role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

June 18, 1980

31st Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L079 - Wed 18 Jun 1980 / Mer 18 jun 1980

ARGOSY RECEIVERSHIPS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OTTAWA-CARLETON MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

OTTAWA-CARLETON MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTHIC SERVICE ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

LIBEL AND SLANDER ACT

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ARGOSY RECEIVERSHIPS

Mr. Peterson: Before the orders of the day, I would like to rise on a point of privilege. Yesterday, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) a question. I would like to repeat that, if I may, and read it into the record.

I asked: “Is the minister aware that on December 10, 1973, under the hand of J. C. Horwitz, chairman of the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal, the following order was issued: ‘That the continuing registration of Argosy Investments Limited shall be subject to the condition that John David Carnie shall forthwith surrender and give up his share or shares of Argosy Investments Limited’?”

I went on to say that to the best of my knowledge that had not been done. The minister in his response said this: “Mr. Speaker, there is no question but that the order was issued on December 10, 1973, and there is no question but that the order was complied with. Has the honourable member read the order? I would suggest that he reads the order because the order was only applicable until December 31, 1974. All those terms or conditions were complied with from 1973 and 1974.”

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read that order into the record, because I think you will find after you deliberate that the minister has probably inadvertently or mistakenly misled the members of this House and will probably want to correct the record. I won’t read the whole order of the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal, but it is that same order referred to of December 10, 1973. It says this in the order:

Mr. Speaker: I am sure he will.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OTTAWA-CARLETON MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Welch, moved second reading of Bill 92,

An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in certain area municipalities in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, this is one of two bills we will be dealing with this afternoon. This particular piece of legislation establishes a new hydroelectric commission, principally in the city of Kanata. It also recognizes a change in the township of Goulbourn and allows for expansion in that particular municipality when the commission and, more particularly, the council sees fit. Because there are no other changes relative to the majority of the municipalities in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, they are not recognized in the legislation.

The bill also recognizes that the township of Cumberland at some future point in time will probably look favourably upon serving its own municipality with a hydroelectric service, so it does afford it that opportunity and recognizes that within the legislation. It also provides that they, along with the township of Goulbourn, must examine the viability of expanding their service area at least once every three years.

The principles that have previously been incorporated in legislation relating to the principles in the Hogg committee report are recognized in this particular piece of legislation as well.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, we can endorse this kind of move on the restructuring bill that is being presented at the present time, but there is just one particular subject area that I think is worth while dealing with. This is perhaps in the nature of pointing out some things to the ministry and something in the nature of an appeal.

2:10 p.m.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the restructuring of Halton took place not too many months ago. It was a bill that was passed in this House, and some of the regions came into existence as a restructured body in January and some in April.

I want to relate to the parliamentary assistant, and I hope he will relate this to the minister with dispatch, an experience that took place which caused a great deal of upheaval during that restructuring period. What happened in December was that Ontario Hydro, which had been the supplier of electric power to the rural areas in what is now the restructured area, took the meter readings between December 15 and December 17, 1979. When the final billings were sent out by Ontario Hydro they were dated December 31, 1979.

The new restructured municipality, and in this particular case I am referring to the town of Milton, came into existence on January 1, 1980, and the first bills that were sent out by the newly restructured hydro commission suggested that the billings and the readings had taken place from January 1, 1980.

Mr. Speaker: What part of Ottawa-Carleton is that?

Mr. J. Reed: With the Speaker’s indulgence, I would like to appeal to the ministry not to allow the same experience to occur during this restructuring and future restructuring as occurred at that time. I would suggest it is relevant in that context, in that all of these restructurings have certain fundamental base lines and certain similarities.

Mr. Speaker: You have tied it in very nicely.

Mr. J. Reed: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Briefly, drawing the experience to a conclusion, what happened was that the people who received the billings found there were two weeks they couldn’t account for, and it resulted in a great deal of confusion for the new utility and a great deal of upheaval. There was a great deal of contact with this particular member’s office and so on.

I would respectfully ask the parliamentary assistant to see to it that when final billings are made by Ontario Hydro on this restructuring they delineate that the readings were taken prior to the end of the billing period, or that they be taken at the end of the billing period so as not to cause confusion. I would respectfully ask for that assurance from the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and indicate our support for this bill, as we have done with the other restructuring bills that have come before this House.

