The House resumed at 8:03 p.m.
The following bills were given third reading on motion:
Bill 113, An Act to amend the Training Schools Act;
Bill 115, An Act to revise the Children’s Mental Health Centres Act;
Bill 116, An Act to amend the Unified Family Court Act, 1976;
Bill 117, An Act to revise the Children’s Institutions Act;
Bill 118, An Act to revise the Children’s Boarding Homes Act;
Bill 119, An Act to amend the Provincial Courts Act;
Bill 120, An Act to revise the Day Nurseries Act;
Bill 146, An Act to amend the Assessment Act;
Bill 155, An Act to amend the Art Gallery of Ontario Act;
Bill 156, An Act to render immune from Seizure certain Objects of Cultural Significance brought into Ontario for Temporary Display or Exhibition;
Bill 157, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act;
Bill 158, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1973;
Bill 159, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act.
CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Welch, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McCague, moved third reading of Bill 173, An Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972.
Mr. Foulds: Could the Deputy Premier tell us why the name of the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) is not printed on the Order Paper for the third reading?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I think we should refer that to the committee on procedural affairs. We will send that to the Breaugh committee.
Mr. Breaugh: Explain. We will have to go overseas to investigate that.
Motion agreed to.
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF ENERGY
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Shall the estimates be concurred in?
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, just a few short comments on this motion before it comes to a vote in the Legislature. I think it fair to inform you, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of outstanding issues with which the committee dealt, in consideration of the supply motion and which also have come to this House in discussion over the last couple of weeks. I would like to give a short account of those major items. Though we may pay the bills, Mr. Speaker, the accounts are still to be settled on -- and by accounts I mean the long-term implications of decisions now pending, decisions taken, decisions taken long in the past and decisions around the corner, particularly by Ontario Hydro.
The first item to which I will refer is the confusion which still exists after a summer of work by the select committee on Hydro as to whether or not Bruce D will be completed under the Lummus contract.
We had been told originally by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) in commenting on the report of the select committee that Bruce D would be completed. That was on November 2, 1978, after we had put months of work into reviewing testimony on this project and recommended to the government and to the minister that Bruce D should only be half completed and the rest should be mothballed. Then later, on November 27, in response to a question from my colleague from York South (Mr. MacDonald), the minister indicated that the decision about completing D was still in the air.
I feel I speak for all the members who worked on the select committee considering the Lummus contract at Bruce D when I say there is a great deal of dissatisfaction that at this late date in 1978, over a year after the whole question of whether Bruce D should be completed by Lummus was first brought to public attention, we still do not know what the government’s intent is. We are told by the minister on November 27 that he has still not received final advice from Ontario Hydro on this.
I would like to underline our feeling -- it is certainly mine and I think I speak for other members of the committee -- that the longer that decision is delayed the less possible it is that the decision will be anything but a completion of Bruce D, a decision which we did not approve.
I would also like to mention another item which relates again to Ontario Hydro and work undertaken by the select committee on Hydro during 1978. If you will recall, Mr. Speaker, in the early weeks of 1978 we were asked as the select committee to undertake a review of the proposed uranium contracts with Denison and Rio Algom for the supply of uranium to Ontario Hydro. In the discussion period we had, which was brief considering the complexity of the question -- in the six weeks we had before the deadline imposed by Mr. Stephen Roman for the approval of the contracts with Ontario Hydro we were told over and over again by Conservative members on the committee and by experts coming before the committee that if there were excess profits arising out of the contracts we were reviewing, and if over the next few months or few years we discovered that excess profits existed for the owners of Denison or Rio Algom, then we could consider, and the government would consider, the imposition of an excess profit tax.
Mr. Speaker, excess profits are being made now. If you turn back to pages of discussion over the last couple of weeks in the Hansard of this Legislature, you will discover that my estimates -- and I tried to raise this with the government -- of the personal benefits that have flowed to Mr. Stephen Roman, simply out of his holdings of Denison shares in the period February 1978 up to the profits projected for up to December 1, 1978, amount to something like $44.8 million. If that’s not excess profit, I don’t know what is.
We have had no response from the government about what it intends to do to follow up on that earlier promise given in the select committee and in this Legislature that excess profits would be taxed. We are in a situation where we are facing an oversupply of electric power in Ontario, coupled with a projected oversupply of heavy water in Ontario. We are also in a situation where the cost of uranium and the prices that we will be paying under the contract approved by this government in February are out of kilter.
The price of uranium seems to be falling on the world market, a situation which we had warned the government about in February. We had warned them of that possibility. We had warned them of the possibility of excess profits by individuals and companies in those contracts which the government approved. We also warned that in the future the price of uranium might well be dropping on the world market and that it was unwise to enter into 40-year contracts under the kinds of pricing conditions that were outlined in those uranium contracts.
All these items lead me to feel, after some work and interest in the subject of Ontario Hydro’s development and its financial commitments, endorsed by this government over this last year, that there are outstanding items which still need clarification from this government.
While I will concur with supply at this time, I feel that it is vital for the government to begin to answer some of these questions before we get into the year 1979 and still yet more bedevilling problems.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one point on this concurrence; that is, on the relationship that Ontario Hydro has with the government and with the Ministry of Energy. One of the things that came to us all during the select committee hearings, and during the debate on the estimates, was that the Ministry of Energy does not yet have control in a real way over what is happening with an agency like Ontario Hydro, which is nominally supposed to be under its control. The contracts for the Bruce heavy water plant are an obvious example, as was the decision in 1973 to move forward with nuclear power development, which did not get adequate scrutiny or adequate ratification either by cabinet or by the Legislature.
I would just like to point out that we seem to be getting into policy by default, which is simply that the technicians and engineers and contract letters at Ontario Hydro go ahead and let the contracts and simply get the things built before we decide whether we need them or what direction our power policy is going to follow; and, because we have invested so much money -- so much of the concurrence we will be voting tonight, for example -- in certain kinds of power development, we will inevitably be down that road before we have adequately decided and adequately discussed whether we should be down the road of nuclear power development as firmly as we are.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have been motivated by my colleagues to say a few words.
Mr. Nixon: You’re motivating the whole House. We are going to be stuck on this for a while.
Mr. Laughren: If the members of the Liberal Party -- well, I won’t comment.
Mr. Nixon: Why don’t you comment on what your whip and House leader said about this?
Mr. Laughren: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the relationship between Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Energy is in itself worthy of an evening-long debate.
Mr. Nixon: Right. Let’s get at it.
Mr. Laughren: Secondly, the relationship between the Ministry of Treasury and Economics and Ontario Hydro is worthy of a debate as well. When we talk about concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Energy, we are -- I can see the Deputy Speaker looking a little shifty-eyed there --
Mr. Hennessy: He is shifty.
Mr. Nixon: What-eyed?
Mr. Laughren: When we talk about Ontario Hydro’s spending, which is what we’re really talking about, it’s very difficult to pass by without talking about what’s happened very recently with Ontario Hydro, which of course reports directly to the Ministry of Energy, as the Deputy Speaker knows.
The Ministry of Energy, presumably, has approved what Ontario Hydro has done very recently; namely, float a $250 million debenture in the US markets for a 30-year term. Presumably the Ministry of Energy knew it was a 30-year term and that the interest costs on that would be $703 million US. That’s a lot of debt for the province of Ontario.
The Ministry of Energy, which has jurisdiction over Ontario Hydro, had to give Ontario Hydro its blessing in order to allow Ontario Hydro to do that. One might very well ask, is that the kind of energy policy we’re developing in the future, that makes that kind of demand, not only on Canadian dollars but on the whole capacity of North American capital markets to supply that kind of capital for Ontario?
We know -- and surely the Ministry of Energy people must know -- that charts which they are privy to -- perhaps they even did the charts -- indicated that by the early 1980s there is going to be a shortfall in capital available to Ontario Hydro to carry on their massive capital projects.
When I asked the Premier of this province (Mr. Davis) about that very question last week he replied that this kind of borrowing was simply to finance projects that were already started.
I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that what has really happened -- and this is the responsibility of the Ministry of Energy, of course -- is that we are launched upon a 30-year program of nuclear development, because that’s where the high capital cost comes in. It’s not any kind of alternative energy sources that are being developed. That’s why we get into a situation whereby we float a $250 million debenture in US markets and pay $703 million in interest payments over the 30-year term of that debenture.
The Ministry of Energy truly is bankrupt in its policies to say to us, to say to the people of Ontario: “This is where we’re going; we have really no alternative plans.” It’s a disgrace that in this province we are putting all our eggs in the nuclear basket. That’s plain and simply what we’re doing. We’re not developing alternative sources of energy and we never will unless there is a serious commitment from the Ministry of Energy to do just that.
What’s so terribly distressing about it is all the serious questions that are being raised about the whole nuclear program. Everything about nuclear power raises questions. Everything -- whether it’s capital costs or environment or health or disposal of wastes, there are questions raised when we talk about the nuclear program in Ontario.
There are those people who say it’s the only way to go; it’s the way of the future, the nuclear way. Well, that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy if one pours all one’s funds into nuclear power and doesn’t do research in or put funds into the alternative sources of energy, which we’ve often talked about. My colleagues know a great deal more about it than I do. As long as we’re pouring all our funds into nuclear power it sure is a self-fulfilling prophecy that we’ve got to go the nuclear route.
