Hansard Transcripts 1984-Jun-01 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: As you know, at this hour several hundred injured workers are outside this place attempting to demonstrate their need for changes in our workers' compensation laws in this province. This day, June 1, has been declared Injured Workers' Day.

I am sure you are aware that the organizers and groups that represent these injured workers have asked that this Legislature rise in tribute to those workers who have been injured and who have died on the job and observe a minute of silence in recognition of the contributions they made to this society.

I ask at this time if you would ask the House to give unanimous consent for this House to rise and give that minute of silence, which I note was observed at Toronto city council earlier this week.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the same point of privilege, I ask you to give serious consideration to that request. It is something those of us in the New Democratic Party support with all our heart. Many of the people who are demonstrating outside today are constitutents of ours who have come from our ridings to make their case before the Legislature today. We ask that we observe a moment's silence for the enormous suffering many of them have experienced.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the request that has been made by the member opposite and supported by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). The people who are gathered outside today are very decent, very concerned and in some cases very frightened people. I know a show of support from this Legislature will mean a great deal to them. I hope the Legislature will stand in a body and recognize their contributions to the industrial growth of this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Since it is unanimous, I ask all members in the House to stand and give one moment's silence in respect for injured workers.

The House observed one minute's silence.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I was hoping the minister would have an announcement today in recognition of the people who are demonstrating today in front of this House. I am sure he is personally familiar with some of the deep frustrations felt by people who are forced to gather at our front door to press their case before the government because of the years of delay and the refusal of the government to take action in this matter. I am deeply disappointed that he has chosen not to respond to those real and cumulative frustrations that are developing across this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Question?

Mr. Peterson: There is not one member of this House who does not know in a personal way, through his or her constituency responsibilities, of hundreds and thousands of individual cases of virtual desperation because of the failure of this government to move.

There is obviously a short-term problem and a long-term problem. Will the minister at least promise to bring in immediate changes to the benefit levels for this year and not let any long-term plans he has with respect to the implementation of the Weiler report interfere with a call for immediate justice, i.e. raising the benefit levels before we leave this spring? Will he make that solemn commitment now, not making it contingent on any long-term changes but at least providing a little temporary relief for these tens of thousands of desperate people in this province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with that question. First of all, maybe I could go back a bit. The Leader of the Opposition has asked why I have not brought in the amendments today in concert with the demonstration. I spoke yesterday to one of the leaders of the injured workers' groups, and I indicated there are several reasons why we have not yet introduced the amendments. One of them was that I would have thought it would be hypocritical to have brought those in yesterday or today to pre-empt the demonstration. However, I have made a commitment to this Legislature and to the injured workers' groups to bring in the amendments before this session concludes.

I will give serious consideration to the points this member and members of the third party made yesterday and earlier this week. The very least that can happen is that the benefits will be retroactive to July 1. We will have to look at whether we can split the bill, in context with several other factors. I will give it every consideration.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. Peterson: I am one of those who is very concerned that this legislation will be brought in during the last two or three days of this House. There will be a great deal of pressure to pass it in a hurry, without the thoughtful reflection on the long-term changes that are necessary in terms of workers' compensation legislation in this province. That is why I am asking the minister at least to split out the benefit portion so we can move on that immediately. I put that suggestion to the minister in a very serious way.

In addition, we obviously need long-term changes to the act. Will the minister bring in that legislation in specific terms? We have had enough discussion. We have had enough committees. We have had enough reports. We have had enough points of view. Now is the time for action. Is the minister prepared to bring in that legislation this spring, amending the long-term structural problems in the workers' compensation system?

Will the minister give his solemn commitment that he will not abolish the pension? I would like to see it on record that the pension will exist but that, in addition, a wage loss system will be added to it. Will the minister make that commitment today in the House?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Addressing the latter part of the question, I have to be consistent. I indicated yesterday to the honourable member's colleague that I was not going to get involved in debating or discussing the details of the amendments prior to their introduction. I maintain that position. However, the member brought up an interesting point. I agree this thing has been studied to death. We have had committee hearings across the province and so on for many years. The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we bring it in and give it speedy passage. I would love that.

On the other hand, I have been told there are those in this Legislature, and those outside, who would like to see it go to committee this summer to be studied and assessed in the committee context. I am flexible. If the member would rather skip the committee procedure stage, I would be happy to do so.

Mr. Rae: We do not know what the minister is going to do yet.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The honourable member should wait a minute. On the other hand, I think in all fairness this bill should go to committee and have a thorough airing in that forum.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I know the government would not want to leave itself open to the charge that it was prepared to observe a moment's silence for the injured workers of this province but was not prepared to do anything practical and immediate for them and their families. I know that is the kind of feeling the government would not want to leave alive in the minds of injured workers in this province.

The Acting Speaker: Question?

Mr. Rae: What possible objection could the minister have to an immediate increase in the level of pensions and benefits? Regardless of all the other reforms, what possible objection could the minister have to that, knowing it would get unanimous and speedy passage in this Legislature? Let him bring it in today and we will do it today.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will only repeat what I said earlier. I do not think that suggestion is unreasonable. I have to look at it, though, in the context of some other problems we have. I will give it every consideration. The very worst that can happen is that the benefits would be retroactive to July 1.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister as sincerely as I can that it is not acceptable to those men and women who are injured in this province to have some retroactive benefit again this year. The precedent we established last year in bringing this amendment forward in June and passing it before this House adjourned is the proper one.

The Acting Speaker: Question?

Mr. Wrye: Let me return to the major issue that Professor Weiler referred to, the white paper struggled with and the committee struggled with: the issue of the permanent disability pension. I am not asking the minister for specifics and details. However, will the minister give a commitment to the injured workers of this province, in the House today and when he speaks on the steps of the Legislature later, that the long-term changes dealing with the issue of permanent pensions will put an end to the notorious meat chart once and for all?

As the minister will remember, Professor Weiler said the meat chart was entirely discredited and must be replaced. Will the minister make a commitment that when his long-term changes come in -- and they should come in this spring as well, after the short-term changes -- we will scrap the notorious meat chart once and for all?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, let me share with the honourable member what I intend to say out on the steps of the Legislature a few minutes from now. I have read their petition, which I was given in advance -- I appreciate that -- and I am confident the amendments I bring in will address many of the concerns in that petition, and particularly two of the major concerns.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of the Environment concerning Ontario's ongoing embarrassment in the court in the United States with respect to the S area.

We discussed the competence of his ministry and his counsel on other occasions in this House when the minister tried to defend the indefensible. The minister said he had one of the great environmental lawyers in the United States working for him. He said he had worked for the Sierra Club. We contacted the Sierra Club and they had never heard of him.

We recognized yesterday that we were again embarrassed when he presented information that was factually wrong. He asked for a modification of the agreement, but in the US legal system, he could only ask for an acceptance or a rejection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Question?

Mr. Peterson: He also tried to argue that public policy reflected in the bills in the US Congress should be part of the agreement, yet that argument was rejected out of hand because those bills were only at the bill stage, they had not been passed, and were not part of public policy in the United States. The embarrassment goes on.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr. Peterson: What steps is he taking, as the minister responsible, to clean up Ontario's act immediately and put forward a cogent, thoughtful case?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the case in fact was concluded on May 30. The final arguments in written form were put forward by the province's representatives, the lawyers who are acting on our behalf.

I have to say to the honourable member again that if there was any embarrassment whatever caused with respect to the case that is under way in Buffalo, it has been caused by the Leader of the Opposition. More than anyone else, he has been trying this case in this forum rather than allowing it to be tried, as it should be, in the district court in Buffalo. Frankly, I do not understand this constant barrage of questions about the nuances and why our lawyers said one word or another word at a particular time.

I want to assure him again that the firm representing Ontario in this matter is a most reputable firm. If he does not believe that, then why does he not say it outside this chamber? Why does he not indicate that so they can take whatever action they feel is appropriate from that point on?

Mr. Peterson: I will. I will say it right outside.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am not finished, Mr. Speaker. I allowed him to speak.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: In addition, I want to say --

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister threatening me with a lawsuit? What kind of cheap intimidation is that nonsense?

The Acting Speaker: Order. Is the minister finished answering the question?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: With respect to how we are handling this case, all observers, except for the very narrow pipeline that the Leader of the Opposition appears to have to this particular case, indicate that we have handled the case in a most responsible way and that we have put forward the position of not only Ontario but also Canada in this particular respect in a fashion that would be most satisfactory were the Leader of the Opposition sitting there and watching it. I have no reason to intervene or interfere in any way, shape or form with a case that is under way in the district court in Buffalo.

Mr. Peterson: Let me tell the minister that I have nothing to fear if his lawyer, Mr. Sunderland, wants to sue me, because obviously he is not very good. He would not be very successful. I could beat him even if I had the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) as my counsel.

Has the minister learned any lessons from this débâcle? He refused to enter the Hyde Park dump case. He entered the S area case late and ill-prepared and has embarrassed himself. What are his plans on the 102nd Street dump? What representations is he going to make? What is going to be his position? Is he going to be well prepared this time in conjunction with the competent, thoughtful interest groups that have done so much work in this area and whose advice he has rejected?

10:20 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: It was not this province that denied the interest groups the right to intervene in the case with respect to the S area site that is under way now in the district court in Buffalo. That was the determination of Judge Curtin and the district court of the state of New York. It was their determination and not ours.

The lawyers the Leader of the Opposition talks about virtually on a daily basis, and who he indicates are incapable of putting forward or unable to put forward a good position on the part of this province, are the very lawyers who won Ontario the opportunity to intervene in this case.

That was their first victory. I am quite confident that no other lawyers I can think of would have been able to put forward a more solid or more representative case on our behalf than the lawyers we have engaged.

With respect to the 102nd Street site, we have not as yet made a determination as to whether we are going to intervene or not. That will come in due course. I will be most happy to share, as I did in the S site, that information with the member well in advance of our interventions at that particular time.

I want to say one final thing, if I might, with respect to the comments made about us being ill-prepared. Let me simply suggest to you that there is no environment group anywhere that I am aware of that could have put forward a more comprehensive and effective case than Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment. Frankly, no one knew more about that site than we do. I am quite confident we are handling it most capably.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that just because he is wearing a badge today does not mean the Attorney General would do a good job defending him.

I am not going to get into talking about whether the lawyers were competent or not. I am concerned about the conduct of the ministry and the minister.

If the ministry knew so much about the S area site, why did the ministry not specifically ask for immediate excavation of the site, since that is the test he applied here in this Legislature? Why was that not made as a principal argument at the hearing in Buffalo, and why was there no evidence presented which specifically showed that the short-term viability of the remedial work was not adequate?

A member of my research staff was at the hearing yesterday. There was a real concern about the case presented by Ontario, a general feeling in the courtroom that the case which was presented was not the case which the minister has been talking about so proudly on the floor of this Legislature.

The evidence was not there, the witnesses who should have been called were not, and the specific arguments that were needed to be made were not made. Why not?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the only reason one witness was not called in this particular case is that the evidence was changed on the part of Occidental Chemical. The member for York South knows that. I have discussed that on numerous occasions in this House.

The case the member is putting forward, the proposals with respect to what Ontario should be doing, are exactly what we said in court. We said --

Mr. Rae: It is not.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Well, if the member will listen very carefully, I will try to explain it. However, I cannot guarantee comprehension on that side of the floor.