However, I think a number of comments are in order, not the least of which is the time that has been taken for the bills that are before us today on hydro restructuring and, more specifically, the bill that is under consideration at the moment, when we recognize that the hydro restructuring process has been going on for almost seven years and it has taken that long to reach the kind of agreement that has led to this bill; more importantly, to reduce the hassling between the various municipal representatives who were involved, when the municipal representatives themselves were involved in the discussions and not the people who are generally most affected by the restructuring process.

When we look at hydro restructuring I think we would all agree that its main purpose is to deal with the terrible inequity in hydro rates that exists in some of our regional municipalities and in many other parts of the province. Situations have arisen where essentially urban hydro customers are being charged Ontario Hydro so-called rural rates, and we have had discussion of Ontario Hydro rural rates on many previous occasions. We have indicated many times how high they are in comparison with the rural rates that exist in other parts of this country.

It is most unfortunate that during the very long-drawn-out process that has led to this bill, hydro customers in Ottawa-Carleton, who are presently served by Ontario Hydro, have had to pay these iniquitous Ontario Hydro rural rates for a supply that is essentially an urban hydro supply. As we know, Ontario Hydro does not have urban residential customers and hence, even though one lives in an urban area, one has to pay a rural rate as if one were an isolated residential dwelling at the end of a quarter mile or maybe even a couple of miles of hydro line.

The provisions of this bill are going to help solve this problem for Ottawa-Carleton. I know those who are affected by the new commissions and who are at least being taken into an urban hydro area will welcome it.

My only concern is that the people who, after this bill comes into effect, continue to be served by Ontario Hydro may have to wait a considerable length of time while their own municipal council continues to discuss and consider every three years the possibility of setting up new hydro commissions or of taking what will continue to be rural residential hydro customers into the new hydro commissions.

It is a problem that is not being addressed adequately by this government. It is not being addressed adequately by Ontario Hydro. We are continuing to face this problem of people having to pay hydro rates that are far too high in southern Ontario, in Ottawa-Carleton, in many of our other regions, simply because by definition they are Ontario Hydro rural customers.

I hope the parliamentary assistant and the minister will not see this bill as the be-all and end-all of the problem. The problem of high hydro rates for Ontario Hydro residential customers will continue. I very much hope the government will address that problem in very short order before hydro rates, with continued escalation, put the price of home heating and home utilities out of reach for many home owners.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, as this bill affects two of the municipalities I represent, I want to indicate my support for the general principle of the bill, but also indicate some reservations about one portion of the legislation.

The new city of Kanata is most anxious to get on with the formation of its new hydro commission and has indicated support for this piece of legislation as it now stands. They have been working since their inception as a city to have this hydro commission in place for the beginning of next year.

Mr. McClellan: Which parliamentary assistant represents the government position?

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I do represent the people of the city of Kanata and I do represent the people of the township of Goulbourn. At any rate, the other municipality, the township of Goulbourn, where a commission is created hereunder, has some reservations about the representation that is to make up the hydro commission.

Presently the hydro commission serves only the small hamlet or village of Richmond, which has approximately 2,500 people. The present legislation, under

section 2(6), provides for four appointed representatives during the first term, two from within the village and two from without, in addition to the mayor or, in this case, her appointee. I would like to bring to the attention of the Legislature that the township of Goulbourn passed a resolution two days ago asking that the commission be made up of just two members from within the old village boundaries that existed prior to amalgamation, which took place in 1974. So the commission would be made up of three people.

2:20 p.m.

I have some sympathy with their particular proposal, but I want to have an explanation as to why the desire of the townships cannot be met in terms of this legislation. I hope the parliamentary assistant will help me along on that; otherwise I would request that the bill go into a committee so that I might attempt to amend that particular section.

I understand from discussing this matter with one of the councillors of the township that the issue as to the ultimate responsibility of this commission was not really placed on the table when this resolution was brought forward. Since that time, I have had a talk with people in the Ministry of Energy and they indicate to me that the contract, for instance, to supply power to the commission is actually signed with the township of Goulbourn and nut the hydro commission, so ultimately they are the responsible body for the liability on that contract if there should be a shortfall.

In addition, if there was some liability incurred by the commission in carrying out its duties, there would be a liability which would eventually fall on the township as the principal obliged under that particular liability.