There are more and more serious scientists questioning the whole commitment to nuclear power. Most serious observers of the scene will say there’s a serious problem in supplying energy at the present time, but there needs to be very serious work done on alternative sources for the long term. That’s what we’re missing. And that’s where the Ministry of Energy is bankrupt in its policies. And it’s reflected in the kind of debentures of 30 years, $250 million, $703 million in interest payments that will have to be made by this province, even given the fact that the Ministry of Energy admits that there’s going to be capital shortages for Ontario Hydro by the middle 1980s.
That is a serious problem and this government has to deal with it. It can continue to pretend that it’s not going to the open market for borrowing in this province. The government keeps saying it. It says it over and over again. And every time it says it its voice gets a little more shrill. But how far is it from the public market of this province raising $250 million and paying back $953 million? How far is that from going to the public market when it’s Ontario Hydro that is doing it, whose bonds are guaranteed by the province of Ontario? That’s a clear subsidy by the province to Ontario Hydro because of its guarantee for Ontario Hydro debentures.
The Ministry of Energy cannot simply stand back and say, “That’s not us, that’s the Treasury ministry.” It can’t stand back and say, “That’s not us, that’s Ontario Hydro.” The Ministry of Energy is involved in that. It has to be because it is responsible for developing energy policies for this province to the end of this century and beyond.
We are very concerned about what’s happening in the Ministry of Energy and the lack of direction they have. They’re simply drifting and putting money into nuclear development, taking the path of least resistance, because we happen to have a large supply of uranium in the province; probably the largest known reserves. At the same time, they give the corporations in Elliot Lake a bonanza, the likes of which North America has never seen.
When they talk about taxing excess profits, my colleague from Carleton East is surely right. If that’s not excess profit that is being realized by the Roman corporation, I don’t know what the government’s definition of excess profit is. But those are excess profits. They’re excess profits realized because of the contract signed by this government and Denison. That’s the reason for those excess profits. And the minister simply cannot stand back and pretend that those are just excess profits resulting from confidence in the stock market. It’s not that simple. But perhaps it is that simple. That’s where the confidence is coming from because once again the province of Ontario has virtually guaranteed the profits of Denison, so why wouldn’t the value of the shares rise?
I was always taught in any economic programs that I ever had that the main justification for profit in our system, the economic system, was the element of risk. If the element of risk is removed, where is the justification for profit? It’s the major subtraction from the equation and I would suggest that it makes the whole excess profit of Denison and companies invalid and, indeed, they should be taxed away.
Let’s face it, the uranium should be in the public sector to begin with. The minister knows that. It was recommended to the government by Ontario Hydro themselves. I think it was Project Wellesley, or a report that indicated that to the government. It chose to ignore that report because of its knee-jerk reaction to bringing anything into the public sector, even when it’s in the best interests of the people of Ontario. So I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the time has gone when we simply stand up and nod agreement to concurrence in supply when there are matters of such importance as are before us with the Ministry of Energy.
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might move the adjournment of the debate? By way of explanation to the House of my moving its adjournment, the members of the House are quite proper in their interpretation of the rules with respect to these concurrence debates. There are provisions in the rules for some full discussion on these matters.
I might say, however, that I’m just caught a bit by surprise because we thought perhaps, through tradition, these matters were simply going to be called for the purposes of the Order Paper and I really haven’t notified some of my colleagues about the fact that there would be some discussion. In fairness to them, they really should be here in order to respond and take part in these matters of concurrence. So I think, under the circumstances, that we should schedule this business for some time when we could have everybody here who is supposed to be here for these particular debates.
Mr. Laughren: On that point, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Welch: It’s not debatable.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A motion has been made.
Hon. Mr. Welch has moved the adjournment of the debate.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No? All those in favour will please say “aye.”
All those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Laughren: I’d like to know where the consultation is.
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since the Hansard to this exchange might be somewhat confusing to anyone who had not been here for it, I think it should be brought to your attention, sir, that although you and the rules of the House, of course, order the business we undertake, we still have a process of consultation. Through this process of consultation it was agreed by those who have this responsibility on behalf of the three parties that the concurrences might be brought before the House tonight with no expectation of debate, except in the instance of the concurrence on Education where an indication of debate had been made.
Since the debate has gone on, and I would say that it has been useful. I would certainly like to take part in it, particularly if the Minister of Energy were informed, so he could be in his place. Otherwise it really is not fair for all sides concerned. I certainly concur with what the House leader of the government has said. For that reason, I have no hesitation in voting for the adjournment of this debate so that it can take place at a more convenient time.
PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT (CONCLUDED FROM NOVEMBER 7)
Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 74, An Act to establish a Code of Procedure for Provincial Offences.
Mr. Lawlor: This time I am on my feet. I shall be sitting down very shortly, and enjoying jurisprudence peculiar to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) himself, made up as he goes along and chaotic in the extreme.
Mr. Nixon: Are you reading from a script as usual?
Mr. Lawlor: As a matter of fact, half a lifetime ago when I was last speaking on this issue, Tuesday night came and went. I think this is about the fourth week that we have been waiting to wind up the thing. All I wish to say is that I have nothing to say tonight further on this issue, having spoken for an hour completely irrelevantly to the point at the time. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk will tell you that. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) caved in at the end of the evening and said he would send this to committee where it could be dealt with properly. I would suggest that anyone else in this House who wastes another minute of time tonight on an issue of this kind is consuming the product of the province to no avail. That being the case I won’t do so.
Mr. Nixon: Lest I be accused of consuming the product of the province to no avail, I would like to ask under what procedure we are considering Bill 74, reprinted for consideration by committee, when ordinary members of this House -- by that I mean those who have not yet been called to the bar in the ordinary sense -- don’t have a copy of the bill in our book. It is entirely different. How can we even discuss this on second reading when the bill is plunked down here? The erudite and learned representatives of the legal profession are talking about one bill and we are looking at another.
Mr. Lawlor: The way you were talking, I thought you were talking about the same bill.
Mr. Nixon: Somebody is clearly out of order and I think it is the lawyers.
Mr. Speaker: Order. What the member for Lakeshore says and what the facts are, aren’t necessarily the same thing.
Mr. Nixon: You tell us the facts.
Mr. Lawlor: A point of personal privilege -- it is just the opposite. What a fact is and what I say are the same thing.
Mr. Nixon: Let’s vote on that.
Mr. Speaker: We are debating second reading of Bill 74 and that is in your books.
Mr. Roy: I would like to dissociate myself from any comments made by the previous speaker and I won’t name which party. As the member for Lakeshore said, we’ve been waiting four weeks now to get our learned comments on the record about this bill.
Mr. Breaugh: And where is the Attorney General?
Mr. Foulds: I am not sure how much will be learned but we might as well get them on the record.
Mr. Roy: I understand the parliamentary assistant is going to be carrying the burden of our slings and arrows this evening.
Mr. Nixon: The policy secretary might help.
Mr. Roy: I want to say to my colleague from Brant that I only got the bill part way through the debate on the last occasion because I kept trying to follow the member for Lakeshore in the other bill. I was having some problems. The sections did not match. I thought he was at the same place as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk had been that same evening. I had some problem following it. He kept reading from one section and the section in one bill did not say the same thing as the section in the other bill.
Mr. Nixon: You can call it out of order.
Mr. Roy: I somehow fell into favour with the Attorney General and he sent me over a copy of a bill which I suspect is a bill which has proposed amendments to it, a bill which is just for purposes of clarification, purposes of information --
Mr. Speaker: But not for purposes of debate.
Mr. Nixon: I have to rise on a point of order. I am just a little bit sensitive about this matter, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you are too.
You may recall the last time this was before us in second reading, as we are now, the member for Lakeshore was dealing with the bill section by section and number by number. I got up at the time and drew his and your attention to the fact that there was a certain degree of confusion in his reference to the bill. It didn’t bother you then, although it bothered me. There were certain indications from you, sir, that I was not in order. I would suggest to you that we should not permit the debate to go forward on this new edition of the bill which is entirely different from the one that is in the books of people who have been trying to follow the debate.
Hon. Mr. Welch: If I might address myself to the rule of order. I don’t know what is in the books, but the honourable member will perhaps recall, as others of us do, that to facilitate the consideration of what were going to be a number of amendments, the first day this session resumed the amended bill was put on all the members’ desks. The bill he is talking about with all the fingers indicating the changes was in fact put on the desks of all members. I remember it very well.
It doesn’t happen to have found its way into the member’s book. I think that is regrettable but certainly it was quite clearly understood at the time that in order for members to see what the proposed amendments were going to be before the standing committee or the committee of the whole, depending on which way it went, it in fact was put on the desks. So members have had the bill with the proposed amendments for several weeks now. This doesn’t explain why it is not in the member’s book, but certainly it is not something that has just been planted down within the last few days.
Mr. Nixon: If you will permit me another point, Mr. Speaker, the bill that was given first reading should surely be debated for second reading unless the honourable representative of the government withdraws the bill and puts in another one. Then how can he put that printed thing before us for debate in principle --
Hon. Mr. Welch: The principle has not changed.
Mr. Nixon: Then why was the member for Lakeshore permitted to pursue the bill in detail in its amended form?