The reality is we put forward a case which suggested, in the short term, that the retention of that particular contaminated soil on that site would not present a hazard. However, we went on to say that the only long-term solution that would be acceptable to Ontario was complete removal and treatment of the contaminated soil.

That is exactly what we said in court. That is exactly what I have been saying in this Legislature, and that has been our position consistently throughout this entire case.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that part of the preparation of the legal firm representing the Ontario position was to hope and pray that the public interest groups would enter the fray as amici curiae, since he knew they had the evidence available from the experts they had retained, and from the information they had gathered?

Is it not true the minister's great counsel was there, praying that the lead would be taken by the attorney acting for that public interest group, to take his hand through the proceedings in that court? Did he not realize that particular attorney knew what was going on and would then put the case for him and he would not have to make the preparations which were obviously not made?

Will the minister agree he was hoping and praying that, as amici curiae, the public interest groups would carry the can for us and that his ministry would reap the benefits of the success they would have achieved there?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is confession time. I have to admit to the member that on occasion I do pray.

Specifically with respect to the case the member is talking about, I was not praying for any assistance on the part of any outside group. Although I have never raised this question with them, to the best of my knowledge I do not believe our legal representatives in Buffalo were praying either.

I can only tell the member that we were well aware that Ontario was going into this case alone. I had suggested to some of the public interest groups, including Pollution Probe, that we welcomed their assistance on this case. I am still quite surprised they did not come forward and participate in whatever fashion was available to them.

The member knows there were areas of participation open to them in the designation they were given by the courts, which is known as friends of the court. I cannot answer the question as to why they did not come forward. The member would have to address that question to Pollution Probe.

However, Jean say that short of praying, yes, I would have welcomed their assistance on this matter, but we were quite prepared, quite able and quite capable in every respect of proceeding with this case alone. That is exactly what we have been doing.

The Acting Speaker: Before we have further questions, I compliment the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston). If more questions can be posed as single questions rather than being multitiered, multifaceted and multidirectional, with many questions within the same question, we would have a question period where more members could participate.

Mr. Rae: On the same line of questioning, can the Minister of the Environment explain why the first witness called by the ministry, who was supposed to be an expert on toxic waste disposal technologies, had not visited the site and did not present any evidence about the cost of such a plan?

I think that is an important question. It attacks the credibility of the witness and the effectiveness of his testimony before the court. Why did the ministry not arrange for its expert witness to visit the S area site before he testified?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The witness the leader of the third party is talking about was an expert witness on hazardous wastes and toxic materials. There was no need for him to visit the site. He knew the contents of the site. They were well known to all the participants in this case. It was our feeling and the feeling of our lawyers that there was no requirement for him to take a look at the site.

When one goes to look at these toxic waste sites, by a visual review there is no way of determining the level of contamination without a series of samplings, inspections and reviews in a very technical sense. It was not required of him to go to the site and take a look at it. It would look like any similar mound of dirt that could be located in the state of New York or in Ontario. That would have served absolutely no purpose whatever and, I might add, played no significant role in this case.

Mr. Rae: I think there are a number of observers who would disagree with what the minister has just said as to the effect of the critique by the other side, saying that the individual expert had not even visited the site and did not present any detailed cost plans with respect to excavation.

Why did the minister not ask specifically for excavation of the site? Why did he not present specific evidence as to how that could be done and how much it would cost, which would directly challenge the agreement that was being put forward before the court? There was no direct challenge to the agreement. Why did he not ask specifically for excavation?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: We asked that the agreement be amended. Part of our amendment was for complete excavation of the site and that the contaminated material be removed. There was a very lengthy discussion with respect to the technology that is available today to treat that contaminated material.

The question of cost is still a difficult one to answer for our people or for those in the United States. However, we have held firm to the position that the material has to be excavated, that it has to be removed and treated, and that if the technology is not available today, it should be retained only for a short period of time and then removed and treated at the earliest possible opportunity.

Our bottom line on this has consistently been the removal of the contaminated soil and the treatment of that material.

10:30 a.m.

Mr. Elston: Why were the minister's expert witnesses allowed to go into that court with the idea that the judge was able to amend the agreement on his own? As I understand it and as has been reported, the only thing the judge can do is either reject the agreement or approve it.

It has not been clear from the way the minister has spoken in the House, how those people were put as expert witnesses. I would ask him to defend why the point of the Ontario case was not well recorded in front of that trial judge.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Very simply, the procedure is that we request an amendment to certain articles in the agreement and the judge, by way of the process that apparently goes on in district court in New York, then rejects that particular paragraph or that particular article of the agreement. That is the process used. By suggesting an amendment to certain clauses in the agreement, in fact, we are asking for rejection.

Mr. Rae: I would again say to the minister, that in itself is not at all clear.

I would like to ask the minister why nowhere in this brief does it refer specifically to the court disapproving the agreement. That is found nowhere in the final concluding argument. The only place the word "disapproval" occurs that I have been able to find on reading this material is where the counsel to the ministry says: "The fact that Ontario is not a party to the enforcement of the agreement in and of itself is not grounds for disapproving the agreement."

Why should the failure of the agreement to provide for Ontario, which is going to be more affected by the pollution of the Niagara River than any other jurisdiction in North America, to be included as part of the enforcement provisions of the agreement, not in and of itself be grounds for disapproving the agreement?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: It is very difficult to be operating in a foreign country and to ask for all the demands and the caveats that are being put forward by the members from across the floor. We believe we have put forward the strongest case in an intervention of this kind that has ever been put forward by any jurisdiction, any province, or for that matter by the federal government, in the United States of America.

I want to say that some of the groups that are being somewhat critical of our performance are the self-same groups that have lost other cases in the United States, specifically in New York state, as the leader of the third party well knows. I am talking about the Hyde Park site. The reality of the situation is we are asking for as much as we can get to protect the interest of Ontario and the quality of drinking water in this province, and downstream from this province into the St. Lawrence as well.

It has consistently been our position that we want to protect those interests. I believe we are doing a more than adequate job in the courts in New York state. I stand by that statement, and I think we will simply have to await the outcome of the case to determine whether or not we have put forward an effective case.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to part of a question raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), in which he stated that the firm of Terris and Sunderland had not represented the Sierra Club in the United States.

Mr. Boudria: That is not what he said.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: That is exactly what he said. Check Hansard.

Mr. Boudria: He said that was not the lawyer --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I want to respond now to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The reality is that the firm of Terris and Sunderland represented the Sierra Club five or six years ago in at least half a dozen cases, one of which was a landmark case involving the firm of Terris and Sunderland v. Ruckelshaus and the Environmental Protection Agency.

I just want to clear the record in that respect to let the Leader of the Opposition know that once again he is wrong. I am sorry to have to say that, but he is wrong.

Mr. Nixon: He said they did not know the lawyer.

Mr. Bradley: They did not know the lawyer, he said.

Mr. Boudria: Obviously the minister is wrong.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Labour. Rather than forcing the injured workers of this province to come before us every year -- twice a year as they have been doing -- and demonstrate for fair benefits, at the very least why does the minister not, when he introduces his additional moneys, change the law and provide that there be a basic cost-of-living adjustment every year in the level of benefits and the level of pensions so we do not force the workers of this province to come banging on the door of the Legislature in order to get justice? Why not build that into the very system the government is going to be creating this year?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree at all with the statement that the injured workers have had to come and bang on the doors of this Legislature for increases each year. Those benefit increases, in the length of time that I have been in the ministry, and certainly in the period of my predecessors, the member for York East (Mr. Elgie) and the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), have come forward on a regular basis.

Mr. Rae: I would say to the minister he has a selective memory in terms of the history of the last 10 years. There have been years when there has not been an increase and other years when people had to wait and it was made retroactive.

I would specifically like to ask the minister why the government has been unable to convince its caucus to bring in legislation this week, when all of us were ready for the legislation and when all the evidence we had was that it was going to be coming before this Legislature on Tuesday. What happened on Tuesday that forced the minister to change his mind?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am sure if I asked the member opposite what went on in his caucus on Tuesday, he would tell me to get lost. I am not going to tell him to get lost.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Tell him to get lost. Tell him to go and play the piano somewhere.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, what is the minister's objection to automatic indexing? This is the point, surely. Why would he not relieve people of this yearly spectacle and the insecurity on the part of the workers by putting this into the legislation and making it automatic? Then he would not have any more headaches in that regard.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition is playing 20 questions to try to find out what is in the amendments that will be coming forward in a few days. The member will have to wait until I bring forward the amendments.

Mr. Rae: Let me remind the minister, because I was involved as a law student 11 years ago with workers who were banging on the door here and many of them got charged by the police, there was a three-year delay when the present Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) was responsible for this ministry. Therefore, this government does not respond with respect to the cost of living.

The Acting Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: What is holding up the Tory party? What is the problem with the Tory caucus that it cannot get a handle on the need for basic justice for injured workers in this province? What is the reason for the delay when there are workers who have been waiting for years for basic cost-of-living increases and for real justice in terms of long-term pensions? Just what is the minister's problem?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: There is no problem with the government caucus other than a very legitimate need for as much information as it can get about the amendments. I do not find that unreasonable at all. We are making arrangements in this coming week to bring them up to date with the amendments. Unfortunately, they were the last to be told about the amendments because we were the last to be told --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No, we were the last to be told.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: -- as far as our consultative process was concerned. We had to take this legislation through --

Mr. Rae: Have the workers been told?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Will the member give me an opportunity? He gets awfully mouthy some days.

Mr. Rae: I plead guilty to that one.

The Acting Speaker: Will the minister answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: This is one of the most major pieces of legislation to come before this Legislature in quite some time. This meant we had all sorts of procedures to follow. We had to go through the policies and priorities board. Then we had to go through the three policy fields. Then we had to go back to the policies and priorities board. Then we had to go to cabinet on more than one occasion because it is a very complex piece of legislation.

Then we had to present this to our caucus. Unfortunately, because it is a long and detailed piece of legislation -- I think it is something like 60-odd pages -- the caucus wanted to know all the facts. It will take some time to dispense those facts to it.

10:40 a.m.

CO-OPERATIVE EDUCATION

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education on something she may be familiar with. It is a question on the co-operative program at the secondary school level. I think the minister would agree the program is a proven winner both in terms of teaching skills and getting jobs for young people.

The government's own document, Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions, states the following: "Students should not be denied access to a co-operative education course that involves expenses because of their inability to pay." It goes on to say, "Every effort should be made to provide assistance to students whose financial circumstances make it difficult for them to participate in a co-operative education course."

In view of those statements, what increased financial incentive and grant to boards of education and possible financial assistance to selected employers is the minister contemplating to assist with student transportation costs, particularly in rural areas, to provide greater access to work-place locations and for coordinators and monitors of the program?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the member may not be aware that there has been a significant number of rural boards involved heavily in co-operative education for some time. We have been developing the information which they have established, related to their experience in this area, to see whether there really are significant additional costs in the whole area of the provision of co-operative education.

I am not convinced, at this point, that it is absolutely essential that there be important additions provided to employers in order to induce them to participate in co-operative educational programs. It seems to me that it is of great advantage to employers throughout this province and Canada to become so involved and to consider the investment they make in this area of education as simply that, an investment rather than a cost.

We are looking at all of these figures and determining within the next round of general legislative grant appropriations the appropriate ways in which to deal with the matter.

Mr. Bradley: I hear no definite commitment that the minister is going to provide increased funding for a very worthwhile program. She has not said it is not going to be forthcoming, but she certainly has not given that commitment. The minister will understand that teachers in co-operative education have repeatedly heard there is a crying need for workers in skilled trades. All they want is the ministry to tell them where the shortages are and they will send out the students.