Having said that, and in recognition of the fact that the idea of having people appointed from outside the area would perhaps engender the possibility of expansion of the hydro commission to cover more people within the township, I do recognize that the practical situation in Richmond is that the hydro commission, being 100 per cent sure of the statement, will not expand in the next three years. With that particular knowledge, I would suggest that the board perhaps be made up with a majority or an assured majority from within the village, as most of the business of the commission will deal with the village people.

I conclude those remarks and I would ask the parliamentary assistant to answer my concerns on that matter. I would reserve the right to send this to committee if I am not satisfied.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the limited comment that has been provided to help us to get along with the legislative program for this afternoon. I will try to respond in order to the points that have been raised.

The member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed) did raise a very valid point and a very valid concern that took place within the restructured area that he partly represents. There is no doubt that the motivations were correct. In other words, what the readings that he referred to were trying to do was give a little leg up, shall we say, in a revenue sense to the new commissions.

I suppose the time of the year added some impetus to that decision as well, but it provided the new municipality and the new commission with the opportunity to have a little extra revenue, albeit at the expense of Ontario Hydro, by reading the meters around the middle of the month, but quite correctly, I would think, by the jurisdiction and obligations we gave them by legislation, still being responsible for the area up to and including December 31 of the year in question.

There is no doubt as to what happened. People got a small bill and they were elated. It was their last one from Ontario Hydro. When they got the first bill from their new utility, they said, “Holy cats, they have put it to me again.” Obviously it was higher because there was a longer time frame, a longer service period covered. There is no doubt that we do recognize it, the commission had problems with it, the commissioners had problems with it, the member had problems, the ministry had problems with it and I had some problems with it in terms of some of the calls that came forward. I can assure you we will not allow that to happen again.

Of course, there are the two ways of doing it. One is trying to rationalize a reading on virtually the last day of the year, which I suppose in a straight physical sense is impossible. More important is that it is properly identified in the last bill and I hope in the first bill and that they are not covering the exact same service period. I appreciate those views which were brought forward and that concern, which was very legitimate. We did learn from that experience. It will be in effect for any future similar situation.

The member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs) tries to bring in apples and oranges and that really is not what we are talking about. There are differences between the rate structure generally for those areas referred to as the rural system served by Ontario Hydro and many of the utilities. That does not mean every local utility in the province has a cheaper rate than the Ottawa Hydro rural rate system would charge. That is not so, although there is no doubt the large majority are cheaper.

The inequities in the system are not rationalized by restructuring, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, that compounds the problem. With various restructurings we generally take the cream of the service areas as they are generally identified -- the higher populated areas -- we take that revenue source out of the base for Ontario Hydro. Obviously that means the rest have to pay higher. There is no doubt, with the existing direction and existing policy, that differential would widen over the years.

It is a little unfair to suggest that the government and Ontario Hydro have not recognized the problem and the fact that the problem will only get worse. As a matter of fact, it is not that long ago that the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) did give a commitment to this Legislature and, in turn, direction to Ontario Hydro, to review the rate differential and come back with proposals that would better rationalize the rate differential.

That does not mean we will end up on January 1, 1981, with everybody in the province paying the same rate. I am not trying to get into that argument at this time. But the direction was to rationalize and hopefully reduce the rate differential and that is being done in another fashion.

There is a slight overlap in one of the other concerns brought forth by the member for Wentworth, along with my colleague from Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling). Their reference was specific, relating to the area known as the township of Goulbourn and the makeup in the legislation of the commission to serve that municipality. I think at least part of the answer is when a commission and, in turn, when a council, should look at the opportunities to equate and expand a service area within their municipal boundaries.

There is no doubt we have, for the sake of a better description, imposed -- and I use that very softly because it is not an imposition in my view -- in restructuring legislation the obligation for a council to review the financial viability of expanding the commission’s service area in three years, in the case of the legislation before us. In some earlier legislation, in certain situations, a five-year review was mandatory to make sure that the elected representatives are made aware.

We all know we get busy and things get pushed aside, time goes on and we may unconsciously -- and I am sure it is not planned -- forget about some of the constituents whom we also represent who are perhaps a little more removed from us.

What is happening here and the rationalization behind the representation pertaining to the Goulbourn commission is partly that fact. There is no doubt that at this point the service area that would be served by the township of Goulbourn commission which is being established is basically the old service area that was served by the former village of Richmond. Frankly, it no longer legally exists as a separate municipal entity, as the honourable member is aware.