Mr. Speaker: Obviously the second reading of any piece of legislation before the House is for the express purpose of dealing with the principle of the bill. If what is contained in the amended version is considered to be a principle -- and I don’t happen to have the amended version before me -- if it is a principle of the bill it is quite appropriate to discuss it in second reading. If it is not a principle it should be reserved for clause-by-clause analysis. I will now hear the member for Ottawa East.
Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that in fairness again to my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, in relation to this bill and what the House leader said, most of us found in looking into our books that we did not have the amended bill. We had to obtain it elsewhere. But I say this to you, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that all the amended bill does have is a number of suggested amendments to the bill; it is the same bill, the same principle, and everything else. There is no problem there.
Hon. Mr. Welch: It doesn’t alter the principle.
Mr. Lawlor: It is practically a different bill.
Mr. Nixon: I agree with Lakeshore.
Mrs. Campbell: It is indeed.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, whether we are talking about one bill or the other, I still feel the principle of it is something all members should support. It is an important precedent that we are establishing in this province by setting a code of procedure for provincial offences.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the evolution of the laws of this province over the years relatively minor offences have been created by statute after statute. You know, Mr. Speaker, from your lengthy tenure in this Legislature, that we have passed law after law, some of which created offences. What we had as existing procedure on these offences was what was called the Summary Convictions Act, which adopted many of the procedures existing under the Criminal Code.
As a practitioner, I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, when we were looking at the type of procedure that was going to be involved in an offence, sometimes it required -- I was going to say finger gymnastics; you know, when you see the ad “Let your fingers do the walking through the Yellow Pages,” but it was something more complex than that. You had to keep going from the Summary Convictions Act to the procedures under, I think it was, part XXIV of the Criminal Code, to see if they applied. You got yourself into all sorts of legal gymnastics, if I can describe it that way.
The other problem, of course, was that the whole procedure very often was not geared to the offence involved. Sometimes you had a complex procedure involving the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, the right to a trial and so on -- rights that had been established originally to defend the liberty of the individual, basically in criminal law -- involved in a parking offence. As a result, backlogs were created in the courts.
Basically, what has happened -- this has been mentioned in debate or commented on by some people; I am not sure whether my colleague from Lakeshore has talked about this -- is that there are certain procedures established in this bill which seem to attack such basic principles as the right to remain silent, the question of presumption of innocence and the question of onus of proof, because there are procedures established where one can make a statement when one is putting in one’s plea and that sort of thing.
In theory, that is right; in practice, the procedure has become very complex. The practicality of the situation was that, for instance, if you came to visit Ottawa and you were driving in the area -- far be it from me to attribute the breach of any type of statute to the Speaker, but let’s say it just happens they had changed the signs and you happened to be speeding, and you felt the charge was not warranted. If you happened to live in Thunder Bay and were charged in Ottawa, there was a procedure existing there where you could defend yourself; but you never availed yourself of it because, for the $25 fine, it would cost you $500 to go down to court and avail yourself of the procedure.
The practicality of the situation is that in many instances all these rights that are established under the complex procedures of the Summary Convictions Act or the Criminal Code are very hollow indeed, because the process is far too complex to deal with the type of offence involved.
To those who say we are attacking some of the fundamental principles of our criminal law -- and I congratulate the Attorney General for taking the initiative to bring forward this type of procedure -- I say that what we are trying to do is have a procedure that is practical and responds to the 20th-century urban-rural society of Ontario.
In many instances the procedures established under this act will be far more practical indeed. That is not to say I don’t have some reservations about certain sections of the act. Having read the act -- I had ample opportunity to read it that evening the member for Lakeshore was speaking here, because not only was I able to sit back here and read it, but he also read it into the record on that particular evening so that I was able to familiarize myself with it. He took me down the path from one cover of the statute to the other, and I was able to appreciate the fact that basically what is happening under this act is that by and large we are adopting, with exceptions, the explanation that you can give, the question of costs, the question of making a statement in writing that the justice of the peace can consider.
These are new procedures, but by and large the procedure as established in the statute is a combination of what we had in the summary conviction provisions of the Criminal Code. But there are exceptions, and I certainly intend to talk about them.
For instance the cost provisions are something I find interesting and I think they again reflect something that is practical. There were no provisions for costs in any summary procedures before.
The discretion that is given to the court under the act in relation to minimum sentence is something I would agree with as well. In other words, when we are talking about section 56 where it provides for a minimum sentence, the court has the discretion to give relief from that. I think that is something that should be -- that discretion should exist in the courts.
There are some interesting sections of the act, though. The court under this legislation is given certain discretion -- and I must thank my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk for having pointed this out to me. For instance under section 49 of the act -- section 51 of the act with the amendment -- discretion is given to the court to exclude people who are not barristers and solicitors. I make these comments in the hope the parliamentary assistant will relay them. I would like some explanation at some time why this discretion is given to the court.
As I read the section, it states that the court can bar an agent from appearing as an agent if he’s not a barrister and a solicitor and entitled to practice in Ontario. If the court finds that the person is “not competent properly to represent or advise a person for whom he appears as agent and does not understand and comply with the duties and responsibilities of an agent” it can exclude him. I find an exclusion there for barristers and solicitors. As much as I know there are other members around us here who would enthusiastically attack such a provision, I ask myself some questions as well. My knee-jerk reaction would be: If you get a barrister and a solicitor who acts as an agent and is not competent he should be thrown out, as well as one who is not a barrister and a solicitor.
I just wonder if the court is given that sort of discretion. In the practicality of things, it can be the sort of discretion that can be dangerous, if the judge doesn’t like the way the agent is proceeding with the case.
I think very often the people sitting at these hearings will be justices of the peace who have less legal training than the agent. They say a little learning is a dangerous thing. These people may think there’s only one way to defend an individual, that there is only one procedure that is proper, that there is only one way to ask questions of witnesses or that sort of thing. He may say, “Look, I don’t like the way things are happening around here and I find that you, as agent, are not competent to defend the accused,” or, “You don’t understand and comply with the duties and responsibilities of an agent, so out you go.”
I have some reservations about that sort of discretion. I also have some reservations about the fact that barristers and solicitors happen to be excluded from that. In my limited experience before the courts, there are times when I see some barristers and solicitors who don’t act quite like agents; you very often wonder whether they know their duties and responsibilities as agents.
So I make these comments to the parliamentary assistant. I would like to have some explanation. There must be some explanation why that distinction is made. There must be some explanation as well why you even give that sort of discretion.
I appreciate that the court must have authority to maintain control, to maintain decorum in the courtroom, to keep matters going, to prevent people from abusing the process; but I wonder if that is the type of discretion that is necessary in an act.
There are other sections that are of concern to me, and I think my colleague from St. George (Mrs. Campbell) has raised one of them, namely the provisions of section 82: “Every person who makes an assertion of fact in a statement or entry in a document or form for use under this act knowing that the assertion is false is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000.”
I mention this because under section 6 of the bill we now have for second reading, there is provision that an individual who happens to be charged and wants to make a dispute without an appearance, can make the written explanation or submission he wishes to make. He is encouraged to make the submission, to make a statement. And yet, as I read section 82, if someone decides that these assertions or statements happen to be false, the person is guilty of an offence.
I appreciate that there are provisions under the Criminal Code for perjury; there are provisions that that is a criminal offence. I wonder why section 82 would be there. I can see some abuse of the provision for making a statement, but who decides if the assertion is false or not?
What appears to be a statement of fact to one individual may appear to be false to another. All you have to do, Mr. Speaker, is talk to two witnesses to a motor vehicle accident and you may get a very different set of facts. That being the case, I would hate to think we are establishing a procedure whereby individuals are encouraged to make statements, to give explanations to the court in order to accelerate the court process, and by so making a statement render themselves liable to be charged under section 82 of this act with having made a false statement.
Most people who have sat in courts for any length of time know that any time there is a dispute -- sometimes the issue is not in dispute, the issue is relatively simple -- one witness’s version of what happened may be very much different from that of another witness. As my colleague from St. George did, I want to express my concern over section 82. I would like to get some explanation of why the Attorney General felt this section was necessary.
There is another section which I find departs from the normal principles of jurisprudence or criminal law as we know it dealing with appeals. I see that in the reprinted act there is a section inserted, 95, which refers to an individual who decides to appeal a decision where the decision involved a fine -- for instance, if there is a hearing held, the accused is found guilty and he has a fine of $150 to pay, and he decides to appeal because he doesn’t like the verdict.
It has always been the principle, as I have understood it, that once you appeal there is still a presumption of innocence. I know that is not an absolute principle. For instance, very often in serious cases accused who are convicted and who are incarcerated are not released pending the appeal. But certainly the procedure under the Summary Convictions Act and under the Criminal Code was that if an individual appealed a sentence which involved, let’s say, a fine, he did not have to pay the fine. Under the Highway Traffic Act or under the Criminal Code where his licence was suspended, he didn’t lose his driving privileges before the appeal was heard. Very often it would be totally unfair if an individual who feels he didn’t get a proper verdict and avails himself of a procedure that exists -- appeal -- should suffer when he’s exercising a right that is given to him by statute.
Under this section 95 he’s got to pay the fine, as I read the section. In fact they won’t accept his appeal if the defendant has not paid in full the fine imposed. Again, I’d like to have some explanation of why that section is there. It appears to me somehow somebody in the Attorney General’s office must feel there’s been abuse of the trial de novo appeal provisions. Perhaps they felt certain individuals avoided paying fines or losing their driving privileges and so on by filing an appeal -- that by processing an appeal they were gaining a further period when they could drive or could avoid paying the fine.