As the minister well knows, more than 60 community industrial training committees are conducting training need surveys in the communities and her ministry is heavily involved in these surveys. Why is it not a matter of policy that this survey information is routinely made known to heads of co-operative education programs? Can the minister not even undertake to implement an obvious, no-cost policy that will help the most serious problem facing this province today?

The minister must not say she is already doing it because a phone call to her ministry today indicated she was not already doing it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is absolutely correct, but I must remind the member for St. Catharines that on every single CITC there is a strong representative from the secondary school community. It seems to be perfectly obvious that the responsibility of that individual on that CITC should be to communicate the information developed by the local CITC to the co-operative educational director.

Mr. Bradley: The minister is passing the buck.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not passing any buck. Surely everybody has to discharge his own responsibilities. If it will be of any help --

Mr. Bradley: And the minister should discharge them.

Interjections.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why don't you be quiet? You are mouthy as well, almost as bad as they are.

Mr. Foulds: Look who is talking.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Not quite, but almost.

If it will be of assistance, when we amass all of this information, and it is in process now, to distribute it widely throughout the province, we shall most certainly do it.

We do, however, provide that information to the Ontario Manpower Commission. The Ontario Manpower Commission and our representatives therein remain part and parcel of the Canadian occupational projection system which is attempting to provide factual information and acccurate projections, not only on a nationwide basis but also on a provincial and a regional basis, to all of those who are going to be involved in training and education.

I do wish the member would bone up a little on what is going on.

Mr. Bradley: I am very familiar with it. I speak to people in the front line.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Oshawa has the floor.

Mr. Breaugh: Somebody is being very mouthy over there, and I would appreciate it if she would be quiet.

AMATEUR BOXING

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation concerning the failure to implement the recommendations of the report entitled For Amateur Boxing, which was tabled last year. The minister is aware that one of the prime series of recommendations in that report centred on the gathering of accurate medical information about amateur boxers.

The minister said in a press release that the main thing to do now is to move as quickly as possible on these recommendations. Why is it, then, that six months later he has offered only $1,000 to Boxing Ontario? He knows it will cost about $8,500 and some computer hours to get these medical records computerized and into the passports. However, the best he has to offer to Boxing Ontario is $1,000 to do a job he knows will take $8,500.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure $8,500 is required.

Mr. Breaugh: This is the ministry's number.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: That may be so, but at the present time my staff is negotiating with Boxing Ontario to see just what it will cost to get the data we want and they want. I am sure in the next week or 10 days we will reach a figure and a plan and we will get the data we need.

Mr. Breaugh: Since this information comes from the minister's staff and these are estimates prepared by them -- and supposedly they know what they are doing -- I am led to concur with certain people in Boxing Ontario. They say it appears the minister was only interested in a short-term solution to satisfy the members of the House and the press.

I would like the minister's response. I find it very difficult to believe he is interested in implementing that report as quickly as possible when six months later virtually nothing has happened. The minister's staff prepared estimates on exactly what each of the recommendations would cost, and his response to that in financial terms has failed miserably. What else are people at Boxing Ontario supposed to believe other than that the minister was very interested in this report when it was news last December, but in June when the work has to be done and paid for he shows very little interest?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: If the member takes a broader look at the relationship of my ministry to Boxing Ontario and amateur boxing in this province, he will have to conclude we have done a great deal to strengthen Boxing Ontario. We will continue to do a great deal. We will continue to do what is needed to see Boxing Ontario has the equipment, the ability and the resources properly to manage amateur boxing in this province.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that the sport has caused more brain damage to boxers than any other sport practised today. Is the minister considering a suggestion that is being made in the United States to ban all hitting above the shoulders in amateur boxing?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer specifically on that. However, I know that through our sports medicine people we are looking at all possible ways and means to prevent major injuries to the boxers, as we are to prevent major injuries in other sports. Certainly, if disallowing punches to the head is one, if that is something Boxing Ontario and others that are close to the game, the sports governing bodies, would take action on, we would support them.

DAY CARE

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It concerns some of the recommendations contained in the Women in Rural Life report commissioned by his ministry.

The minister is aware that the need for subsidized day care in Ontario has reached a critical stage. As my leader pointed out to the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), the waiting list in Metropolitan Toronto is 1,300; in Ottawa-Carleton, 608; in Sault Ste. Marie, 80, and the list goes on.

The Women in Rural Life report points out: "The fact that a large number of women are in the work force has affected family life and made child care a critical issue in rural areas, where problems are often compounded by isolation and a lack of public transportation."

10:50 a.m.

Bearing in mind the statistics I mentioned for rural and urban areas of the province, will the minister assure us that rural Ontario will be getting its fair share of the nearly 1,500 spaces allocated by the Treasurer, or will the needs of rural Ontario be ignored once again, as in the recent announcement regarding the 700 spaces that have already been allocated?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, to be completely accurate, the member should point out as well that the report indicates that the kinds of child care requirements in rural Ontario are in many ways different from those in urban Ontario.

In addition to the need for full-time child care for some families in rural Ontario, there is also a need for seasonal child care, particularly at periods of the year such as recently, the planting season, and later on during the harvest.

The member can be sure that we are making representations to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. They are well aware of the report and have received it very well. With respect to the provision of full-time child care, I am confident they will do everything in their power to work with the municipalities, which would be the sponsors, in the main, of that kind of a service.

Beyond that, our own ministry, as far as the many courses we offer are concerned, is going to move towards a provision of child care services. We have such things as the College Royal at Kemptville and the business for management seminars. We are working with the Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario on a pilot project for the provision of child care in western Ontario in the coming months.

Again, I think there are ways to provide child care in rural Ontario that are perhaps unique compared to urban Ontario. There are networks of organizations there that can assist that do not exist in urban Ontario.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Treasurer was being interviewed on Global Television in response to a question on day care needs in rural Ontario. He assured the interviewer without hesitation that rural Ontario would get its fair share of the 1,500 day care spaces.

The minister is aware that the lack of adequate day care --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Supplementary question?

Mr. Eakins: Yes, indeed, this is the question. The minister is aware that the lack of day care in rural Ontario has had serious repercussions. There have been 25 young people killed on farms who would come under this program.

Bearing in mind that his ministry's report on rural life recommends that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food act as a catalyst with other ministries and that the ministry "should consider additional services to rural women," what specific steps will the minister take to ensure that rural Ontario gets its allocation of day care spaces?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) made a statement earlier this week, which I believe deals with the subject very well. The member should pull that out and refer to it. As far as specific allocations are concerned, the member's question should go to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The member asked what we are doing. I told him what we are doing with respect to our own programs in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, where we are providing courses and seminars and things such as College Royal. We will make child care services available. We are working with organizations in rural Ontario such as the Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario, which comprise the largest rural organization in the province with 28,000 members, to see what they can do to help in this area.

The Minister of Community and Social Services addressed the question of full day care, full child care, a few days ago. Obviously, the representations are being made and very effectively.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, how serious does the minister think the problem is in terms of the need for rural day care? Does he agree with the people who wrote that report and the other farm groups that were talking about it, or does he agree with the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), who says there is no need for day care in his area at all? He has never had one call about it, he said on the radio the other day, and it is not a problem at all.

If the minister agrees with the former group and not with the member for Oxford, would he please include him in his training courses about the need for day care in the rural communities of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the need will vary from area to area, but speaking of all of rural Ontario, I believe there is a need for child care services. The demographics of rural Ontario have changed dramatically in the last 30 years. The incidence of farm wives working full-time or part-time is much greater today than it was 30 years ago. There is an even higher incidence than in urban Ontario, but it will vary from community to community. It is not surprising that in one area the need has perhaps not been as great as it has generally.

RENT REVIEW APPEAL DECISIONS

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations arising out of the decision released this week by the Residential Tenancy Commission, where it reversed the decision of David Braund on 40 Earl Street. I am sure the minister is aware that the Residential Tenancy Commission does not have to force landlords to disclose who the beneficial owners are in a financial transaction in order to pass on the costs through rent increases.

Now that the Residential Tenancy Commission has shot itself in the foot and crippled itself in its capacity to determine whether financial transactions are genuinely at arm's length or whether they are like the Cadillac Fairview transaction, what remedy does the minister intend to take?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, from the information available to me, that is not the interpretation the commission places on that decision. They do not see this as a precedent that will apply to subsequent rent review hearings. If my information is accurate -- and I am sure the member has the same information -- the decision rests upon whether Mr. Braund, as the commissioner at the hearing, had evidence before him which justified the appeal court's decision.

As I understand it, the rent review appeal decision simply said there was information before Mr. Braund that should have satisfied him there had been an arm's-length transaction. That does not preclude a commissioner or the commission itself from insisting on information about beneficial ownership. If that is not the case and if the member is accurate, I would have to share his concern and review it, but that is not the information provided to me.

Mr. McClellan: Surely it could not be that there is some hesitation in being critical because the new candidate for Scarborough Centre was one of the panelists on the Residential Tenancy Commission who made the decision. That surely could not be the problem.

Has the minister learned nothing from the Cadillac Fairview transaction, with the modus operandi of the scam being the establishment of 50 numbered companies with no way of determining whether they were arm's-length transactions or not, and the intention being to pass the whole of the $200 million from the second to third flip on to the backs of the tenants?

Does the minister remember his words on December 20, 1982, in the justice committee concerning the 40 Earl Street case when the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) asked him, "If you lose the appeal, will you introduce legislation"? The minister said, "If I lose the appeal, I will certainly look at remedies." He lost the appeal. What remedies is he looking at?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With the greatest respect, I submit I have answered that question in that I have advised the member that, from the information given to me, the decision is not a precedent to apply to all future cases. It was a decision that said there was sufficient information available for that commissioner to make a determination that there had been an arm's-length transaction. If that is not accurate, then the statement I made before the committee would still stand, but from the information currently available to me that was the main interpretation of the decision of the rent review appeal board.

11 a.m.

FUNDING FOR ADULT LITERACY PROGRAMS

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. Further to my questions of March 29 and April 2, it appears the minister has relented just a little on the grants to the Prescott and Russell County Board of Education. At that time, she cut the grants by some $680,000 and devastated a really good alternative education program that we had. Now she has restored $127,000.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Question?

Mr. Boudria: The minister has forced the board to knuckle under her weird definition of alternative education, whereby she has stated they can only get funding for alternative education if they teach it in the daytime.

The Acting Speaker: Question?

Mr. Boudria: Can the minister explain to us why they have to teach adult education in the daytime to get grants from the government?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the program that was requested to be funded by the Prescott-Russell board was primarily a daytime program; it involved people who were telephoning the teachers in the school during the day.

The definitions of alternative education have been looked at very clearly and carefully by the officials of the Ministry of Education and others. It has been determined that the funds for alternative education will be delivered if the criteria stated within that definition are met.

Mr. Boudria: That is not correct at all. The minister has it all wrong. She is again insulting the teachers, as she did the last time I asked the question, by saying this is nothing more than phone calls being made as a method of teaching. The truth is that the minister does not have any money to support innovative and experimental growth in education.

Will the minister admit that through her policy of limiting the amount of money in education, no matter how good, innovative and successful the Prescott-Russell program is, the only support they will get from the government is at the expense of another board of education? Is it not true that in the minister's relentless drive to cut support for education in Ontario, she has had to cut this kind of education funding?