As the member has already pointed out quite correctly, there is no doubt that the obligation, whether it be debt or otherwise, of a utility is the responsibility, in the end, of the total municipality and the ratepayers of that particular municipality, whether they be served or not.

The possible liability -- and I am not making any insinuations about this particular commission, at all; as a matter of fact, in the case of the Goulbourn commission that is presently serving the former village of Richmond, it is, as we see it, in an excellent position, and in fact has little, if any, long-term debt obligations. I am making that statement as a general comment. There is no doubt that any decisions which that commission would make in the future, involving financial commitments or financial obligations, would be on behalf of the whole municipality.

2:30 p.m.

The second point, which is an extension of that one, is that although the service area for that commission is at this point only a relatively small and relatively contained geographical area, in fact that commission will represent the total municipality. It is just for economic reasons, at this time, that the rest of the township will continue to be served, as it has been served, by the Ontario Hydro system.

In this particular part of the legislation, an automatic review has to be made by the township council, at least within three years. In practical terms, I think we can assume that the actual putting forward of a report and, in turn, a recommendation to the council, would come by way of the commission. I think it only right to state that it is fair and equitable, when that is being reviewed -- and forgetting all the other decisions that will be coming in front of that commission on a regular basis and from time to time -- that there be input.

There is an overseeing responsibility on the part of those who represent an area of the municipality outside the area presently served by the local utility. I think that is a very important reason for the representation.

I think it could be correctly argued that if there were an imbalance of representation by the area not being served, that undoubtedly would not be fair. But the representation being put forward -- that is, the mayor of the municipality, two representatives from the area presently served by the utility, and two representatives from outside that area -- makes for fair and equitable input without imposing an imbalance upon the area not being served at this time.

I hope I have been able to address the various concerns that have been raised. I am quite aware of the strong feelings which have been expressed by the council of the township of Goulbourn, particularly by the mayor. I hope the legislation will go forward on the basis on which it now is. I think it is fair and equitable and consistent with other legislation.

I might say that in my own experience I have not had any feedback from other municipalities which have started out in this exact situation to suggest that they have had any difficulties with it, or that it has proved to be inoperable. In other words, I don’t think it is unfair to enable somebody who is not presently being served to participate, with an open mind, and to be called upon to make equitable decisions on something that may not directly affect them at that time, as long as we recognize that things may change in the future.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Welch, moved second reading of Bill 93,

An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, as with the bill relating to the area of Ottawa-Carleton, this piece of legislation relating to the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth creates some new utilities. Here again, those area municipalities that are not affected have not been included in the bill. Principally what we are doing is creating new commissions in Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough and Stoney Creek, with only Dundas and Stoney Creek supplying to their total municipal boundary at this time.

It also unfreezes the status of the commission in the city of Hamilton which was previously frozen by the legislation that created the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. But there are no other boundary changes or service area changes to the city of Hamilton per se.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I would like to use the medium of the debate on this bill to comment for a moment on the intent of the legislation and the reasons why it is being brought into existence, and on the practical irrelevance of this bill, when it gets down to the nuts and bolts or the working situation, in the light of the kinds of hydroelectric power rates we are now paying in the province.

The intent of restructuring is fine. It is excellent, because it allows for the expansion of a utility to include a larger infrastructure and help rural customers to escape the incredible burden -- the roughly 30 per cent premium burden -- that has been traditionally placed on them in this province.

My colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has pointed out many times in this House that rural Ontario has the most expensive electric power rates west of New Brunswick. That seems rather a strong indictment of the policies the government endorses in the sale of electric power in this province, considering the fact we have one of the lower-priced electric power utilities in North America, and we should have the lowest price of electric power utilities in North America.

It is by no magic of great management, either on the part of the government or on the part of Ontario Hydro, that our rates are a little above those of Quebec but lower than those of some other utilities. In fact, if we were managing our utility properly, we should have the lowest electric power rates in North America simply because more than one third of the power in this province is still generated by hydraulic power through plants that were capitalized many years ago.

The great contributor to the increases in electric power rates in the province has been the gross overcapitalization of the system. I think the parliamentary assistant, if he were being truly honest and perhaps did not have to shore up the visions of this government, would agree with me on that one. We have overbuilt our system now to the tune of 4,000 megawatts.