Maybe the Attorney General can tell us, and I ask the parliamentary assistant, has there been an abuse of this? Have individuals been appealing when the appeal was not based on merit, but only on their wanting to have further time before facing the music -- either paying the fine or losing driving privileges or so on?
I find it strange there would be provisions different from what we’ve had in the past, when an individual has to pay the fine before his appeal will even be looked at. That appears to me contradictory. If he feels that the verdict was wrong, he’s appealing it. Why should he suffer or at least be partially penalized by having to pay the fine?
I know there’s a provision under the act which states the fact he has paid the fine is not a waiver. A person does not waive his right of appeal by reason that he’s paid the fine or complies with any order imposed upon conviction. But this appears to be somewhat contradictory: he is ordered to do something; he feels the decision is not proper; he appeals it; and yet he’s made to comply with the original order. I’d like to have some explanation of that section.
I’d like to have some explanation as well about the whole bail process under this statute. Again, I’m not aware whether there’s much difference between the procedure for bail under this statute as compared to the Criminal Code. I’ve not read it that closely. But I don’t know why it would have been necessary to have a new bail process in this act when we have a whole process of bail existing under the Criminal Code. The Attorney General may have wanted it all under one statute, but I would have thought there was sufficient flexibility existing under the Criminal Code without imposing a new set of rules for bail under this statute.
I wonder as well why section -- I guess it’s 144, under the reprinted version of this statute, where it talks about seizure of documents. I don’t understand why that section was necessary when it comes to seizure. Don’t the common law rules apply? That the solicitor-client privilege exists if you’re seizing documents from a solicitor? Why is it necessary, I ask the parliamentary assistant, that we draft laws that codify what already exists? There are common-law principles existing now as to the solicitor-client privilege; why would it be necessary to include them under the code of procedure of provincial offences? It is a matter that requires an explanation. I think it is wise to set it out. But, really, is it necessary?
I am pleased to hear that the bill will go to committee, because any time we are dealing with legislation as lengthy as this, setting out procedures, it is wise to have a committee look at it. We do not want to rush into this type of thing because, when we put it into practice, inevitably we find that we have to come back and make a whole series of amendments to comply with problems that exist out there.
I think it is wise, no matter how careful we are in the drafting and amending of legislation, that all members co-operate to try to get input and to try to make legislation such as this as workable as possible. Nevertheless, when the legislation gets out there, because of our complex society and human situations being what they are, the practicality is that inevitably we run into problems; there are situations which are not foreseen and situations which are not sufficiently covered in legislation. I am glad that we are taking a sober second look at it and that we will get an opportunity to see it in committee.
In closing, I congratulate the Attorney General for having taken the initiative. This is not the first statute he has taken the initiative on. I suppose he was fortunate that he had all those volumes from the Law Reform Commission sitting there. But at least he showed sufficient initiative to do something, which often his predecessors did not do. I don’t point my finger at the government House leader. But at least the Attorney General took the initiative. He’s had all these studies done on our system of justice and our administrative procedures in this province. These reports have all been sitting there. They have been good reports. It has been good work done by the Law Reform Commission. Like the Family Law Reform Act, 1978, which was an important statute, this is going to be an important statute.
I must say that we have co-operated. I think the Attorney General would be the first to say that people on all sides have welcomed these new initiatives. We have attempted, by and large, to be as co-operative as possible, to make them as workable as possible and to get the best type of legislation to correspond with Ontario in 1978.
I look forward to further initiatives from the Attorney General. One of the statutes that I look forward to is the one dealing with limitations. Limitations are the curse of lay persons; they don’t understand why it is that an action stops here and doesn’t stop there, why you can sue undertakers but not after three months, while you can sue some other people after six months, et cetera. I look forward to seeing legislation to correct that, which I consider to be something that has no basis in 20th century Ontario. It’s not practical.
This legislation, in my opinion, is a response to the reality of Ontario in 1978. We look forward to discussing it in committee. We look forward to having this legislation govern provincial offences in this province.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to this bill? If not, the member for Carleton-Grenville.
Mr. Sterling: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members who participated in this debate. I would take some of their comments as relating both to this bill and to Bill 75, which we intend to introduce for second reading this evening.
This bill is a very comprehensive bill. In some ways it is very difficult to talk in generalities when there are so many specific issues involved.
I think support was general from all of the people who spoke on the bill. The member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) commented on November 7 when this bill was first brought forward: “It is the greatest bill since the second coming.”
Mr. Wildman: Since?
Mr. Samis: When was the second coming?
Mr. Lawlor: Even in politics you can’t be ironic, that’s all there is to it.
Mr. Sterling: Another comment he made is that it’s at least as important as the unified family court concept.
In addition, the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) said: “There is no doubt that this particular bill is a step forward.”
The member for Ottawa East who has just spoken also indicated his agreement with the thrust of this bill and that it modernizes the law to recognize today’s needs.
In going back to each of the individual comments, I would prefer to leave specific responses to each of those comments until we debate this in the justice committee. I do this for two reasons: number one is that I came tonight basically prepared to deal with the bill in a general manner and therefore am not properly prepared to answer all of the intentions behind each of the sections which have been referred to in detail; number two, I do not think that I would do justice in this debate to do so at this time.
I believe this bill should go to the justice committee as suggested by the critics in the opposition parties, because I believe it is a very important bill and that a lengthy debate on the issues that have been raised in this debate should ensue before we pass each of the individual sections. Thank you very much.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for standing administration of justice committee.
Hon. Mr. Welch: If I might just interrupt things for a moment to call the 38th order; I need that bill for our assent package, then we’ll get back to the other justice bill.
RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Welch, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Drea, moved second reading of Bill 188, An Act to amend the Residential Premises Rent Review Act, 1975.
Mr. Epp: It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill, very briefly.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we’ve had a number of hearings, we’ve had an opportunity to hear a number of delegations. We’ve heard about 40 or 45 witnesses, who represented both tenant organizations and developers, and we still haven’t completed the hearings. Consequently, there’s a need to postpone this particular period, the grace period I suppose, to give the government an opportunity to come out of the committee with some legislation which would be acceptable to the House.
As a result of this, Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to indicate our support on this side of the House for the bill the minister is introducing; and also to indicate that we feel maybe this isn’t long enough, because there is a feeling within the committee, as expressed by the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) on more than one occasion, that we may go into December and into January for additional hearings and discussions of the bill clause by clause. Nevertheless, for the moment this will suffice, the month extension, and we obviously will support it.
Mr. M. N. Davison: In the absence of our Housing critic, Mr. Speaker, I would like on behalf of my party to say that we support the bill to extend the program one month, although we would have supported a bill to extend it for a bit longer. The previous speaker alluded to the point that there has been a great deal of discussion about this in the social development committee where we are doing the Residential Tenancies Act, and as he also said the member for Kitchener had raised this very point with the minister. I was able to follow up on it and suggest that it might make a great deal of sense to talk in terms of five to eight months.
At that time, on November 20, the minister did say that he thought six months -- I think six months might be too short myself -- but there was a kind of concept before of “extend it for a couple of weeks.” That just won’t fly. I think the minister was right and I suspect we will be back in the next week or two with a bill to extend it further. We will give that bill the same kind of support we’re prepared to give this bill tonight. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wildman: Why isn’t Sydney Handleman here to speak on it?
Mr. Charlton: I will be brief as well. I just wanted to comment on a couple of things that have resulted in this bill. It has been implied on a couple of occasions that one of the reasons this bill is needed was that this party was delaying the whole process of the government’s new package.
Mr. Wildman: That’s slander.
Mr. Charlton: This bill may not have been necessary at all if the bill the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations brought in had not been such a departure from the report of the committee last spring. That has necessitated us going through the minister’s bill on landlord-tenant relations and rent review very thoroughly. It has necessitated new hearings. On that basis, I would like the House to be very much aware that this party is not in favour of any undue delay in new legislation. What we are in favour of is a very thorough and forthright discussion of all sections of the proposal. Therefore this extension is necessary; and as has been suggested, a further extension will probably be necessary as well.
Motion agreed to.
Third reading also agreed to on motion.
PROVINCIAL COURTS AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 75, An Act to amend the Provincial Courts Act.
Mr. Sterling: This bill runs in conjunction with Bill 74 which we have just passed. It is the intention of the minister to recommend that this bill also go to the justice committee, along with Bill 74, so that they can be dealt with together.
On November 7 in this Legislature, the minister made an opening statement on the introduction of Bill 74. Many of his comments in that opening statement also apply to Bill 75. This bill sets up the provincial offences court in order to implement the Provincial Offences Act. Under this particular bill, the provincial offences court will deal with offences in a different court than the criminal division of the provincial court and therefore, we hope, take away some of the stigma attached to appearing within the same confines as more serious offenders. It is hoped in this way the court will be able to deal with matters in a less rigid and less formal atmosphere.
The act also contains some narrow residual powers to fill in procedural gaps which have not been provided for in the statute. This power, however, does not affect the balance of responsibilities within the administration of justice. It also provides for procedures to deal with contempt, in that under the present law justices of the peace have no power to deal with contempt hearings.