Where does this fit in with the educational and economic transformation the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) is talking about in his budget? We had a program that worked and the minister has refused to recognize it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I believe the answer to the first question posed by the member for Prescott-Russell -- in fact, the diatribe by the honourable member -- is an absolute no. That is not truthful, it is not a fact and it is not what our intention is.

Second, as a result of modifications made to the funding mechanism within the past two years -- not just within the past year -- there has been increased support for adult basic education, because we saw that as our responsibility. Indeed, there has been a huge increase in the participation rate of adults in basic education and credit programs at the secondary school level as a result of this.

The Acting Speaker: I ask the minister to back off on her earlier statement, because it did cross over the line.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I shall. Mr. Speaker. I withdraw the word "diatribe."

The Acting Speaker: No. The "truthful" part.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sorry. I thought you were referring to the word "diatribe."

The Acting Speaker: No. I felt you went over the line on "truthful," and I ask you to withdraw that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was not factual.

The Acting Speaker: That is fine. Thank you.

HEARING PANEL

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Is it not true that the minister budgeted $128,500 for the years 1983-84 to cover the cost of the hearing panel on industrial waste management and $205,500 for 1984-85 for the same panel? Is it also not true that the panel has never held one hearing? What is the minister conserving other than jobs for his Tory friends?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, there appeared to be some kind of leading statement by the honourable member with respect to who is on that particular hearing panel. There is a great deal of work under way by that hearing panel at the moment, even though the hearings have not started. They are preparing themselves for one of the most extensive hearings in the history of this province.

As the member well knows, the industrial waste site that is being proposed is a most controversial matter. It is in the news virtually daily at present, and this hearing panel is acquiring the expertise to be able to review the case in detail. They are quite active, even though they are not holding hearings at this time.

Mr. Philip: It is costing an extra $70,000 this year for a panel that held no hearings last year and did nothing all year in terms of any kind of public hearings. What are we going to get for the just under $500,000 being spent in those two years for a panel that has not even held hearings?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I will be most happy to answer the question in detail during the course of my estimates. The reality is that what we are going to get out of that hearing panel is complete, total and unequivocal protection for the people of Ontario. The site that will finally be chosen by the Ontario Waste Management Corp. will be the best possible site that can possibly be picked anywhere in this province. That is what the hearing panel is going to determine.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point of order. As always, I have been observing the sights and sounds of question period. I simply draw to your attention, sir, that notwithstanding the temptation and the tendency of members on this side perhaps to go on at some length with questions, I noted in particular your quick intervention with respect to the questions of my colleagues the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins). I found that you were less than evenhanded in that you allowed the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) the opportunity to carry on, I thought rather extravagantly, with his answer to a question previously put.

I accept Mr. Speaker's intervention, as I must, but I found, for whatever reason and under whatever instruction, that the intervention particularly with respect to the questions put by the member for Victoria-Haliburton and the member for Prescott-Russell was speedy if not premature. Given what happened later with the Minister of the Environment, I found it overall a little less than evenhanded; so such is my complaint.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Thank you.

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, urge the Legislative Assembly and the government to support the private member's bill of Don Boudria, MPP, to permit the sale of beer and Ontario wine in independent grocery stores.

"Pétition adressée au Lieutenant-gouverneur en Conseil et l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

"Nous, soussignés, par la présente pétition demandons l'Assemblée législative et au gouvernement d'appuyer les projets de loi du député Don Boudria qui permettraient aux petites épiceries indépendantes de vendre de la bière et du vin ontarien."

Mr. Speaker will be glad to know that this petition is signed by a further 130 people. I know all members would like to know that this brings the total now to 6,655 people who have signed this petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario, as follows:

"1. No discrimination against existing injured workers;

"2. Pension for life, for disability for life -- a two-part pension compensating the injured worker, on a permanent basis, for life, for both the pain and suffering and the wage loss resulting from the disability;

"3. Automatic indexing for cost of living increases;

"4. No deduction of Canada pension plan benefits."

This petition is signed by several thousand injured workers from all over Ontario who want justice for injured workers. Those of us in this party endorse this petition.

11:10 a.m.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and introduce this petition, which is signed by thousands of injured workers across Ontario. It is addressed as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario, as follows:

"1. No discrimination against existing injured workers;

"3. Automatic indexing for cost of living increases;

"4. No deduction of Canada pension plan benefits."

This petition has been gathered by the Association of Injured Workers' Groups, the Union of Injured Workers, the Industrial Accident Victims Group of Ontario, Injured Workers' Consultants, the Association of Pensioners and Injured Workers of Ontario, the Centre for Spanish-Speaking Peoples, the Central Toronto Community Legal Clinic and the Mississauga Community Legal Clinic.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I wish to endorse the contents of this petition for the injured workers across Ontario. I hope the government will do something about the injustices which injured workers are facing on a daily basis in the province.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Kolyn: On behalf of the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), I table the following petition:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to appeal to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"As residents, electors of Middlesex riding, many of us send our children to the John Calvin Christian School, one of the many independent schools, because we believe parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to our children -- in this case, Christ-centred education.

"Most John Calvin Christian School supporters are people of modest means. We ask for your help in reducing the unfair tax burden of what, in effect, is double taxation.

"John Calvin Christian School operates in the public interest for Christian parents. We ask for protection for the right of our school to its existence and the remission of taxes taken away by Ontario but not used for the education of our children."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Eaton: The eighth order.

Assistant Clerk: The 18th order, resuming the adjourned debate --

Hon. Mr. Eaton: No. The eighth order.

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 41, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to say anything about it? Our critic is just out the back and will be here in a moment.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals are not ready to put up a speaker, I would be happy to speak to the motion until they are prepared.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): That is not a point.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, back in December 1983, the House passed Bill 139, which established a procedure whereby holders of operating licences could apply to the Ontario Highway Transport Board for a rewritten certificate according to new specifications. The bill empowered the board to issue rewritten certificates or to consolidate several certificates into one after a hearing.

Provision was made for the applicant to have the right to a hearing before the board. The bill also required the board to provide notice of its intention to issue a rewritten certificate following such a hearing and to provide an opportunity for objections to be heard.

The current bill removes the requirement to publish notice of intention to issue a rewritten certificate and to hear third-party objections. The applicant's right to a hearing is retained, of course.

On further analysis of the situation, the implementation steering committee has been convinced that the provision of a second-stage hearing process before the board would not serve a useful purpose. It is convinced that it could jeopardize the licence rewrite process and, through delays, significantly postpone the time when much-needed regulatory reform can become effective.

The changes embodied in the present bill will streamline the licence rewrite process without compromising the rights of the participants. Several safeguards respecting potential omissions or inconsistencies will be available.

Entry under the successor to the current Public Commercial Vehicles Act is intended to be available to all carriers six months after the rewrite licences are issued. Any carrier would be able to correct any difficulties created by the licence rewrite process relatively quickly by exercising his right to apply for different authority under the new system. In addition, the board's powers of review can be used to correct any substantial inconsistencies. Finally, all parties can seek redress in the courts in circumstances where they feel the board exceeded its jurisdiction.

The present bill reflects the unanimous recommendations of the trucking regulatory reform implementation steering committee, which is made up of representatives of the trucking industry, shippers, manufacturers and many others.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to a point of order, and I am glad my colleague has been able to join us. I thought I should say something on a point of order since the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) interjected that he was ready and we were not, or something to that effect.

The order that was called, to begin with, was the eighth order. In fact, on the business for the day that is laid out here it is the 18th order. The clerk was a little confused. The House leaders will recall there was some discussion earlier in the week that because of the absence of some ministers and some critics on all sides, it was a bit uncertain. In fact, we were quite prepared to go ahead with the order of business for Friday, which is the 18th order, An Act respecting the Marketing of Grain Corn.

If there is any confusion about this it is too darned bad. We are prepared to do any of these bills that come up. My colleague is here and we will now participate.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, certainly it was my understanding we would proceed with two other items of legislation.

For my part, I am anxious to support this legislation and to do anything I can to simplify the regulatory process we seem to be encumbered with as it relates to the administration of commercial movements on our highways.

I think it would be appropriate to pay tribute very briefly to the people who have been involved in the regulatory reform dealing with changes to the Act, and particularly the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Larratt-Smith. I understand that as of this morning he will be leaving the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and, I believe, will be joining the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is terrible.

11:20 a.m.

Mr. Cunningham: I have always enjoyed working with Mr. Larratt-Smith, because I thought he was a very competent civil servant and one who bent over backwards to be of assistance. For that reason I regret he will be leaving the ministry. I am sure he may find the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture to be a challenge. I see the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Fish) is in her seat. I am sure she will benefit from Mr. Larratt-Smith's assistance.

Very briefly, we definitely will support Bill 41. I hope we can expedite the rewrite process with regard to our licences. I fear that if something is not done in the very near future to streamline the process, we will find that regulatory reform, both at the federal level and at the American level, will overtake us. We would then be in a very unfortunate position.

The minister is only too well aware that there is incredible pressure on us from Washington right now to be more liberal -- if I can use that word -- in the granting of licences here in Ontario. I hope that in the context of the process of regulatory reform, where people are fiscally stable and otherwise qualified and where the market will permit, licences can be obtained. Within this process, I hope those licences will be written in a manner so that not only the licensee will understand them but, more important, the shipping public also will have an understanding of who is entitled to carry goods on our highways, who is regulated and what that licence means in understandable language.

With those very brief comments, we would support the legislation.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I share the comments of my colleague the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham). I was transportation critic a number of years ago, and what is interesting is the difference in atmosphere between the ministry and the industry now as compared to back then.

At that time, there was the fear that this ministry, for whatever reason, was going the American route of deregulation rather than regulatory reform. To the ministry's credit, and indeed to the credit of some of the senior staff in this ministry and at the Ontario Highway Transport Board, for whom I have a lot of respect, we have instead gone a different route, namely, we are trying to simplify the regulations and make them more workable and more practical while at the same time not going the insane route the American system has gone.

I was in Washington not so long ago, talking to some of the trucking interests there as well as some congressmen and senior public servants in addition to our very interesting Canadian embassy people, and there is no doubt there is a major problem in the United States with deregulation. We have seen the disappearance of large numbers of reasonably paid union jobs. We have seen the increasing bankruptcy of reputable trucking companies. We have seen a reduction in services to small towns. We have also seen desperation on the part of some trucking companies in trying to pick up business or save their industry in any way possible.

With that, of course, there is also a feeling -- and this is what I was concerned about -- on the part of some American legislators and some senior American civil servants that because the United States has gone the deregulatory route we should open up the doors and follow their route.

I am pleased to see that the transport board, despite the notable increase in some very large applications from the United States, has taken what I think is a reasonable stand on some of these hearings in not allowing the floodgates to open and let some of these large carriers in from the United States. The application by Yellow Freight for a public commercial vehicle licence is a case in point. It is now before the cabinet, the Ontario Highway Transport Board having ruled against the application. One hopes this minister and his cabinet will not cave in to the kind of pressure that may be coming from south of the border to let in their carriers, some of whom I admit have serious problems as a result of deregulation.

The changes that are proposed today were arrived at by consensus and with considerable effort and work on the part of people in the industry, as the minister has mentioned. This is the route to go, and we must stay with this kind of regulatory system. It has worked well for us, and no one outside our jurisdiction should be telling us how to run our transportation industry. We have one of the best transportation industries anywhere in North America with respect to the movement of goods. It has the best of both the private and public systems built into it. There is a need for some reforms, and this is one of the reforms the trucking companies and the shippers have been asking for.

