided to permit drug stores of any size to remain open on Sunday and other holidays but, in so doing, continued to limit them to three employees. I think the fact is that because so many drug stores in so many communities are now well over the size we had originally suggested in the bill, 2,400 sq. ft, it was going to be hard for them to operate those stores by way of policing. If they are going to be open at all -- and I think it is in the interests of the general public that drug stores throughout the province should be reasonably accessible, even during holidays -- then, in all fairness, I think we have to allow them more than three employees. First of all, one may be a delivery boy who is in and out of the store; also, they may require somebody to police the rest of the area. I do feel that because of the size of the majority of the drug stores across the province today this bill would be improved by changing three employees to four employees. That’s the reason I put it forward.

Mr. Samis: First of all I would like to join the minister in congratulating the chairman of the committee who conducted herself admirably and sometimes firmly. Sometimes firmness was very welcome in dealing with the member for Wilson Heights --

Mr. Singer: She certainly did. She was admirable.

Mr. Samis: -- and was gratefully appreciated by the rest of us on the committee.

Hon. Mr. Welch: She sat on the committee several times.

Mr. Samis: Secondly, we would agree with the minister that it wasn’t an easy bill to deal with because of the nature of the possibility of exemptions, the number of people concerned and involved by the bill and the special cases that we had to deal with. I think the committee has come to a compromise in the overall bill and we congratulate the members on all sides in their willingness to reach a reasonable compromise.

In regard to this specific amendment, we would have to vote against this. We will support the original bill. We think that three is adequate. The main purpose of this bill is to restrict business operations on Sunday. We have compromised throughout the bill. We accepted three originally -- I think the committee accepted it. We’re very worried that if we extend it to one more, to four employees, this will open it up to such operations as Shoppers Drug Mart and other types, and we’re primarily concerned on this side with the small independent businessman, in this case, the druggist, the pharmacist who can operate on Sunday.

We’ve noticed letters to the editor and have had representations from people saying this would deprive them of proper drug facilities and prescription facilities. I would point out to such people that in small towns those people have learned to live with the fact that frequently drug stores are closed, period, on Sunday and they have survived. I would like to point out that there are facilities beyond the drug store in that particular situation. Secondly, drug stores are open six days a week and, thirdly, if we keep to the bill as it was originally drawn up, drug stores will be open on Sundays as long as they’re small independent operations.

I would also like to make the minister aware of the fact that we intend to move an amendment regarding space limitations on this. I believe one of my colleagues has some material he would like to read into the record from people in the business giving their perspective on the whole question of the size needed in terms of employees to operate on Sundays.

In summation, I should say that I will try to keep all my comments rather brief on this since we’ve gone over this several times in committee, but we will oppose this amendment.

Mrs. Campbell: May I express my appreciation to both of those speakers who have addressed I themselves to my chairmanship.

I have some grave problems with this whole section. However, I support the principle of allowing the drug stores to be opened, largely based on the submission of the Ontario Hospital Association, which made it abundantly clear to this committee that we would be increasing the costs of the delivery of health service if we closed the large chain drug stores.

As I say, I have grave reservations because I don’t like anything which seems to set up a monopoly situation and there is no doubt that in my riding the chain drug stores are department stores. It seems inequitable to me that they should be allowed to sell anything by dint of having the pharmacy included in the overall description of their occupation.

However, once we come to the conclusion, as the committee really did, that all of them should be allowed to remain open for this purpose and having in mind the fact that it is almost impossible to police this situation if you try to get them to close off sections, I believe for practical purposes we would have to say that probably to operate at all, having accepted those premises, four employees probably makes better sense. My position is that I accept that with great reluctance.

Mr. Ziemba: I too would like to congratulate our chairman on the Bill 5 committee. She did an outstanding oh steering this very sensitive bill through the swamp-land, as it was referred to in the press, with all the dangers that were apparent.