I have taken note of the comments made by members on Bill 74 and understand that many of those comments relate also to this bill.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I won’t spend a great deal of time. It is companion bill, as has been explained, except that a word should be said, it seems to me, about the fact that a whole new order of court is being set up. It’s a minor revolution, about as close to revolution as a Tory ever gets.
There are some problems, and no doubt we will get into them, but certainly there are matters of principle that touch the constitutionality of the courts. My feeling is there may be some resentment in Ottawa to this setting up of a layer of juvenile -- personally I think, since they are confined to provincial offences, and since members opposite beat their breasts and say the offences are not criminal in nature, although they look pretty criminal to me; nevertheless, I suppose if the pith and substance of the court were construed by the Supreme Court of this country they might very well come to the conclusion that in essence, whatever you may call the rose, it is still a criminal court; and if it were, then the whole court structure would be invalid.
It gives added elbow room for a little patronage here and there, but since you already possess that, to add prestige to patronage I suppose does not do any harm.
The funny thing about it, it is going to be run by justices of the peace, basically, under the supervision of a provincial court judge. I think that geographically the provincial courts trying criminal matters under the federal Criminal Code will be precisely in the same buildings in nine cases out of 10, and probably the same courtrooms as your provincial courts, which are completely, as we said, distinct and separate courts; and the provincial court judge will move in on a case when it becomes serious. I still don’t know what “serious” means. Nobody has even begun to explain it.
Careless driving apparently is to be considered a purely provincial offence. It is nevertheless of such seriousness that it will be tried with the full panoply of procedure done under the code or the other legislation that we passed under Bill 74. But a judge will handle that, whereas by and large I suppose speeding offences of less than 550 miles an hour will be tried by the justices of the peace. Where the division is going to be drawn I suppose we will have to wait upon the inscribing angel to tell us, because I don’t expect the Attorney General of the province to do so.
Apart from that there are several peripheral matters. In setting up a court of record it is found, to the point, to have some contempt powers. It is interesting to see how that was done and how you set up a cooling-off period so that the judge would simmer down before he hammers out a sentence. This is in many instances done altogether too precipitously in the heat of whatever produced, provoked or led to the contempt itself. Then the worst possible cases, in some courts they try to send to another judge in a contempt matter. These are contempts before the face of the court.
The contempts outside the court; again you make the nice distinction, the contempts outside the court are to be tried by a higher judge, a judge of the Supreme Court but nevertheless with some safeguards. For instance with respect to motorcycle gangs and such, he can move in if the court procedures are totally disrupted from some outside source, depending upon the circumstances arising out of that source.
Apart from that, I thank you for sending it out because, while it very well might have gone through, there are some sections in here that, if you get into the nitty-gritty, probably should be worked over to some extent.
The only thing I say is thank heaven you didn’t amend this particular piece of legislation anywhere in the root and branch way in which the other legislation has been totally reformed and restructured within the process of the amendment, so much so that one might come to think it was a different bill entirely; which has misled the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) severely. All I can do is weep along with him, and the tears are not crocodile.
Mr. Roy: I suppose this legislation is necessary, although I hate to think what is going to happen. What has been suggested by the member for Lakeshore, that this is going to be an opportunity for patronage in appointments and that sort of thing.
As I see it, we have all the staff existing now doing the work under the Summary Convictions Act or the Criminal Code. All we are doing, I guess, is taking these bodies and saying you are going to be dealing now with provincial offences, in a court called the provincial offences court of the county of such and such.
That is basically all that we are doing. For practical purposes I really can’t see very much changing. We already have these people -- these justices of the peace, provincial court judges and the staff; so I can’t see very much changing; just in name, basically.
Mr. Lawlor: It is going to take them a whole year to do it.
Mr. Roy: Yes, but I would hate to think that this is going to be an opportunity for the government to appoint people when they are already there. All they are doing is changing the status of the thing.
Mr. Lawlor: They are going to have to do a lot of training.
Mr. Roy: I appreciate what the member for Lakeshore says, the minute you have something new, you have a new name, all at once you have people appointed here and there.
Mr. Roy: The member says “You leave it to me.” I wouldn’t leave it to him, I can tell him that.
Mr. Hennessy: I don’t want it.
Mr. Roy: He may make it as a justice of the peace.
Mr. Hennessy: Better watch out, you will come up.
Mr. Roy: If he is defeated, with his milk of human kindness approach to things, who knows? But he won’t be able to issue challenges like he did to Claire Hoy from the bench, I just want to tell him that.
I would have thought that just to change a name, all that would be required would be a relatively simple amendment. I see that the drafters of this legislation -- I have some suspicion who they are -- have taken advantage of this situation to set up provisions for contempt of court. I just looked at them briefly -- I admit that I just looked at section 75 now -- and just looking at the contempt provision briefly, I would say they appear, certainly to me, to be an improvement over the contempt procedures that exist now under the Criminal Code.
I want to tell you that by and large our system of justice in this province and this country is pretty fair. It’s pretty moderate, it’s pretty well balanced; but when it comes to contempt, especially in the face of the court, that is where one can get in big trouble very quickly, depending who is sitting on the bench. I am glad to see these provisions inserted in these amendments under Bill 75; for instance, that punishment for contempt in the face of the court shall not take place without giving the offender an opportunity to show cause why he should not be punished. Then, of course, I would hope that opportunities will be taken again to avoid dealing with the contempt immediately and have it proceed on another day.
If there was an area of great concern to the public, to the members of the profession, it was these contempt provisions. People as important as the Chief Justice of Canada have been commenting upon how the contempt provisions existing under the Criminal Code sometimes don’t have sufficient safeguards to deal with the situation where unfortunately the judge, or whoever is presiding, may get carried away a little bit.
I see in this act as well that there’s a provision, which again my colleague from Brant will appreciate, that we throw people out of court who are incompetent unless they are barristers and solicitors. Again I would like some explanation on this. You know it even bothers me that there should be that provision.
Mr. Hennessy: It takes a lot to bother you.
An hon. member: You bother everybody, Mickey.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, again I know the parliamentary assistant will respond, or the Attorney General will respond, in committee but I do express some concern. There may be some explanation. I am making comments now as one who is looking at it and wondering what brought this on, why is this necessary in this legislation.
I notice, as well, that there’s provision for keeping order around the courts and so on. Mr. Speaker, my only final comment on this is that I appreciate that Bill 75 is a twin of Bill 74; that it has to go along to meet those provisions. They have to be proclaimed together and one has to respond to the reality of having a new procedure under Bill 74.
I would make this comment to the parliamentary assistant, hopefully to get to the ear of the Attorney General: I would hope that some time if you are amending the Provincial Courts Act, somewhere along the way amendments will be brought forward to deal with the recommendations of former Chief Justice Gale to deal with offending judges.
I have made speeches in this House, Mr. Speaker, about this, that the provisions existing under the Provincial Courts Act now are not adequate. This has been borne out by some of the suggestions in former Chief Justice Gale’s very fine report. I hope we will see something come forward to deal with that problem.
Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, again I would like to thank the two members of the Legislature who participated in this debate.
In response to some of the concerns they have raised, the provision relating to the contempt is a provision which is in one way trying to widen the power of a justice of the peace to invoke contempt proceedings in certain limited circumstances, while restricting that right in other circumstances. So it’s a widening of a power to use contempt in a courtroom situation, and then also putting some strictures around giving that power to a justice of the peace.
The member for Ottawa East mentioned the problem relating to agents and the power of a justice of the peace or judge to exclude an agent. I think, basically, this is put in because of the concern to protect defendants from being taken advantage of by incompetent agents. Whether or not every lawyer is competent to represent a defendant may be an argument. However, it was felt in this case, where you are widening the scope of representation by a person without formal legal training, that some protection was necessary.
Again, I would expect we can review all of these sections, and deal with them in full and discuss them at the committee stage.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for standing administration of justice committee.
METRIC CONVERSION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. G. E. Smith, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Grossman, moved second reading of Bill 137, the Metric Conversion Statute Law Amendment Act, 1978.
Mr. G. E. Smith: The purpose of this bill, the Metric Conversion Statute Law Amendment Act, is to facilitate metric conversion in the private sector. The Canadian and American governments initiated the metric conversion program because it was believed the eventual adoption of a single coherent measurement system based on metric units was inevitable and in the national interest.
Also, since there is an increasing use of metric in international trade, Canada and the United States must change to the metric system to remain competitive in foreign countries. The Ontario government is doing its part to facilitate the national conversion effort by converting the acts of this bill. These changes will ensure the conversion process in Canada is not inhibited by Ontario legislation.
The use of an omnibus bill is to save House time, since all acts included in the bill are being converted for the same purpose. The conversion in the acts are mathematical in nature and do not change the intent.
The act comes into force on a day to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, parts of the act can be proclaimed at different times on the recommendation to cabinet of the responsible ministers. We are following this procedure so that each minister can proclaim part or all of its legislation in step with the industry sector timetables.
Mr. Hall: This is a bill consisting of a lot of details with no particular philosophy stressed in it. The system we all learned would probably appear difficult to anyone else if dumped on them all at one time. Actually, I suppose if we reflect on it, we don’t know the system of weights and measures, distances and avoirdupois that we have been using and probably have to look it up ourselves. So I think that sooner or later we will be able to adjust to the new units that are involved.