I congratulate the minister and all of those who worked so hard to bring this bill about.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I thank the representatives of the two opposition parties for their comments. I appreciate them very much, especially with regard to my assistant deputy minister, Mark Larratt-Smith, who has done a tremendous job over the past number of years in dealing with this very important issue. He has worked very closely as the chairman of the Public Commercial Vehicles Act review committee with the industry committees. He has established the Licence Rewrite Commission and the implementation advisory group for implementing the report titled Responsible Trucking.

Mark has done a tremendous job. I join with the members in saying how sorry I am that he is leaving us. However, these changes do take place. We have other very competent people, his backup people, within the ministry who will be able to carry on and proceed. I do not think we will lose any initiatives in getting ahead with the implementation, although I would certainly have liked to have seen Mark able to continue to head up this branch of the ministry until the major changes take place, because he has been a very major part of them. We all wish him very well as he goes on to his new responsibilities in another ministry of the government.

With regard to the comments of the member for Etobicoke, I will not respond to them because it is a matter which is the subject of an appeal to cabinet and will be dealt with in due course.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

GRAIN CORN MARKETING ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 68, An Act respecting the Marketing of Grain Corn.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to resume the debate. I think when we left off I was detailing what happens when a farmer delivers a load of corn, particularly shelled corn, to a grain elevator in the fall. The elevator operator or one of his employees looks at the quality of the corn. It is in the hopper wagon, truck or whatever. He decides in his own mind whether it is premium corn, an average corn or a poor corn.

Through the machinery he has, he directs the corn to various storage areas. If it is premium corn, he will direct it to the premium bin. Yet at that time of year, in the press of harvest, a premium price is not paid for that corn.

I should stop here to point out that at times of the year, particularly in the late winter or early spring, when they are bringing in shelled corn from the producers' own bins -- because many producers have driers on their farms -- or bringing in air-dried cob corn, they will pay a premium at that time of the year.

11:30 a.m.

Nevertheless, the point is they get the premium corn in the fall at the standard price. Then they have the option of selling that through the winter or the spring at a premium price. What this does to the industry is discourage people, because it does not give a premium or an incentive to harvest the corn at just the proper moment. It does not give them an incentive to adjust their combine to the nth degree so they would have the least amount of shell in the corn or the least amount of fines, which are elements in the corn that detract from the quality.

I suppose the mill operator is saying to himself, "What is the difference? I am paying an average price and by not raising a big fuss with these people who bring in poor quality corn I am not fighting and quarrelling with my customers."

There is another reason he would not want to quarrel with his producers. It is because in most cases the mill operator sells the fertilizer, pesticides and all the elements that go into the production of that corn. If he should happen to lose a producer who is delivering poor quality corn, it also means he is going to lose that person as a customer for his fertilizer, pesticides and other items.

The highest quality corn goes to the people who make corn flakes. They want a solid, large kernel of corn they can slice into four slices. The starch people and the wet and dry milling people who make these into food products for human consumption want very high quality corn and will pay a premium for it.

Last fall, the Elgin farmers' co-operative -- there are six branches in Elgin county -- instituted a program of paying a 25 cents a bushel premium for corn that was delivered in the fall and that met their high standards. One result of that was immediate: those who were indifferent machine operators, who did not have their combines adjusted properly or who harvested at the same time, came back with a good second load of corn after having missed the premium.

In some cases where the farmer was not a specialist on combines, where he did not really understand his own combine and how to adjust it properly, they had the dealers' mechanics come out to the field and adjust these combines. It was said there was a rush on all the machine dealers in the area to send their mechanics out to the field to make these adjustments.

Everybody wins in that situation. The farmer gets an extra 25 cents for his premium corn and the dealer has a better quality corn to offer to the trade. This is important when we are competing with the United States. Because of their geographic situation and the fact the US has a higher number of corn units, anything we can do to improve the quality of corn delivered to our producers is a step in the right direction.

This is one of the areas where the people we are going to appoint under this present act will be able to work. They will be able to fight, negotiate and encourage producers to produce high quality corn. I think the minister is well aware of that. I do not know whether he was in the group that went to Spain and Portugal a couple of years ago -- and again recently I believe -- where we have made some inroads into that market, and it is quality corn they are looking for.

I do not have any severe disagreements with the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) on any of the amendments he has offered. The act as presented pretty well covers the situation. I do not think the following is a bad provision:

"That the following new section 5 be included in the Act:

"5. At any time following three years after the proclamation of this act, the board of directors of the association may conduct a plebiscite among all holders of a licence on any question deemed advisable and, if 15 per cent of all holders of a licence petition for a plebiscite on any question, the plebiscite shall be conducted."

That is not a bad provision, but I think it is really covered by the wording of the act, because if a large percentage of producers request a refund it should be obvious that support is lacking and that either the minister or the board should call for a plebiscite.

We have heard that old saying about people voting with their feet, and I think the vote here was for a request for a return of their money. I am not against the principle the member has put forward.

A second reservation I have is that if we mandated a date of three, five or six years for an automatic vote, I would not be opposed to that. I am not against revotes. I have participated in a number of votes, and usually the association, the marketing board, or whatever it is, comes back in stronger than ever.

If it is mandated so it comes at a certain time, it could come in five years when the prices of corn might be exceptionally high. On a short-term basis, the producers would say at that particular moment: "Well, who needs this? Corn is $5 a bushel." Of course, with inflation it might be $6.

However, although they might be saying that, there could be a low price two years down the road and they would be scrambling to get the association back in operation.

If there is a crisis of confidence amongst the management, or a crisis of confidence about whether or not this association is really needed, I think it is going to become perfectly obvious to the board of directors -- through letters to the editor, letters that they receive, phone calls they receive, messages that are going to come to the minister himself, messages that come to the members of this Legislature, and through the people who request their money back.

I commend the member for having raised these thoughts, but I do not think it is really necessary.

His other amendment was that the words "up to and not exceeding 40" in the second line of clause (a) of subsection 6(1) be struck out, and that the word "in" be substituted therefor. As I interpret it, this should give a free choice to the board to set the fee at any rate.

I believe that we, as legislators, should have some idea of the upper limit of the fee when we are voting on the bill. I believe we should reassure the producers they are liable for up to a certain ceiling amount.

As I understand it, the board of directors of the association proposed the levy at the present time to be only half that amount, 20 cents per metric ton. A provision is made in the 40-cent limit for inflation to erode the ability of the 20 cents per metric ton to cover the costs of the association. If and when the ceiling is reached, the minister should bring the question back to the Legislature.

On section 5, it should be reworded to read, "where approval has been given at an annual or other membership meeting of the association, or where the board of directors determine that an emergency exists...," and so on.

This adds more specifics than the original. For instance, it would, in my mind, call for a motion at an annual meeting. I would leave the present wording which gives the directors the responsibility of assessing the members' feelings.

If there are a number of letters, phone calls, and questions at meetings, the directors could move without having a motion at hand. I would say they would be wise to have such a motion. Certainly, if I were a member of a board and contemplated some major change in the operations of the board, I would insist we call a special meeting and have a motion, unless it was a real emergency situation.

I think that judgement should be left to the directors as to whether or not they want to do that. Mind you, if they are in error, the democratic process has a way of dealing with them over the long term.

11:40 a.m.

I want to close by saying that my friend the member for Welland-Thorold suggested the Liberals have not been carrying out their proper activities leading up to this act. He suggested the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) had not attended a certain meeting. I have outlined the meetings I have attended back to 1970. I have been meeting with these people throughout the winter. There have been telephone calls and meetings with John Cunningham and Ed Kalita.

A group of them met with us about a month ago in the Legislature. Unofficially, we met the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) in the hallway and we put it to him to try to speed up this act so it could he put in force before the coming fall season. Whether he had a hand in this I do not know. I assume he did because he told us he would do all he could to speed up the act. I want to take the opportunity to thank him.

As far as our party is concerned, I want it clearly on the record that we have been in there since day one and we will continue to do whatever we can to help these people.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in the debate on Bill 68, An Act respecting the Marketing of Grain Corn. Grain corn plays a major role in the economy of Ontario, as does agriculture as a whole. It is the engine that makes our economy tick, and when it is in trouble it affects many areas of our society and the overall economy of the province.

It is good to note that corn has come a long way in the past 20 years. I can recall in my short lifetime when corn was nothing but a crop to feed cattle and fill the silos. In the past 20 years there has been much improvement, and it has certainly created a lot of financial assistance for the farmers of Ontario. There is still room for growth in this area.

Getting to the bill that has been brought in to organize the marketing of corn, I would like to pay tribute to Max Ricker in our area who played a leading role in organizing the farmers so they would have orderly markets, get a fair return for their product and not be at the whim of the market at harvest time in the fall. The fact they had to sell at a very depressed price has created much hardship for many farmers. That has put many of them out of business during the high interest period of the last couple of years.

Max went around the province at his own expense. As the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, I gave him as much support as I could in getting financial assistance from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I am glad to see the ministry has been able to assist in the past year with financing and getting the organization off the ground. We appreciate that.

As my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) and our Agriculture and Food critic, the member for Huron-Middlesex, have both indicated, we are supporting the legislation. We hope the organizations themselves can adjust and support the regulations needed as the marketing association grows to meet the needs of the corn producers and farmers of Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) is happy to hear these contributions from people who are actually in the corn growing business. He will be interested to know that corn at Chatham today is selling at about $4.40 a bushel.

Mr. Ruston: Start emptying that crib.

Mr. Nixon: That is last year's corn; we harvested it last fall. If one wants to sell in advance for next year, it is something like $3.20; it is very low indeed. If this minister could use his good influence and resurrect the spirit of John Diefenbaker and also the former Minister of Agriculture, Alvin Hamilton, and have the success they had in selling western wheat back in the 1960s, he might really go down in history as an important Minister of Agriculture and Food after all.

If he could say to the farmers, "Go out and grow corn and I will get you $4 a bushel for it," he would be a hero and Massey-Ferguson would have something more than a $2-million paper profit. That would be another reason to raise the president's salary to $750,000 instead of $500,000. When I hear them talking about cutting their expenses to the bone, I just about fall through the television set. However, I am straying just a bit.

The price of corn is very good right now; of course, there is not any to sell. That is largely why that is so. The price of soybeans is also good. It sagged a little, but our farmers in the Brant area are certainly feeling good about those prices. The farmers look at the prospects for next fall and, always optimists, say, "We will get more than $3.20." Unfortunately, I am afraid we will not get more than that.

In spite of the cold and wet weather, I am going to make a prediction now that we will have a good year. I certainly hope, trust and pray we will. We have about 75 hectares planted and up on our farm in Brant county. If I were not so involved in a lot of ancillary, weird political activities this weekend I would be getting the spray on it. Then one just sits back and watches it grow; because when the heat comes, it really grows.

We have a variety of seeds, mostly Pioneer variety. I was just pointing out to the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) how concerned we are sometimes about the cost of seed corn. The quality of Pioneer and other varieties I should list is excellent, there is no doubt about that. My neighbour sells Pioneer, so I will let it go at that.

The Pioneer company has a small farm with a group of plots for testing seeds in my constituency. They always have a very good field day year by year and try to sell us their stuff. But when they are asked the question. "Why do you not actually produce the seed in this area where we buy so much?" they come up with some footling nonsense about how they have to produce the seed in Essex and Kent counties where the heat units are so high. That is very hard to live with since it costs $84 or something for a bag of seed. They do not call it a bushel any more; they call it a unit and they tell you exactly how many kernels there are in it -- very scientific.