I am going to just read one or two excerpts from the report on Sunday observance legislation by the Ontario Law Reform Commission. With regard to drug stores, the report says:

“No one would deny the essentiality of a drug store on Sunday for the sale of drugs, medicine or medical appliances. The difficulty is in regulating and containing those many items which a drug store usually sells and yet which cannot reasonably be said to fall within those terms. This is particularly true for those items which are also sold in other classes of stores or establishments which are required by law to remain closed on Sundays. And as noted previously, some drugstores have expanded their Sunday operation into such nor-essential items as hardware, paint and sporting goods.”

I am concerned that by legislating in favour of the large stores, the monopolies, Shoppers Drug Mart and Top Discount Stores, we will be encouraging a trend that has seen the disappearance of the neighbourhood drug store.

In 1962, we had 1,907 pharmacies in Ontario; in 1964, there were 1,838; in 1969, there were 1,636; and last year, 1974, we had 1,558 pharmacies. This trend is a result of the large drug monopolies -- Shoppers, Top Discount -- moving into an area and forcing out of business the small druggist, the fellow who provides a delivery service, that deals on a face-to-face basis with his customers and shares their concerns and problems.

I am going to read you two letters that I have from small pharmacies. One says:

“I wish to refute the scare ads placed Dec. 6 by my colleagues of the Ontario Pharmacists’ Association. I could also classify it as hypocritical.

“I have had a long career in pharmacy from earlier apprenticeship days to recent years. I have been privileged to nut only own three retail pharmacies and serve in hospital pharmacies but also in the area of public relations and consultant to the industry.

“I have also covered most of this continent in my travels and spoken to many pharmacists while, at the same time, observing their establishments. Two things were always apparent: Pharmacies were open too many hours and a great percentage of the merchandise did not belong in the pharmacy.

“Perhaps the association’s ad should have read: ‘Don’t run out of the following on Sundays, pantyhose, toothpaste, hair spray or colouring, film or corn plasters’ or even birth control pills, high blood pressure medication or insulin that you could well have obtained the other six days of the week.”

The letter is signed, Will Burgis, pharmacist, Niagara Falls.

[5:45]

The other letter is from Perry S. Simon, BSc, a pharmacist from Downsview, Ont., who writes:

“The purpose of this letter is to put forth my views on current legislation proposals and the retail pharmacy business in light of our recent telephone conversation.

“Firstly, judging from past performance, I tend to think that both the Ontario Pharmacists’ Association and the Ontario College of Pharmacists, while supposedly representing and working on behalf of all pharmacists, have definite leanings toward large corporations and chain operations.

“In light of this fact, consumers should be able to cope in such cases as repeat prescriptions and new prescriptions written on a day other than Sunday. Thus most current Sunday prescriptions can be filled on another day. Bear in mind that smaller, service-oriented pharmacies, many of which offer delivery service, are now serving an increased proportion of senior citizens and others who enjoy privileges of the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan.

“As for prescriptions written on Sunday, the prescriber should be well aware of where his or her patient may have the prescription filled on that day, if it is of immediate importance, and emergency drugs are always available. Consumers should quickly be able to see that Sunday is in the same category as after 9 p.m. on weekdays.

“This legislation, which may impose a size restriction, is of importance to maintain the smaller community pharmacy, rather than the large chain store. The latter may be more interested in selling merchandise which consumers can’t obtain from department and other stores which are closed Sunday. [That’s a good point.]

“Perhaps this legislation will help prevent the demise of smaller community-oriented pharmacies, which are interested in serving the public -- ”

Let me just explain Mr. Chairman. He was of the opinion that we were going to limit the size of the pharmacies to 2,400 sq. ft.

“ -- and which offer, for the most part, comparable prices to the ‘drug marts’, contrary to inferences in massive advertising campaigns. This will help maintain the small businessman as the backbone of the economy and prevent the same fate as, for example, the small grocer.

“The Ontario College of Pharmacists does not do what it can for the independent pharmacist, such as controlling the location of corporate drug stores owned by non-pharmacists (Dominion, Loblaw, Oshawa Group, Imperial Tobacco, etc.) right ‘next door’ to the independent. I myself, am employed by a pharmacy in such a predicament.

“If professional service is of the essence, access in larger stores should be limited to the dispensary and related areas only. Three employees and 2,400 sq. ft. floor space should adequately fill these requirements. But perhaps dollars are more important than professionalism. This legislation is intended to discriminate on a store size basis in all areas of business, including pharmacy.”