I am sure the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) is not even aware that there are 43,560 square feet in an acre.
Mr. Nixon: Oh he must know that.
Mr. Hall: We will all be concerned over what the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk converts his 10-gallon hat to.
Hon Mr. Welch: It won’t fit.
Mr. Hall: I certainly hope my wife doesn’t throw away her old measuring spoons, because she has been doing quite well with the system she has used.
Mr. Hennessy: Save everything, don’t spend a buck.
Mr. Gaunt: He’s not eating out of the same spoon that you are.
Mr. Wildman: Are those silver spoons?
Mr. Hall: I’m trying to ignore the comments that are being made here.
In a more serious vein, it’s obvious that we must keep up with the world. In connection with our exports, I understand other countries are requiring the use of metric dimensions in labelling and in the production of machinery. If we want to compete and join in these markets we have to make these adjustments.
The bill seems to be specific to statutes and there must be a purpose to this. Solutions on certain things don’t come readily to mind, that is how we’re going to resolve some questions. I think of zoning regulations, where side yard distances of a municipality are specified; and building bylaws where a two-by-four will become something else and a square yard of concrete will become a different unit of measurement. It’s not touched on in this piece of legislation --
An hon. member: Kiloconkers.
Mr. Hall: -- and I have to wonder what further steps will be taken over some period of time to create universality. I’m sure this will be explained to us.
While I said earlier we want Ontario legislation to keep up with the whole program of conversion in North America, certain sections have a cost factor attached to them; others do not. I do express the concern that implementation will be judiciously handled, considering that certain sections of our economy are facing difficult times. They could be penalized greatly by implementation of some of these requirements if due care and consideration is not taken for the vitality of their present markets and their cost pictures in 1978 and 1979.
I hope the work on the details has been well done. It’s such a strange bill I even asked the member for Brent-Oxford-Norfolk; even he couldn’t help me and he knows everything, so I’m a little concerned. I certainly hope the government has done its homework in terms of the specifics.
Mr. Nixon: Did you get that, Pat? Hear, hear.
Mr. Wildman: It’s a pleasure for me to take part in this historic event, this debate on metric conversion. I have some concerns about this bill, but I agree with the member who just spoke when he referred to his difficulty in dealing with a bill that deals with so many other pieces of legislation. I have difficulty determining whether it actually brings about any change other than just a change in numbers and in types of measurement.
I think as a member for a rural riding I have to think with some concern about the demise of such terms as the “rod” and so on that perhaps other members of the community don’t use very much but farmers have been using for possibly even hundreds of years. They will have some difficulty in understanding the new changes.
There also are some problems in relation to cost, as the member mentioned. Right now we have situations, for instance, where fertilizer and seed producers are having to list three different types of measurement on their packages. When they’re selling both in the United States and in Canada we have a serious problem in that sense. That’s probably not going to be resolved until the Americans fall into line with the rest of the world, I suppose, and they also bring in the metric system.
I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could help me by explaining why, when you look through this bill, you find that some of the pieces of legislation amended by certain ministries seem to be very exact in their changes. You’ll find, for instance Mr. Speaker, that some are very exact while others are very inexact.
If you look under the section Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the first part of the bill, you’ll notice in section 5, for instance, that 50 pounds has been changed to 25 kilograms. When you look at the explanatory note, you find that 50 pounds are approximately 22.5 kilograms.
The question I have is how was the decision made in terms of rounding out the figure. In some cases you’ve got very exact ones, depending on the particular thing that’s changing. In others you have quite a difference in two figures. In some cases they’ve been rounded upwards and in other cases they’ve been rounded downwards. Most of the measurements are very close, there’s a decimal point difference; in others they are not.
If you look at section 6 of the bill, for instance, you’re changing, in the Drainage Act, 600 feet to metric. You see 600 feet is 182.8 metres. Yet when it’s amended, it reads 200 metres. Why isn’t it 180 metres? It’s also amended further on to 300 feet; which to be close to exact is about 91.4 metres yet that’s changed upwards to 100 metres.
Obviously whoever drew up this amendment came to the conclusion it was better to be in hundreds than to do it that way, but why was that decision made? When you compare in other places the opposite direction has been taken.
You have the same situation in section 6(2). Here you’ve got quite a difference in the Drainage Act. Instead of being changed from 2,500 feet to 761 metres, or to round it out 760 metres, you’ve got 750 metres.
Who decided that you would drop 11.5 metres; and why?
Mr. Foulds: Good question, fundamental question.
Mr. Wildman: I don’t understand why.
Then you compare in section 8, where you’re amending the Livestock Community Sales Act, and you’re changing 3,000 pounds to the metric system. Three thousand pounds are approximately 1,360.7 kilograms. In the amended bill you change it to 1,361 kilograms. Here you’re being very close, you don’t have nearly the wide range that you have in the others.
I suppose that relates to the fact that you’re talking about weights. In livestock sales, weights are very important because the price is determined by weight. You’re going to be very exact and you’re not going to leave the leeway you have in the other bills you’re amending; that’s with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
If you go on to part II of the bill, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, you deal with measures which have some latitude. If you look at section 11 of the bill there’s some latitude there as well.
However, when you get to the Ministry of Education almost all the measurements are almost completely exact. When you’re amending the acts under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education you don’t have nearly the latitude you have in some of the other ones.
My question, really, is was there any central control on this or was this left up to every individual ministry to determine whether they were going to be exact, whether they were going to have a great deal of leeway, and whether they were going to round upwards or downwards when they did round out.
I have no particular argument with it, but it seems pretty haphazard when some ministries have been very exact and others have been quite wide-ranging in their changes.
In part IV of the act, the Ministry of Energy is very exact, as is the Ministry of Health in part VI. I suppose the Ministry of Health is dealing with measurements that it is very important to be exact about, because they are dealing with the health of patients.
If you refer to part IX of the act, dealing with what was the Ministry of Treasury, Economics, and Intergovernmental Affairs, you’re talking about amendments, in section 40 of this bill, to the Municipal Act. Again you find them being very exact. For instance, subsection 4, there’s reference to 14 feet or approximately 4.26 metres; in the amendment in this bill you use the figure 4.25. So again there’s an attempt to be quite exact. However in the very next subsection, subsection 5, 3,000 square feet, which is approximately 278 square metres, is rounded upwards to 300 square metres in this bill. That’s amending the same act, the Municipal Act.
Obviously the same people worked on it, so they must have had some reason for the difference. Why is 279 square metres rounded upwards to 300? Why isn’t it rounded upwards to 280? We haven’t been given any explanation in the explanatory notes that are here. There is substantial background material but it doesn’t talk about any kind of central decision-making here, and I wonder if there was any.
Go further on, however, and dealing with the same ministry --
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the appropriate time to go through a bill section by section is in committee of the whole House. The honourable member should stick to the principle.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that I am not going through section by section. I have jumped very important portions of this bill. I am showing examples of inconsistencies. In some cases they have been very exact and in other cases they haven’t been; in some cases even in dealing with amendment of the same particular act. I won’t go through any more examples.
I want to raise one other point in relation to the discussion of the principle here. Can we have the parliamentary assistant explain to us, in the cases where they are amending matters that deal with costs, why they have been, again quite exact in some cases but in other cases they seem to have increased the costs?
For instance, if you look at section 40 of the act, subsection 20, which again deals with the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, --
Mr. Foulds: Money helps.
Mr. Wildman: -- there’s a deposit here and it’s changed upwards. The amount in the metric system, the equivalent amount would be $16.40 it says in the explanatory note. However it’s been rounded upwards for a deposit of $25 per meter. For what reason?
The very next subsection of the bill, 21, deals again with money, $3 per acre, which is approximately $7.41 per hectare. That’s rounded in the bill to $7.50, which is far closer and is not really changing the amount of money. Why the difference?
If the parliamentary assistant can clarify those matters I can say, Mr. Speaker, that we certainly support the principle of this bill. The metric system is a fact of life. We are moving in that direction. There is not very much we can do about it, even if there are those of us who may have a very difficult time in learning this system and adapting to it.
We do have a problem understanding the differences. I think this is probably going to produce a bonanza for those entrepreneurs who wish to produce conversion tables. Perhaps, as my colleague the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) suggested to me, this is really a capitalist plot to bilk as many of the workers out of money for these converters as possible, that’s why we’re going to this.
Mr. Hennessy: Need a partner?
Mr. Wildman: But I wouldn’t suggest that, because after all this is just following through with what the federal government wanted us to do.
We support the principle. I would hope the parliamentary assistant can clarify the inconsistencies I have found in going through this very extensive bill.
Mr. Hennessy: Capitalist bluff; down with capitalists.
Mr. Foulds: I rise to support the bill with some reluctance. I don’t mind admitting that I’m an unabashed Luddite when it comes to conversion to the metric system. I simply don’t understand it. I’m not sure whether I’m supposed to be cold at minus three degrees Celsius or warm.
Hon. Mr. Maeck: You are going to be cold at minus three degrees, I can tell you that.
Mr. Foulds: No, not if you are a northerner; only if you come from Parry Sound and below it. If you are a northerner you’re not cold at minus three Celsius.
Mr. Wildman: That’s another thing. Those darn converters only go to minus 18 degrees.