I suppose the crop will extend more and more across Ontario -- it really is right across now -- with crops that will mature with 2800 or 2900 heat units; 2900 units are what we have in the county of Brant. Certainly, a lot of corn is grown.

Some of our farmers who are very sensitive to markets and make good judgements are growing more and more soybeans. We have done that on our farm for the last five years with good results, sometimes very good results. We have never had to cash in on crop insurance, thank God. However, the price has been extremely variable.

Personally, I favour this bill very much. My friends who have already spoken on the bill have indicated how corn has become the backbone of our farm economy, to produce a cash crop, feed and seed. The market for sweet corn has become very large. Although one can buy imported cobs of sweet corn, two to a little plastic wrapper, in our supermarkets almost all year round, it is only the more advanced supermarkets that put in good fresh corn, mountains of it, for housewives and consumers to buy when it is fresh from our own market, at a good price of $1 a dozen or something like that. It is certainty worth $2 a dozen. When there is a lot of corn and it is chilled and properly prepared for the market, it is one of the biggest treats that can come from our own farms.

In the tobacco area, where farmers are desperately looking for alternative crops, a good deal of sweet corn is now being grown.

11:50 a.m.

The corn will be delivered to the Ontario Food Terminal in Etobicoke. which is an area we have a good deal of pride in, but one I hope the minister's officials are keeping a careful eye on. As the competition in vegetable crops becomes more intense, it is going to be tougher and tougher to keep evenhanded justice at that food terminal.

I think it is working very well, but some of my farmers who are getting more into this business -- being forced into it, and they do not mind because they are good farmers and grow good quality stuff -- are experiencing more stress in getting proper access to fair and just sales at the food terminal. I just want to mention that to the minister because it is going to be even worse this summer as the tobacco acreages are cut back.

This sort of program, however, for a checkoff to improve corn quality, corn sales and corn markets, is certainly something we need. Nobody is talking about much more elaborate marketing at the present time, although that may come. What will bring it is if we have the kind of crop yields this year that may be expected. We assume the weather is going to straighten up, and it looks as if it is a little better today.

There is some corn that has not been planted in our area yet, and even down in the more intensive corn areas where there had been more rain and cold weather than usual; however, the crop is going to come along very well indeed and we are going to have a lot of corn. When that price sags down to around $3 and $2.90 next fall, there is going to be the kind of pressure for more government involvement in marketing than we have had in the past.

The farmers themselves have been really instrumental in bringing this forward. The government has co-operated, certainly, and we are very glad to have this bill. However, many farmers from my own community and from the communities of my colleagues who have already spoken have taken a lead in this. I know we are delighted to support the government bill, which at least begins this sort of support for the corn farmers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Does any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I have another item that comes to mind.

The Acting Speaker: No, I am sorry. We are not in committee of the whole; we are in the House on second reading.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words in support of this bill and outline some of the things that have gone on in the corn industry.

Kent county and southwestern Ontario have been the cradle of corn development in Ontario from the time hybrid corn came into Ontario. It is the base for many seed corn companies -- Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. among them, for the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), but many others. It is a very considerable industry in our area.

Mr. Stokes: Can the member tell us how the wind affects the sex life of the corn?

Mr. Watson: I am not going to try to explain the sex life of seed corn in the Legislature, but I did have the pleasure of explaining that to the member and he really believed me.

On a lighter note, about two years ago I had the pleasure of a visit from our present Treasurer (Mr. Grossman). I took him out to the seed corn field and showed him how some of the rows were tasselled and some of the rows were not and why they were not. He looked at me and said, "Andy, you are putting me on."

Mr. Gillies: Or words to that effect.

Mr. Watson: Or words to that effect.

Getting back, I do realize now that we have personally been part of the growth of the corn industry in Ontario. I can well remember the time I was transferred to Northumberland county in 1962. I remember that the statistics indicated there were 620 acres of grain corn in Northumberland that year.

When I left about six years later, I believe there were 6,200 acres in that area.

Mr. Nixon: What year?

Mr. Watson: In 1968. In that period of time, that was the tremendous growth in the corn industry.

One of the interesting theories that we, in extension, used to have as to why corn did so well was that farmers would follow the recipe for growing corn. They would buy hybrid seed and would use fertilizer on it. They would use the proper spray. They had not grown the crop, so they went to see the people in western Ontario about how to grow corn. They adopted the machinery. They would follow what we call the recipe and they would do it right.

The opposite of that was when it came to something like pasture. Their fathers had grown pasture, their grandfathers had grown pasture and they knew how to grow pasture. One really could not tell them, in some ways, how to do that.

Through the years in Kent county we have had a lot of attempts to form organizations in that part of Ontario. This has been a grass-roots organization. I would like to pay tribute this morning to John Cunningham, the present treasurer of the organization, who has given many hours, driven many miles and attended many meetings to get this bill where it is, and to get the organization where it will represent the interests of the producers.

It has the potential to be the largest producer group in Ontario representing a commodity. I am pleased this morning to add my support and I am pleased it has reached this stage.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, this is quickly turning into a debate on motherhood from the sound of it. I am pleased to know the legislation as proposed --

Mr. Nixon: Where does the minister stand on motherhood?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am entirely in favour of it and I have so demonstrated; unlike some, such as the deputy leader of his party.

Before I respond briefly to some of the comments made by the members opposite, I would like to praise those who have worked so hard and diligently over the course of the last 18 months or so to form the Ontario Corn Producers' Association. I remember well when they first came to see me in the fall of 1982, people such as John Cunningham from Kent county and Max Ricker from Haldimand-Norfolk. Later they were joined by Terry Daynard who, initially, for all intents and purposes was a volunteer manager for the association.

When they first came to me they were looking for grants from the government and we quietly directed some support to them with respect to printing and distributing brochures, postage, etc. At the time, I would not agree to give them a grant to cover salaries, travel costs and so forth. I felt they had to prove themselves and show there was the support in the countryside for this organization, support they felt was there or could be there.

They have more than proved themselves. It is really part and parcel of why we are here today, why I proposed this legislation and why I recommended to cabinet a grant of $60,000 to the association to tide it over until the 1984 crop comes off. The revenue from the checkoff will then begin to sustain the organization on an ongoing basis. I am full of admiration for what they have done and I am pleased to support them.

One comment made by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk bears answering, and that is the question of the sales of grain corn. Several members have referred to the tremendous growth over the course of the last 20 years or so in the production of grain corn and its tremendous expansion into eastern Ontario with the development of new varieties that are suitable to the land there, with the soil type and the lower heat units.

Another organization that relates to the grain corn industry that does an extremely good job is the Ontario Grain Corn Council, headed by Mr. Ken Patterson and made up of producers, elevator operators, mill operators, etc. They have really done a great job for the grain corn industry through their work in the overseas markets.

I will give a couple of examples. The two sales that have been made in the 18 months to Spain are due entirely to the intelligence work carried on by Mr. Patterson and the late Ed O'Meara, who was the secretary-manager of the grain corn council until shortly before his untimely death.

They got wind of the need for grain corn in Spain and that Spain was looking for new suppliers. They went to Spain and introduced themselves and our industry. Spain did not even know Ontario existed as far as grain corn was concerned. They sure know now because they have made two large purchases from us. We think we are well established there now, based on the quality of our product and the professional way in which we have dealt with them.

12 noon

I went to Britain with Mr. Patterson and a group of about 10 people from the grain corn industry for a few days in late February. We held seminars in London and in Glasgow which were very well attended by buyers from the United Kingdom, France, Greece, South Africa and various other countries. There again we exposed them to the quality, availability and reliability of Ontario grain corn.

Most of them did not know this is something in which we are highly specialized. Quite frankly, we are better at it than our American competitors. The corn we are shipping is basically last year's corn. The tremendous carryovers year after year in the United States, notwithstanding their payment in kind program and others, continue to be a problem. Those importers are getting two-and three-year-old corn from there.

We have great hopes for breakthroughs in the United Kingdom market, particularly with the distilling industry in Scotland. I made the comment. not quite facetiously, when I spoke to the seminar in London, that we are buying something in the order of $57 million worth of Scotch whisky in this province every year. I added that we would kind of like to see some of our corn coming back in that way.

Mr. Nixon: Do they make that out of corn?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes.

Members opposite made four or five points, and I will quickly respond to them. Some concern was expressed by a couple of members that there might not have been consultation with the association. I want to assure them that the association was involved in all the work leading up to the drafting of the legislation.

I will acknowledge that we did not indicate, and perhaps should have done so, the exact date on which the legislation would be introduced. That, I think, is a minor oversight. Certainly they were involved in the development of the legislation. They have been well aware of it since its introduction, and they are quite supportive of speedy passage of the legislation at this time.

The member for Welland-Thorold referred to an organization known as the Ontario Corn Growers' Association. In fact, he kept using that term when he meant the Ontario Corn Producers' Association. That organization was designated in the Agricultural Associations Act many years ago when the act was last dealt with by the assembly. Since that time, so far as we can determine, the Ontario Corn Growers' Association has become totally defunct. At some point in the future, when we propose amendments to that act, we will delete that name. For all intents and purposes it is a defunct association.

The legislation allows us to designate other organizations by regulation. It is through that route that the Ontario Corn Producers' Association was designated some time ago by order in council.

Mr. Swart: In that act?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes.

The honourable member raised concerns about whether there should be a vote. As does the member for Kent-Elgin, I have to place a lot of trust and faith in the good sense of the members of this association. This is a compulsory but refundable checkoff we are talking about.

Also like my friend opposite, I am sure we will be able to spot any major problem about refunds. As we monitor the activities of the association and the collection of the checkoff, if we find an inordinate level of requests for refunds it will be clear to the association and to us that it is a problem that will have to be addressed. I do not think it would be appropriate to do as the member suggests. If we were talking about a compulsory nonrefundable fee, then in my view that would be quite a different matter.

The member has also expressed some concern about section 5 of the bill. We will get into that when we get into committee, but it allows the board of directors to make recommendations to the government. Here again the association has its constitution, and if the member does not have a copy I will be glad to send one over to him. They are bound by that constitution.

There are really two points of defence. One is the constitution of the association; the board of directors will obviously abide by it and will answer to the membership of the association for their actions and for whatever recommendations they make. The second line of defence is the ministry itself, in that none of these things will become regulations unless and until I or my successors sign on the bottom line and pass the recommendation to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for execution as regulations.

Finally, in respect of the concern about the 40-cent limit for the fees, again I simply say that we do not envisage opening and reopening this act every year. We would have to do so if we were to simply put in the legislation the figure we are asking this year. I do not think it is unreasonable to allow for that flexibility. I hope inflation will stay at such levels that it will be a long time before we will have to amend that 40-cent figure to 45 cents, 50 cents or some higher level.

Again the protection is there through the organization operating under this constitution and the ministry itself.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

LIVE STOCK AND LIVE STOCK PRODUCTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved second reading of Bill 69, An Act to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit for second reading the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Amendment Act, which relates to the administration of Ontario's beef cattle financial protection program.

The legislation will permit the director of the livestock inspection branch to impose terms and conditions on the licence of a dealer in livestock and livestock products, and this will better protect producers who sell to these dealers. I commend this legislation to my colleagues, to improve the efficiency of the livestock statutes and our protection plan for producers.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill. I believe it brings in a number of points that need clarification and gives more powers to the commissioner to protect farmers.