Here is a good point:

“Concerning geographical areas which may be totally deprived of pharmaceutical service, this may be overcome by inclusion of a reasonable-distance clause in the legislation. The lobby seems to quibble over a few miles in a metropolitan area, where travelling extensive distances for entertainment (hardly more important than urgent situations) is commonplace. In a Dec. 12 letter to the editor of the Toronto Star, a pharmacist speaks of an area of over ‘nine square miles’ which may be denied pharmaceutical services. This, in fact, represents a 1½-mile distance from the most isolated household in this area. The public knows full well where its community pharmacies are located, and legislation such as this will help improve the meaning of the word ‘community’ and, in a sense, legislate in favour of the community itself on more than one count. This should encourage existence of many freely accessible, service-oriented pharmacies which do not sell hardware or magazines but serve the public in their area of professional specialty.

“I appreciate your willingness to support the cause of the independent, small businessman-pharmacist.”

It seems like a contradiction, a socialist supporting a small businessman-pharmacist, but there you go, Mr. Chairman.

I think that by limiting the size and by limiting the number of employees, we will be reversing a trend that has seen the disappearance of the neighbourhood pharmacy and the encouragement of a monopoly situation that will, in the long term, result in higher prices to the consumer. I would strongly urge the members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister about one of the items that are included in one of the sections of the bill. It sort of disturbs me a bit, because knowing what --

Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with an amendment specifically changing the wording of clause (c) of subsection 2 of section 3 from “three” to four.”

Mr. B. Newman: Right.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps you will confine your remarks to the minister’s amendment.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister if he could explain to me what is meant by the word “sundries” in subsection 2(b), because “sundries” certainly does leave the field wide open. It was a point of explanation I wanted there.

Mr. Chairman: I had already asked the committee if there were any comments or anything previous to subsection 2(c); nobody responded. The minister has the amendment before us. Anything in the bill previous to that has been passed.

Mr. Newman: We will raise it at another time.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I find myself in agreement with the minister’s amendment and I intend to support it. I think most of my colleagues do as well. It makes some sense to me for two reasons: The first is that when the committee heard representations, there was a gentleman who came from the Ontario Hospital Association who said, “If you close drug stores on Sunday, you are going to force the people who need the services of a pharmacist to the emergency sections of the hospitals if they need prescription drugs. They will have to be looked at by a doctor who will take the time of a nurse. It is a very complicated and expensive procedure which the people of Ontario will have to pay for and it will have to be done through those emergency sections of the various hospitals throughout the province.”

That made some substantial sense to me particularly since we are all concerned about the cost of supplying health services. I think an action which we might take insofar as adding to the cost of running our health services is concerned would be highly questionable at any time, particularly today when we are concerned about inflation.

The second point: We began to look at the size of drug stores and how could we apply a square foot limitation. The hon. member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) is concerned about monopolies and elimination of neighbourhood drug stores and perhaps we all are. Some of his colleagues were concerned, as this bill went through the committee, with the hours of work.

This bill does not relate to minimum wages. It doesn’t relate to monopolies. It doesn’t relate to hours of work. It relates to one simple principle, a day of pause. I think it is wrong to try to argue that an individual section or subsection or even the principle of it has to be bent and twisted so that we can, if we want to, say, “We don’t like Mac’s milk” or “We don’t like large drug chains” or “Twenty-five hours of work in a week is enough” or “The minimum wage is too low”. There are other ways of dealing with that.

The final argument which convinced me was that after this bill came through the select committee it was suggested to me that in a store where a pharmaceutical service is going to be provided by reason of a qualified pharmacist, perhaps 100 or 150 people can be dealt with on a Sunday. If they all descend within a few hours’ time, at the same time, at that drug store and expect the pharmacist to do all of the things he has to do in relation to serving them even though the facility is open they are going to have to wait perhaps an hour or two hours or longer before they get any kind of service. I don’t think the minister’s addition of one extra employee is as much -- I know it isn’t -- as was suggested to me would be reasonable. However, it is a compromise and this whole statute is a series of compromises.