Mr. Foulds: I have a feeling we are moving just a little too quickly into the metric system and there is going to be considerable confusion to the consumer. I really do feel that with a great deal of sincerity.
The point my colleague makes with regard to section 40(20) of the bill, where raising a deposit has slipped through makes this a money bill, in my view, rather than merely a housekeeping bill. That is the only reason I am not standing to vote against it on second reading. I certainly wouldn’t want the government to fall over this particular act.
In terms of various measures with regard to the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Bees Act, the Farm Products Act, the Bread Sales Act and so on, I believe we should make every effort to ensure that the consumer is protected during this metric conversion. It is my experience that in the conversions to metric sizes that have already taken place -- for example in cereals and other things -- the basic prices have remained the same even though there has been a drop in volume in the package that is sold to the consumer. I think we must insist that unit pricing becomes mandatory on all shelves in supermarkets; that comparison on pricing with regard to various ministries that have things like deposits and fees, such as those paid to the Ministry of Natural Resources and so on, is very clear to the people who deal with the ministries so there isn’t any undue exploitation of the consumer.
I know it is not in this act, but the Highway Traffic Act is a parallel act which has converted a number of distances. That is still causing confusion to some extent among the drivers of the province, particularly those of us who drive older model cars that haven’t got kilometres on the speedometer. I predict that the same kind of confusion will result if this act passes.
As previous speakers have indicated, there is a movement to convert to the metric system. In the long run it is probably a more simple and a more easily evaluated system, because of the constant division to units of 10.
Nevertheless, I would like to put on the record of this august chamber a certain nostalgia for losing inches and feet and miles; and a certain nostalgia for losing acres, pounds, ounces and chains. One of my colleagues has asked me if I’m trying to keep another item of business from coming before the House for debate, and the answer is no. I have in fact a bet with the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) that I can speak on this for 40 minutes and he has agreed to pay me a dollar a minute for every minute over 20 minutes.
Mr. Hennessy: No gambling, no gambling.
Mr. Foulds: On the other hand he just made the offer and maybe is having second thoughts now. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I think I’ve said basically what I want to say. With some seriousness, I do feel a certain nostalgia in losing the measures that I as --
Mr. Nixon: Like the King James version.
Mr. Foulds: Yes, I prefer the King James version, as a matter of fact, to the modern version. It has a certain ring about it. Although it might not be the adequate translation of the original Greek and Latin, it is part of our heritage and poetic, just as the original measures that we are transliterating in this bill. They are part of our cultural heritage and I for one am a little sad that my children --
Mr. Makarchuk: The King James version of the bill or the United Church version of the bill?
Mr. Foulds: -- that my children will not experience the pleasure of growing up in the English measurement system, that they will be converted without any pain to the metric system. It does seem to me, somehow, not an absolutely necessary piece of legislation. It does seem to me perhaps to be a little trendy, and a hangover from the 1960s here in 1978. I do believe we have perhaps bowed a little to international pressures, where other jurisdictions such as Britain have not bowed to those pressures.
It is, of course, as all members recognize, difficult to talk on the principle of this bill because it deals with so many ministries. However, I have tried, in my own fashion Mr. Speaker, to stick to that principle; and I do believe that something of value is being lost with the passage of this bill. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nixon: Since the honourable member who has just sat down is getting nostalgic about the English system of measurements, I want to be quite specific and say in my opinion it’s the farmers who have the most trouble with these new systems. Everybody else simply goes to the supermarket to buy their kilograms, or whatever, and litres; it’s all measured out for them and they take home whatever they need. But when you start spraying corn and sowing seeds you find, under federal law to begin with and now reinforced by this provincial legislation, that everything you use is in the metric system.
No matter how careful your commitment to jumping into it and using it even though there is some initial difficulty, it is extremely difficult to do so. It may be that once you reach the age of 50 your mind can’t expand around these conversions, but essentially the machinery that is presently in use in the farms is all calibrated and metered in the English system. In the past there has always been some governmental assistance in these conversions, but so far it’s never extended to recalibrating grain drills or weed sprayers. So the farmers must simply take this into account.
In most instances both units of measurement have been used, particularly for purchases in grocery stores and so on. While the new metric unit might be larger and easier to see, still you can see the English units there. Many of the products now sold in modern farming do not contain the English units at all; you simply go forward with the use of the metric units. I hope that my son has some less difficulty with it than I and my neighbours do.
Members may recall, perhaps it was the famous and much revered Gene Whalen who saved the farmers in western Canada from the imposition of the unit hectare, the 2.5 acres. The farmers out there are very influential, although sometimes I question their judgement in matters political. They raised the devil with all of the politicians, and while I don’t believe the metrication was stopped it was delayed, particularly because calibration of farm machinery is based in most instances on American research and development and the changes in metering have not taken place.
There is just one matter, and I don’t know whether it is referred to in this bill or not; that is that we require a new word in the English language. I have heard other references to it and it concerns all of us as members of the Legislature. I refer to the word that we now use, which is “mileage” I haven’t read the bill as carefully as my honourable friend from Wawa; do they really use “kilometreage?”
Mr. Wildman: Yes.
Mr. Nixon: Well I was just thinking, of all of the inconveniences of the metric system, the word kilometreage has got to be one of the most inconvenient that the mind of a Conservative government ever came out with. It may be that it will not catch on. However, in the changes that we expect from day to day to be brought before the Legislature or in the regulations having to do with expenses paid to us, including you, Mr. Speaker, I am told that in the conversion of cents per mile to cents per kilometre we are thinking of rounding it off to the nearest cent. We will make a grab at 0.2 cents per kilometre from the unsuspecting taxpayers. So sometimes there are ancillary, although minute advantages in these changes which I suppose militate against some of this inconvenience.
Mr. Hennessy: I rise to voice my displeasure with the metric system too. I think that of all the money that has been spent by the federal government --
Mr. Makarchuk: You are teller in metres.
Mr. Nixon: But you weigh less in kilograms. Twice as hard to lose in kilograms.
Mr. Hennessy: What’s the difference? You know what I mean. There you are, I haven’t even got a chance to get started and you are all after me.
Mr. Nixon: We are just trying to help you.
Mr. Makarchuk: You’ve got more millimetres than inches.
Mr. Hennessy: You have nothing upstairs, that’s a sure thing. Mr. Speaker, would you throw that man out?
Mr. Nixon: They are varmints.
Mr. Hennessy: In all due respect, I think the federal government could spend money more wisely than to bring something as foolish as this in, as far as I am concerned. I think it was relatives of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk who started it all.
Mr. Nixon: Your friend Bob Andras wouldn’t do anything wrong.
Mr. Hennessy: Pierre is the member’s friend, not mine. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk never left the farm and doesn’t know what happened.
But in all due respect, I wish to voice my displeasure. I think the money that the federal government spent could have been spent on something more useful. Unfortunately our government has to follow and I have to follow the government.
Mr. Nixon: Weakness.
Mr. Peterson: Nobody is going to follow you anywhere.
Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting debate for a person coming from an industry that has been involved in the metric type of measuring to a much greater degree across the country than many people in the Legislature here could appreciate.
I am suggesting that for all of those machines that some of the members referred to on the farm, as well as our automobiles and everything else that we have, when they go through the machine shop and through the hands of the mechanics, those people over the years have had to change every one of our inches into thousandths and go to a metric-type measuring device and change it back in every instance.
In industry, yes, even in land surveying, they have to divide the foot into tenths so they could conveniently do their calculations. Going into advanced chemistry dealing with centigrade temperatures, the very involved scientific areas have been metricated for many years. It’s a great inconvenience in all of those trades and all of those various aspects that have done it over these years to continue without having a complete immersion. It’s the only way to go.
You have seen the Americans now, Mr. Speaker. The politician has been bent to the public will and they are going to extend metrication over many more years. I think that that’s just delaying and putting extra costs into a system that has to come sooner or later. In fact there are so many aspects of our society that are not quite obvious to most people that have had to go that route for many years and have made the conversion twice instead of once.
I, for one, am very pleased that we have seen fit to take the bull by the horns, as it were, to take complete immersion in a system that is definitely better for all of us. I am very pleased that it’s happening and the sooner the better.
Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to express a few words. I suppose progress is never made without some kind of injury being inflicted upon a few. I feel, like so many in the opposition, that in the progress that I think this bill will bring about, it’s going to injure the hearts of a great many of us. I was glad to see that there were as many traditionalists on the opposite side of the House as there are. I was quite surprised.
I might have expected it from the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, he is always quite conservative in his approach to things. But I was most delighted to find that the member for Port Arthur had such respect for the things of old English tradition. I don’t know what we are going to do when we try to translate Shakespeare in the future, when we have to translate those beautiful lines of Shakespeare into the metric system. It will of course be a little difficult.
Mr. Foulds: When we get to metric time, it is going to be even more difficult.
Mr. MacBeth: Metric time will be more difficult still.
Those I am really feeling sorry for tonight are the many members of the legal profession across this fine province. For years we used to search titles under the basis of chains and links. There used to be 100 links in a chain, or 6.6 inches, and when I travelled across the country, as I do, out in the various rural areas of this province -- and I love to travel the roads of the rural areas -- I used to be able to tell how far I had gone. I knew that every time I crossed a concession I had gone a mile and a quarter. A mile and a quarter was just a nice even 100 chains. But now when I travel the rural roads of this province I don’t know how I am going to figure those distances in the metric system.