The one thing I want to comment on is that it gives powers to impose terms and conditions. I think this is a good move, because one can envisage situations where one would want to restrict some activities of a dealer who perhaps got in a tight financial situation or who had not exercised the best judgement necessary and yet had not placed himself in a position where his licence should be taken away.

I guess one could call it sort of a probation period that the firm might be placed on; once its problem is cleared up, a full licence could be granted. I suppose the minister could put such conditions as requiring them to put the money they receive from the packer into a trust fund for the producers, or he might want to put a limit on the amount of money they could have out in products the producers were not paid for. There are certainly a number of ways to take care of the concern.

12:10 p.m.

I have one concern that comes out of the Stewart Mclntrye livestock dealer case last year. He is now working for someone else as a livestock buyer. Wherever I meet farmers, the subject of bankruptcy comes up. It bothers them that this person could now be in a position of trust and handling livestock. As the minister well knows, I mentioned this before when we discussed the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act in the House about a year ago in June.

In the United States, under the Packers and Stockyards Act, they have a provision that people who have committed a crime -- and here I want to make the distinction of "crime" as meaning something other than someone who simply went bankrupt in an orderly fashion and did not hide or abscond with or use the money of other people to which he was not entitled, those people are not penalized; however, a person who has committed a fraud, or I suppose we could say made a holdup or any number of criminal acts, of which fraud is the one I would be most concerned with -- cannot work in a position of responsibility in that industry for a time as short as 10 days and up to 10 years.

Ten days would be given for some very minor infraction. I suppose it would point out to the person and to the public that this type of business is not condoned. A year would probably be given for someone whose crime was less severe, or reasonably severe but still bordering on the minor, whereas someone who conducted a serious fraud would be out for 10 years. In effect, this means life, because anyone who was taken out for 10 years would have a very difficult time getting back into the business.

I will move that clause 3(1)(a) of the act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"The past conduct of the applicant or his employees or, where the applicant is a corporation, of its officers or directors or employees, affords reasonable grounds for belief that the operations that would be authorized by the licence will not be carried on in accordance with law."

I point out that the only change here is that we have added "employees."

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Order.

You are telling us that now for information, and you will be making that amendment in committee of the whole?

Mr. McGuigan: As you have pointed out to me, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of information. Perhaps the minister will want to think about it.

While we are talking about livestock and livestock products, I would like to ask the minister how many dealers are licensed at present. The information I have is that there are 449 licensed dealers at this time. From information we were given some time ago, I believe this is out of a total of something like 1,200 to 1,300 or 1,400 operating in the province; no one knows the exact number of people who are operating as dealers.

I think we can say that probably only about 40 per cent of the people who operate in the field -- I am sure these are the ones who cover a greater percentage of the business -- are licensed. Therefore, only about 40 per cent protection is provided to the producer. If the producer sells to one of these people who is not licensed, as I understand it, he would not be covered by the fund.

We would like to know what sort of efforts the minister has made in seeking out these people and trying to impress upon them that they must be licensed.

We would also like to know some of the details about the formula the government uses to determine the financial responsibility as a basis for issuing a licence. I do not believe we want to say every producer or every handler of farm products has to have a bond to cover all his purchases. Even in the United States, where they do have such a system, the bond seldom covers the total amount of money that is lost in a bankruptcy.

What is really asked for when asking for a bond is that the corn or grain or livestock be financed twice. It is financed first by the producer who grew the corn or fed the livestock and took it to market. In the interim marketing period, we are asking that it also be financed by money set aside in a bond. Ultimately, the cost of that financing goes back to the producer. In the end, the producer is financing it twice. Under an insurance scheme such as we have he is always financing at one point, whatever the time. A small amount of money in an insurance form covers a very large amount of product.

For our own information, we would like to know some of the criteria the ministry uses in licensing. We would like to know how many dealers have been refused licences since the program has been established.

In meetings I have attended it has been pointed out to me that under our present protection act it is 48 hours before the money is paid. Following that 48 hours, one has to notify the authorities in Toronto about nonpayment to achieve one's protection.

Most people tell me they are very seldom, if ever, paid within 48 hours. One person I spoke to said that with every load of cattle he sells he phones at the end of the 48 hours. It has gotten to the point that whoever answers the phone on the other end says, "It's you again." I told him to keep on phoning after the 48 hours or he would not be covered.

The minister should take a look at that protection plan and see whether 48 hours is an appropriate time. The people at the meeting I attended at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture said that in some cases it is two weeks. Probably two weeks is an inordinately long time, but nevertheless I would suggest that 48 hours is too short.

Returning to the US legislation, it is 24 hours after the animal has been killed. The idea there is that once someone has taken the hide off, the branding marks have been lost and the animal cannot be identified, so 24 hours after it has been killed, the money has to be forthcoming. They do have some provisions to do with long-distance shipping. They feed many cattle in California and truck them to Chicago. They take into account shipping time. That is once again a factor that has to be taken into account, although it may be lumped in with the killing time.

Using the opportunity to speak under this act, I would like to point out to the minister that that program is not affording the protection that all of us intended. I do not think anybody wanted to put up what we have in the past called show-window legislation, but perhaps inadvertently that has been done.

That is all I have to say at this moment. We in this party will be supporting the act.

12:20 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I will speak very briefly on this, first of all because I hope we can find the time yet today to get into committee of the whole to deal with amendments and get the Grain Corn Marketing Act passed. There is real urgency for it. I know regulations have to be developed. We may have them partly developed, but it could still take some time. It is almost a year since the Grain Elevator Storage Act was passed and it was supposed to be urgent, but as far as we know the regulations have not yet been gazetted. I hope that pattern will not be followed.

I will speak only briefly to this because I support it. It improves the present situation and in these times we need not only a more alert watchdog but also one with teeth. This adds some teeth to the present act. There is the option for more control in the licences which are issued.

The member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) raises a very important point when he states that less than half the livestock dealers are licensed at the present time. However, it is my understanding that in general they are very small dealers handling very few cattle, eggs or wool. I guess those are the only things covered under this act at the present time.

However, with the economy the way it is, it becomes more likely that more and more farmers will not be paid. Therefore anybody dealing in livestock, eggs or wool should be licensed. The act should be policed to ensure that those farmers are not going to lose substantial amounts of money because a dealer goes into default.

I think the amendment proposed by the member for Kent-Elgin is reasonable and we will be supporting that. We have no amendments of our own to submit to this bill, but we will be supporting it. Perhaps it will not go quite far enough in ensuring that all dealers are licensed, and with the restraint program and the cutbacks the policing of the act will probably not be stepped up, although I think that needs to be done.

In any event, it is better to have improved legislation in place so the policing and the protection of the farmers can be enhanced if it is the will of the government to do so.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will review a few of the points quickly. First, with respect to the question of the 48-hour provisions in the financial protection plan, we recognized when we set up the plan three years ago that the practices do vary considerably. There are instances where people are paid the same day, either by cheque at the sales barn or through electronic banking. There also have been instances where payment has taken much longer than that.

It was felt that 48 hours was a reasonable period and that a number of dealers would have to change their practices. This could be done by adopting an electronic banking system or by changing their arrangements with their bankers so they could start to pay the same day or within that time.

Also, it is our feeling that if we made it any longer than that it would increase the exposure of the fund. It would require higher premiums, because we have tried to operate it on an actuarially sound business basis. We felt that was an appropriate and reasonable period and we still do.

Of course, I am pleased to hear what the member told his constituent. The individual producer is -- and I keep repeating this over and over -- the first line of defence in this financial protection system in establishing the credentials of the individuals with whom they are dealing as to whether they are licensed. If they are not, they should not be dealing with them and should act accordingly. When they do not receive payment within 48 hours, they should notify us so they vest their protection against the fund in the event there is a default. The advice the member gave that individual was entirely appropriate, and I was pleased to hear that.

The member for Kent-Elgin has referred to some 1,200 to 1,300 dealers in Ontario. Nobody really knows how many there are. We estimated at the outset there would be in the order of 1,000. It was nothing more than a guesstimate. To date this year we have licensed 455. We have applications pending from another 52. We have already held 58 hearings on licence applications. There are three more coming up. To date we have refused 27 licences. The staff involved with the operation of the fund has been very busy.

When we hear of people complaining -- and of course we hear complaints from producers -- we pursue them. We have pursued a number of prosecutions in court, and with few exceptions we have been successful in going after those people. The members will notice that in this act I am proposing significantly stiffer penalties. I am doing that as a signal to the industry that I will not tolerate dealing without a licence. When we find instances of that, we will pursue them with vigour. With the approval of this legislation, we intend to go for much stiffer penalties than the current legislation provides.

Regarding the definition of financial responsibility, every application is a unique application. They are all different. We have to look at the individual's assets, the extent to which he is involved in the industry and his current financial situation to arrive at a determination as to whether he can, without posting some kind of bond, letter of guarantee from his bank or whatever, be expected to carry on business in a way that will not hurt the interests of the producers.

As one would expect, we have a unit of financial people in the ministry that does this work. It is subject to review. Where we talk about imposing terms and conditions in the amendments the individual has the right of appeal, which we would never want to deny to him.

With respect to the member's amendment, I will address it when we get into committee of the whole House in a few minutes, but I think I have covered the member's concerns in sections 3 and 4. I will get into that in more detail in committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

GRAIN CORN MARKETING ACT

Consideration of Bill 68, An Act respecting the Marketing of Grain Corn.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, I believe the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has some amendments to offer.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): The first amendment I have in hand is an amendment to clause 3(1)(a). Is there any amendment prior to that point?

Sections 1 and 2, inclusive, agreed to.

12:30 p.m.

On section 3:

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I believe we are dealing with Bill 68, An Act respecting the Marketing of Grain Corn. The amendment to which you have alluded is one offered by the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) on Bill 69. My notes would indicate that the first section to which an amendment is being offered by a member opposite is section 5.

The Acting Chairman: Thank you. I did in fact have in my hand the amendment to the wrong bill.

Sections 3 and 4, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 5:

The Acting Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 5 be reworded to read:

"Where approval has been given at an annual or other membership meeting of the association, or where the board of directors determines that an emergency exists, the board may recommend through the minister to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the making, amending or revoking of regulations respecting any of the matters set forth in section 6."

Mr. Swart: In my preliminary remarks, I would like to say I am pleased the minister is here while we are dealing with this. He was also here last week. I had been informed his parliamentary assistant was going to be dealing with this but I am pleased to see he has seen the importance of being here.

I regret the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) is not here today while we are dealing with this very important legislation. I assume he must have a very important engagement elsewhere or he would be in his seat.

Mr. Nixon: In case anybody reading the record is under the impression that our critic is anything less than fully informed and very interested in this, I want to take full responsibility for agreeing on behalf of the Liberal Party to go forward. Since there were so many people absent on the government side and the New Democratic Party side -- there are only two white-lipped and trembling socialists in the whole Legislature today -- in order for the House to do any business at all, we had to co-operate.

The Acting Chairman: Order. Perhaps we could address ourselves to the amendment.

Mr. Swart: Perhaps we can address this amendment even without the member for Huron-Middlesex being here. I know he is normally absent on Friday. As I say, I am sure he has sound reasons.