The minister’s amendment makes good sense to me and I think it should be supported. I think it is quite extraneous to bring in the opinion or the very strong feeling of the member for High Park-Swansea and his antipathy toward large drug chains which might be eliminating the little neighbourhood drug store we used to know.

All of the possibilities of enforcement have to be looked at. Surely, we are not going to go back to the days when we stationed a policeman -- perhaps the Solicitor General is going to have his own new police force -- outside every drug store, asking the people who come out of the drug store to open up their paper bags to see what they bought in there. Maybe they have committed an offence under this new statute we have passed and little Johnny who was sent to the drug store to get another tube of toothpaste goes off to jail because he has committed this heinous offence of having breached this new statute.

We are trying to make a gesture here I think it is going to be difficult enough to enforce. We are trying to provide the facility as a service to the public within the context of providing a day of pause. What the minister says is not the ideal; none of this statute is ideal; it is a difficult statute. I think the compromise he suggests makes sense.

Mr. Warner: I am somewhat disturbed by the remarks of the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) particularly because I perceive them to be somewhat mischievous. They really are an extension of the kind of attitude that we saw on occasion in the committee.

The bill came in for a specific purpose, to bring about a day of pause. We all knew from the outset it would be difficult to deal with, but we all felt there was some way of providing a day of pause and to allow some exceptions. When we got the case of the drug stores, the decision had to be made on the basis of an essential service, in effect. The question right now on the numerical description of either three or four, as the amendment is put, really hinges on the whole concept about an essential service.

What we have found out from our discussion with those people who have been directly involved in the operation of drug stores is that we can in the Province of Ontario provide an essential service to the communities using those drug stores which are 2,400 sq. ft. or less in size. That surely is the essence of our argument about providing an essential service.

Mr. Singer: That may be your estimate. It isn’t mine.

Mr. Warner: In fact, I would suggest that the member for Wilson Heights check with one of his colleagues in his own party from whom we obtained some considerable information. He is a person who has had considerable experience and I valued his comments. It seems quite clear to us now that the essential service of providing prescriptive drugs on Sunday can be met by stores of 2,400 sq. ft. or less. Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, we should be voting against the amendment to have four employees. We should in fact be insisting on an amendment that limits the size of the store to 2,400 sq. ft.

Mr. Chairman: I’d like to remind the committee, before we proceed further, that I think by general agreement -- and the House leader for the Liberal Party is the only one here who could confirm it -- we are going to stack all of the bills before the committee and have the vote all at the same time.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, we’re certainly content to accept that. It’s my understanding that Bill 5 will continue immediately at 8 o’clock and then we will proceed to complete Bill 26. We’re quite content to have the amendments all voted upon at that point, if that will convenience the House and save some time.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Those are the amendments for both bills, as I understand it.

Mr. Samis: We would agree wholeheartedly.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment on Hon. Mr. MacBeth’s amendment?

Mr. Ruston: Briefly, the problem that we’ve had in some of our own areas where small drug store owners have sold out to a chain in many of the towns in my riding is that we just have one drug store in the town which is larger than 2,400 sq. ft. They employ anywhere from two to 10 people, depending on the day it is when they’re busy. I would suppose they might squeeze through with three on Sunday but it’s also a possibility they would only be open maybe eight hours and, if they have a delivery man or something, they would have problems.

I can see the problems but I think that in my own area we’re almost going to have to go along with a little larger area. The problem in operating a small store -- and I’ve done this many years myself -- is that when you are operating a small store you are working 80 hours a week to keep it going. Rather than do that, a lot of the pharmacists sold their stores to a chain and are now working for the chain. They have many other things, of course, in there and I’m not sure that they should be selling them on Sunday. But there’s no way, as the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) has said, that you can be checking what they buy.

I think I would go along with the amendment on that basis, since many towns may have only one store which may be over 2,400 sq. ft. and on a Sunday it may operate with a minimum of three or four employees. Rather than give them problems, I think four employees should be allowed.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

I declare the amendment carried.

Shall we stack it?

Agreed.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.