I think we will have to have some way of not only transferring feet to metres and metres to feet, but links and chains into the metric system. It’s going to make a lot of confusion for the lawyers of this province who for years have figured out their metes and bounds descriptions on the basis of links and chains and rods and other such old measurements. I hope all of us when we support this bill, as I am afraid I am duty bound to do, will all have a tear in our hearts for the members of the legal profession.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to find the reason why this bill is coming in and why we are changing everything from pounds to grams and kilograms, from miles to kilometres and from yards to metres and so on. I was wondering if it had anything to do with the events of last Sunday at the CNE stadium.
Those of us who come from Toronto have suffered for the past 26 years without being able to get a football team to make 10 yards and three downs and be able to get 110 yards down the field. I somehow wonder if this is a way, by converting yards to metres, and if the opposition has to make 10 metres --
Mr. Eaton: Argos still won’t make it.
Mr. Rotenberg: -- instead of 10 yards, maybe the Argo defence can hold them. Maybe this is the way of having, finally, a winning football team within the confines of Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr. Hennessy: Don’t hold your breath.
Mr. Wildman: A metric football field is 100 metres long.
Mr. Rotenberg: Although it doesn’t cover it in the bill, and the act only covers government matters I would hope that converting --
Mr. Peterson: Settle down; this is Rotenberg’s idea of humour.
Mr. Rotenberg: Well those members who come from London who have tried to get a football team in the CFL have been greatly unsuccessful and are kind of jealous of a football team.
Mr. Kerrio: London won as many games as Toronto this year.
Mr. Nixon: Call them the London Millionaires.
Mr. Rotenberg: The London Millionaires. As a matter of fact, we could trade the Toronto Argonauts to London, Ontario --
Mr. Speaker: What principle of the bill is the member speaking to?
Mr. Rotenberg: I am speaking to the principle which converts yards to metres.
Mr. Makarchuk: Convert the Argos into something else.
Mr. Rotenberg: Very simply, Mr. Speaker, in converting yards to metres we may be able to convert the Argos to a winning team. We have tried everything else, maybe this will work.
Mr. Deans: It will never help.
Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to respond to the comments raised by the honourable members who spoke on second reading of this bill, and I will attempt to answer the questions that were raised. I really appreciate the interest and debate from the various members of the House on both sides.
For the member for Lincoln, perhaps I could indicate that one of the reasons the United States is now moving, and that Canada has moved and we at the provincial level are attempting to support the conversion to the metric system, is that many countries now demand that statistics as far as import items are concerned be in the metric system. I believe New Zealand prohibits any imports unless they are based on the metric system.
I could perhaps comment, too, that the hat of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk will now be known as a 4.5-litre hat rather than a 10-gallon bat.
The member for Lincoln commented on the effect it would have on the building code -- whether we would still be referring to two-by-fours -- and what effect this would have on municipal bylaws, zoning bylaws, et cetera. It is my understanding that the building code can be amended by regulation to deal with these changes and to convert to the metric system; and of course municipalities will have the power to amend their municipal bylaws so that they may conform as well.
I might say, incidentally, and I will likely deal with this a little later, that we are not, I feel, moving too quickly. The member for Port Arthur raised that question. I will perhaps comment a little later on that too, but it is interesting to note that all but three countries in the world are now using the metric system or are in the process of converting. The three countries are three small countries in the Pacific islands. Any country that is of an industrial nature certainly has to take these steps in order to continue its world trade.
The member for Algoma made several comments, and I will try to answer them. I believe his first comment was on the Drainage Act -- I may not have them in the right order; yes, there is a change in numbers. We don’t intend to alter the intent of the clauses but these are to have them conform or keep them in line with definitions contained in the Highway Traffic Act where 600 feet is converted to 200 metres.
I believe the honourable member also raised the question about why some of the conversions are done accurately and why some of them are rounded figures. I think he raised a question under the -- I just forget the section -- dealing with the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act. While the exact conversion is 22.67618 kilograms this has been adjusted to 25 kilograms for ease of use. The amendment is not related to any current conversions in the private sector and it will not be proclaimed until the marketing of poultry is conducted in kilograms.
Mr. Peterson: He’s talking us out of this. We were going to support it but not anymore.
Mr. Hennessy: Blame Nixon.
Mr. G. E. Smith: As has been said, each ministry at the appropriate time, from input from the private sector or that sector of the economy, will proclaim the acts following the timetable set out by them and recommended by them.
Mr. J. A. Taylor: Even the tea bags; less tea in the tea bags.
Mr. Peterson: Pity.
Mr. G. E. Smith: Again, as I say, some figures must be exact, those dealing with the actual sale of an article, while other figures can be rounded off for a matter of simplicity.
I believe the member for Algoma also commented on the discrepancy, or what he termed the discrepancy, or the large increase relating to the deposit under the Municipal Act. I point out that this is a deposit. It is refundable to the contractor. I suppose that if the deposit were forfeited, the cost of doing business as far as the municipalities are concerned is increasing each year and it makes some sense to increase it. This happened to be the figure the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) came up with.
Mr. Wildman: So it is a money bill.
Mr. G. E. Smith: It’s not in one sense of the word. I think that is highly debatable. We won’t take the time of the House at this time to do that.
Again I say that while each bill -- I think the member for Algoma did raise this -- has some differences, the ministry responsible had its own choice as to how it would round out the various figures. This was done also in consultation with the other ministries before the final bill was drafted.
The member for Port Arthur wondered if we were not moving too quickly. I’d just like to mention to him that the United States government, as far back as 1866, made the metric system legal for all purposes in the United States. They have been progressing and updating it until finally they passed an act establishing the metric system. The metric act was passed in December 1975.
We are, as a matter of fact, moving at the request of the private sector or the various industries within our country, and certainly we are not moving ahead of them. So no, I would say we are not really moving too quickly.
Before I comment about the nostalgia which I think we all share, I would say that I think we are all concerned that the consumer doesn’t lose at the time of the conversion, that he gets his fair share for his dollar. I understand that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) has made it one of his challenges to see that the consumer is protected when the change is made across the province.
As I said earlier, I think we all share the nostalgia of an era which is ending. It certainly has been expressed by members on both sides of the House. I think, though, that the new system will be much simpler to those who learn it. As someone said to me earlier this evening, it’s much simpler sometimes in the metric system to multiply by 10 than it is to go through some of the formulas and ratios we learned when we learned the weights and measures and the various scales in public and high school.
The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk mentioned it would be particularly confusing to the farmers. I have farmers in my area who have expressed the thought to me. But I believe that as time goes on they will be able to cope with the change. The technology, as far as the type of equipment and the operating of it are concerned, is being changed and will help them meet the challenge.
I am happy that the member for Niagara Falls sees the benefit of this legislation, the omnibus bill. In a highly industrialized community such as Niagara Falls -- and I am personally aware it’s a highly industrialized community, having been down there within the last couple of weeks -- I can understand his knowledge of this and his support because where there is a large industrial base the industrial community is going to profit.
To the member for Wilson Heights, I’m sorry, I do not have any solution as to whether this bill will be helpful to the Argos. I think it will take more than this bill to help the Argos.
Mr. Eaton: It’s a start.
Mr. G. E. Smith: Perhaps the Premier (Mr. Davis), who is a supporter, will have some legislation or some comments to introduce that will be more helpful.
Mr. Hennessy: It will take more than that.
Mr. J. A. Taylor: You need more than a metric ball.
Mr. G. E. Smith: I think that ends my comments at this time.
Mr. Wildman: All those Americans playing Canadian ball is just messing it up.
Mr. G. E. Smith: I would hope all honourable members will support second reading of this bill.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for third reading.
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY
Resolutions for supply for the following ministries were concurred in by the House:
Ministry of Community and Social Services;
Provincial Secretary for Social Development;
Ministry of the Attorney General.
Hon. Mr. Welch: That still leaves the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.
First Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour has assented:
Bill 113, An Act to amend the Training Schools Act;
Bill 115, An Act to revise the Children’s Mental Health Centres Act;
Bill 116, An Act to amend the Unified Family Court Act, 1976;
Bill 117, An Act to revise the Children’s Institutions Act;
Bill 118, An Act to revise the Children’s Boarding Homes Act;
Bill 119, An Act to amend the Provincial Courts Act;
Bill 120, An Act to revise the Day Nurseries Act;
Bill 146, An Act to amend the Assessment Act;
Bill 155, An Act to amend the Art Gallery of Ontario Act;
Bill 156, An Act to render immune from Seizure certain Objects of Cultural Significance brought into Ontario for Temporary Display or Exhibition;
Bill 157, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act;
Bill 158, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1973;
Bill 159, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act;
Bill 173, An Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972;
Bill 188, An Act to amend the Residential Premises Rent Review Act, 1975, second session;
Bill Pr9, An Act to incorporate the Macdonald Stewart Community Art Centre;
Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa;
Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Ottawa Charitable Foundation;
Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the Township of Longueuil;
Bill Pr42, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga;
Bill Pr47, An Act to revive Five-O Taxi Limited;
Bill Pr49, An Act respecting the Borough of Scarborough;
Bill Pr50, An Act to revive Homemaster Improvements Limited.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the House adjourned at 10:26 p.m.