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: For the honourable member to indicate that the Liberal critic is normally absent on Friday is what we call a terminological inexactitude. If the member wants that translated into unparliamentary language, I would be prepared to do it under the circumstances.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, you may have overheard the comment of the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) in which he said I was stretching the truth. You might want to take the appropriate action to have him withdraw that.

The Acting Chairman: To be perfectly frank, I did not hear his remarks, which are not on the record. As I would ask any member of this assembly, if there was some infringement of the standing orders relative to that, I would draw it to his attention and leave it with the member. If the member has anything he would like to draw to the attention of the chair as a point of order, I would be glad to consider it. Otherwise, I was listening to the Liberal House leader making his point of order, and I did not hear anything else.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I understand you probably did not hear the comment made by the member for Essex North. Of course, he realizes he made it. I presume he would have wanted to withdraw it, as would any honourable member in this House. I understand you cannot force him to withdraw it when you did not hear it and it is not in the parliamentary record.

The Acting Chairman: Speak to the amendment.

Mr. Swart: I was going to say this is a package of three amendments which I am introducing. I want to say immediately that they are friendly amendments in that they do not really change the substance. In fact, they implement what I really believe is the intention of the Ontario Corn Producers' Association.

I recognize there was a motion passed by the Ontario Corn Producers' Association in which they support the bill in its present form. I also recognize that after having worked with the minister for a long period of time in bringing in this bill -- and even though the executive may not have seen it before it was tabled -- it did, by and large, implement their wishes.

They worked with the minister, whom they found to be reasonably co-operative in this instance. I would say they do not now want to suggest there should be some changes made, even though they are minor changes with regard to the bill and even though they side with a member of the opposition instead of with the minister. Therefore, they are basically happy with the bill and want to get it passed.

There are three reasons I am moving these amendments and this first amendment in particular. I think it would be valid to say this legislation provides for a substantial variation from normal procedures in forming any association, any marketing board or any organization in this province.

The normal procedure for forming an association is for people to voluntarily sign applications for membership. In regard to trade unions, one has to get 25 per cent of them to sign and then one can have a vote. Somewhere along the way, however, there is a vote taken, and the majority of those who are going to be affected have to vote in favour of that.

That is not being done here. I understand the reasons for it and I can say those reasons make it necessary to proceed with this bill without going through the normal procedures for forming any organization. I think we would all agree that it is normal and preferable to voluntarily take out membership and to have a vote. That is not possible here. Everybody in this Legislature is going to go along with this bill, but it is still a rather unusual situation.

I am also introducing these amendments because I want the Ontario Corn Producers' Association to have a maximum degree of success in their organization. When opposition arises, it would be my hope that they will not be able to point to a bill, or any actions of the association or its constitution, or anything else which they have any valid reason to criticize. I want to say immediately that there is no intent on the part of the Ontario Corn Producers' Association to enact any constitution which is anything other than fully democratic.

12:40 p.m.

That brings me to the third reason I am introducing this series of amendments. Although the association will operate democratically, we in this House are responsible for the legislation which we pass. In that sense, it has to be independent to a degree and to stand on its own. Associations change and their personnel change. What we have to do here is stand back, look at this and pass legislation we think is the most desirable legislation possible under the circumstances. It is for those three reasons I will be moving the three amendments and have moved this particular amendment.

This resolution really establishes a principle. It is a principle that the membership shall make the decisions on major matters. It is a principle which is supported by the corn growers' association. However, it is a principle which is absent from the bill. Section 5 now reads:

"Where the board of directors of the association is of the opinion that a majority of the members of the association are in favour thereof, the board of directors may recommend through the minister to the Lieutenant Governor in Council the making, amending or revoking of regulations respecting any of the matters set forth in section 6." The main controversial matter there will be setting the amount of cents per tonne to be deducted.

My amendment provides: "Where approval had been given at an annual or other membership meeting of the association or where the board of directors determines that an emergency exists, the board may recommend through the minister...."

I recognize these are only recommendations, but nevertheless there is a principle here that it will be the membership generally that will make the recommendation and not just the board of directors. The association recognizes this itself. I had a letter delivered to me by special delivery yesterday from the secretary of that association. I have the highest regard for Mr. Terry Daynard. He has done a magnificent job for that association and for the corn growers. I want to put that on record. But I also want to quote from the letter he sent me. and I suggest this is significant.

"While the hoard recognizes that section 5 in the bill gives the board of directors substantial powers, it also knows that its members would not give it the same." He is saying in this letter addressed to me relative to this act that he does not think the corn growers would give to the board of directors the power this legislation gives to the board.

We have to stand on our own on this. The board of directors and the corn growers are not going to make any fuss about this. Sitting here in this Legislature, we should surely have some concern when we are prepared to give power to the board of directors which the association itself, in its secretary's view, is not prepared to give to that board.

I recognize there is the opting-out provision or the refund provision, and what the minister and the other speakers say about that is absolutely correct. Having said that, we are putting them in there through this legislation, and there should be this additional degree of accountability in the legislation.

The resolution that has been passed by the association itself states that the membership at the annual meeting will determine the checkoff. It says: "Therefore, be it resolved that OCPA continue to request that a compulsory refundable checkoff be instituted beginning with the 1984 crop on all primary sales of commercial grain corn, that the amount of the checkoff be initially 20 cents per tonne and that this amount be subject to change upon approval by annual meetings of OCPA."

They intend to do it through their annual meeting. They do not have any intention of doing anything else, but I do not think we should be passing legislation that gives the approval to do something other than that, except in the case of emergency. That is the reason I moved this motion.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, I have already given my thoughts on this bill in my earlier statement. To go over it again, I think almost any group of people could have made a statement such as was made in that letter.

With the membership of any association, each person in the association has various thoughts as to the powers he would want to delegate to a board of directors. I think the consensus amongst the people would be that the responsibility should be assumed by the board of directors.

One can make a pretty good argument that when they are given broad powers, one imposes on them the moral obligation to carry them out in a very responsible way. The decision as to how they are carried out is theirs. If one gives them a lot of ifs, ands and wherefores, one gets the barrack-room-lawyer type of mentality developing that says, "Because we are answering this we are OK, or because we are answering that we are okay." In the broad context of the thing, it can be wrong.

Having served on marketing boards and in various associations, I have faith in farmers. I have also been at the receiving end of what farmers have to say when they are displeased. Back in the late 1960s, I was a member of the Ontario Fresh Fruit Growers' Marketing Board. At that time, peaches were covered by the act. We had gone to the producers and asked for plums, pears and cherries. Subsequently, those products have been covered. We had a vote and the vote failed to pass.

The Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Biggs, came to us shortly after and said, "All you fellows have to resign." We said: "What are you talking about? We just had a vote that said we are not adding these other products to the list of regulated products." He said: "That is only a half-truth. You do not really know whether those people voted against adding those products or whether they voted against the competence of the board." After thinking about it overnight, the next morning we said, "That is right," so we resigned.

Out of nine people on the board, only three got back. I happened to be one of the ones who got back. I am not bragging about that particularly because it was not a contentious issue in the area I represented. It showed there are many reasons why these things happen. You have to be responsible. You have to take the bull by the horns and act. I have great faith that the farmers will do that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, I concur with the last member who spoke. To pass this amendment would unduly tie the hands of the board of the Ontario Corn Producers' Association.

In the debate on second reading, I mentioned the safeguards in the bill, the constitution of the association and the process that requires my signature or that of successor Ministers of Agriculture and Food and the ultimate approval by cabinet. I think there are many safeguards built into it and it does not require the kind of shackling this amendment proposes.

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Swart's amendment to section 5 will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Acting Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that the following new section 5 be included in the act:

"5. At any time following three years after the proclamation of this act, the board of directors of the association may conduct a plebiscite among all holders of a licence on any question deemed advisable and if 15 per cent of all holders of a licence petition for a plebiscite on any question, the plebiscite shall be conducted.

"And that the present section 5 be renumbered section 6 and all subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly."

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, the intent of this is obvious. The minister and the agricultural critic for the Liberal Party will know I had originally posed a somewhat different resolution which would have required a vote. I had suggested I would be introducing a resolution which would have required a vote after a period of three or five years among the corn producers who held licences.

After further discussion and consideration, I decided this perhaps was a more practical way of giving some additional accountability to the membership. After the corn producers' association had got its feet on the ground and had an opportunity to operate for a time, and if there was wide dissatisfaction, it would be able to have a vote on any question.

The resolution also provides that the board of directors may conduct a plebiscite. I recognize it would have the power to do this on its own if it were in the constitution, but this gives an opportunity for a degree of accountability I think should be in this legislation which we as a Legislature are passing.

Once again, I have no doubt that the board of directors is a responsible group. It is a democratic group and has proved up to this time that it is a very outstanding organization. We are the ones, however, who have to pass the legislation. To pass legislation which makes no provision at any time in any way for the board of directors or the organization to be accountable to its membership on whether the organization shall continue or on any other questions seems to me to leave something out of the organization which is desirable in a democracy. Because it is our job here to ensure that legislation that is passed is the optimum in a democracy, I am moving this.

I still want to get this through, so I will not say anything more on it.

Mr. McGuigan: In the interests of time, I have already expressed my thoughts. I would like to see this passed as quickly as possible.

The Acting Chairman: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 5 agreed to.

On section 6:

The Acting Chairman: I have a final amendment from the member for Welland-Thorold dealing with clause 6(1)(a).

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, if the other two amendments had passed, I believe that would have given the necessary theoretical accountability so that this motion would have been desirable with the limits eliminated. The present legislation provides for the 40 cents per metric ton limit, even though the association proposes to charge only 20 cents per metric ton. Since the other two sections did not carry, I do not propose to move this amendment.

Section 6 agreed to.

Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

Mr. Nixon: What about the last one?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Do you want to try to do the other one?

Mr. Nixon: We still have four minutes.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the members opposite feel we can do it in that time, I will be happy to.

LIVE STOCK AND LIVE STOCK PRODUCTS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 69, An Act to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): I have an amendment to section 3 from the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan).

Mr. Swart: We can proceed with that if you want. However, I have two amendments to the Milk Amendment Act and we will not get through by one o'clock. I would prefer to rise and report and get to third reading on this bill.

The Acting Chairman: Bill 69 is An Act to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act. Does that eliminate those comments?

Mr. Swart: I am sorry.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

The Acting Chairman: Mr. McGuigan moves that clause 3(1)(a) of the act be repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"The past conduct of the applicant or his employees, or, where the applicant is a corporation, of its officers or directors or employees, affords reasonable grounds for belief that the operations that would be authorized by the licence will not be carried on in accordance with law."

Mr. McGuigan: As I pointed out before, the only change here is that we have added "employees," and I have already explained the reasons.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: That is really section 1 of the bill we have before us. I am not sure whether we already passed sections 1 and 2 by voice vote. If we amend clause 3(1)(a) of the act, it is covered in section 1 of the bill. If we accept the motion to move the amendment, we open up section 1 of Bill 69 so that we can deal with this.

The Acting Chairman: I have to draw the attention of the member for Kent-Elgin to the bill. I apologize for not being quicker to spot this. However, the only portion of Bill 69 dealing with section 3 is clause 3(1)(b). Clause 3(1)(a) is not before the committee and the House as part of Bill 69. Therefore, I will have to rule his proposed amendment out of order. The committee has approved sections 1 and 2 of the bill.

Section 3 agreed to.

Sections 4 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Timbrell, the committee of the whole House reported two bills without amendment.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 69, An Act to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act;

Bill 68, An Act respecting the Marketing of Grain Corn.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

June 1, 1984