It is interesting to observe that we have more than 10,000 megawatts of fossil fuel capacity in our electric power system in Ontario, we have about 6,100 megawatts of hydraulic capacity in Ontario and the rest, which consists of about 5,000 megawatts, is nuclear power. Yet it is still the cheap hydraulic system that shores up the electric power production in Ontario. It is still the most reliable; it is still the lowest in cost; it still gives us the best bang for the buck.

Years ago the province made a decision to go nuclear knowing full well there are still 10,800 megawatts of hydraulic power available in Ontario, at least half of which could be economically developed either by the utility or, if not by the utility, by private enterprise. This is something I have admonished the government for over the last four years.

2:40 p.m.

It is these choices that have been made in capitalization, in the incredible cost per installed kilowatt, that have led to the rates which have increased to the extent that they have almost made the presentation of these bills and the restructuring irrelevant because, in spite of the fact that the rural people should and will gain -- theoretically, if you like -- when they are included in restructuring, in actual fact the gain is obliterated as the years go by.

I think the announcement has been made that the application will be made for another increase of more than nine per cent in bulk power rates in Ontario next year. It is unnecessary, it is unconscionable and it is a reflection of incredibly bad management, bad forecasting and lack of foresight. All of this has been condoned by a government that has allowed a utility to be out of control since 1973, through the introduction of the Power Corporation Act, which has not been amended, and which has allowed it to proceed since; it has recognized its weaknesses, but has done nothing about them.

It has to be said that we can manipulate the structuring, and it is advisable and desirable to take as much of rural Ontario into this restructuring as possible but, in all fairness, unless we come to grips with these incredible increases in electric power rates, this restructuring will quickly become meaningless in the eyes of the electric power consumers, and rightly so, because they should not have to be paying these rates. They should not have to be paying these increases, nor should they have to be carrying the burden of 4,000 extra megawatts of investment in our system which was a bad choice, or a badly timed choice, if you like.

I can only hope that after another election in Ontario, when there will be a change of government, there will be some kind of energy policy in the province which the electric power utility will have to address and accept. Then we can go on to rationalizing electric power rates.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I welcome this bill, because it is something the citizens of several parts of the area of Hamilton-Wentworth have been awaiting for a very long time.

However, I want to make some comments, not only along the lines of those I made on the last bill, but also in terms of the procedures and the lack of information that has been provided with regard to the way this bill will affect hydro service in Hamilton-Wentworth.

With regard to the township of Glanbrook, which is in my riding, that will continue to be served by Ontario Hydro. I understand the reason for that and I have to say, without repeating the arguments, that I still feel there is a very serious problem with Ontario Hydro rural rates. The parliamentary assistant’s assurance that this is being investigated by Ontario Hydro on the direction of the Premier and the Minister of Energy is not good enough. We need action to transfer the burden of these hydro rates from residential customers to the large users.

With regard to the municipality in which I live, Stoney Creek, and the impact of this bill upon it, I want to share with the House and with the parliamentary assistant, and through him, I would hope, the minister, some of the concerns I have about the approach that was taken and the results which appear to he coming from this bill.

We are setting up a hydroelectric commission for the town of Stoney Creek that is separate from the Hamilton Hydro-Electric Commission. Informed rumour in Hamilton-Wentworth has it that the citizens of Stoney Creek could have enjoyed lower hydro rates if there had been one hydro commission covering both Stoney Creek and the city of Hamilton, and possibly including Dundas as well. But that system was scuttled because of disputes among the local politicians who saw that as a foot in the door for a system of local government that some of them opposed.

Unfortunately, the bill is not amendable in that regard, because it would totally destroy the purpose of this bill and would require essentially a whole new bill. I must say it is tempting to ask for that information in committee and to review whether the residential power users in Hamilton-Wentworth might not be better served if there were a single hydro utility for the contiguous area of hydro service in Hamilton-Wentworth.

I recognize that in Flamborough, and possibly in Ancaster, that might not be the appropriate way to go. But at least in Stoney Creek, and perhaps in Dundas, according to the rumours I have heard, those residential power consumers can look forward to paying higher hydro rates than they would have done if there had been a single power utility. If that is true, then I have some concerns about that. I hope the local politicians who are responsible for making that decision will be happy to justify it to the electorate when they go before the electorate this fall.

Second, I want to talk about the timing of the bill and some of the things that appear to have been going on, or may not have been going on, but which have been hidden by a smokescreen. I have had some extensive conversations with one of the representatives on the local hydro utility restructuring committee, Councillor Jack Norris of the town of Stoney Creek. I want to pay tribute to Councillor Norris, because I think he has done an excellent job of representing the town on that commission.

The people who were involved in restructuring at the local level went through the entire process. Unfortunately, it took a long time because of the local disputes I have just referred to but, finally, they came up with a proposal that was approved by all the local councils and went to the ministry. Those people apparently met with staff of the ministry and, I believe, with the parliamentary assistant some time back in March, at the same time that the local members were invited to meet with the parliamentary assistant and his staff. They were not allowed to take away a copy of the bill at that time.

Until the bill was tabled in this House, the local councils that are so intimately involved in this issue had nothing to review.

As we know, the bill was tabled on June 5 and is being debated here today. If nothing else, but out of courtesy to the local councils, I suggest they should have been provided with a copy of the bill or with a copy of the draft bill if there were minor wording changes that needed to be dealt with, so that they could have reviewed it in a little more depth than has been possible in the last barely two weeks since this bill was introduced.

I think there is a communication problem, and I have to say that it has given the impression of there being a smokescreen and that there must be something in this bill that the government wants to get through without creating too much of a local uproar. I have to say that as soon as the bill was tabled in this House I took responsibility for distributing it the following day to members of the local council and to people in Hydro, because they had not got one from the minister yet. I have since talked to some of those people to satisfy myself that there is not something in this bill that the government is trying to sneak through.

I must say that no one has yet found that. Therefore, I am prepared to say on the best information I have to date that it is probably only an appearance of trying to sneak something through. I somehow resent that appearance being given. I think it is pretty bad form to deal with local councils in that way. The parliamentary assistant is probably aware that he has been pretty heavily criticized by the local council in Stoney Creek for handling it in this way and not giving them the opportunity to discuss the bill fully before it is discussed by us here today. There is something strange and something wrong about the timing.

2:50 p.m.

The next item I want to discuss is the matter of hydro rates. I want to repeat what I said on the last bill. Surely the major purpose of restructuring is to ensure that the people who are not now in a hydro utility but who will be in a local hydro utility as a result of this bill can enjoy lower hydro rates. That is surely the main purpose. There are secondary purposes, of course, in terms of better local planning, better communication, direct accountability to the customer and those kinds of things which are terribly important. But surely the major purpose is to provide lower urban hydro rates for people who live in the area affected by the new local utilities.

In the town of Stoney Creek there has been a tremendous inequity ever since regional government came in, and indeed before that, because hydro rates have nothing to do with regional government. People in the former town of Stoney Creek are paying almost half the hydro rates that the people in the former township of Saltfleet are paying. This is because the people in the former township of Saltfleet, even those who are in a fully urbanized area of the former township of Saltfleet, are direct customers of Ontario Hydro and are paying these exorbitant Ontario Hydro rural residential rates to which we have previously referred.

That inequity cannot continue if one believes in a unified municipality. The purpose of this bill, as I understand it, will be to set in place a uniform hydro rate across the entire town of Stoney Creek. If that is not the purpose, I hope there will be a response from the parliamentary assistant later on. It is certainly thought by everyone I have consulted, and by all members of the public in Stoney Creek, that the purpose is to put in one single residential hydro rate for the entire town of Stoney Creek, which is the area to be covered by the new hydro utility. I assume that is what we will see.

That leads to a problem, because the people in the former town of Stoney Creek are paying rates so much lower than those paid by people in the former township of Saltfleet that either the rates of those who are Ontario Hydro direct customers will have to drop very substantially or the people in the former town of Stoney Creek are going to see a dramatic increase in their hydro rates to something close to the Ontario Hydro rural rate level. This, of course, would be terribly unfair, and I hope it is not what is intended.

It had been understood by everyone involved, including myself and, I am sure, my former colleagues on Stoney Creek council, that the effect of this bill would be to introduce to Stoney Creek a new residential hydro rate that would be a tiny bit higher for residential customers in the old town of Stoney Creek but quite a bit lower for residential customers in the former township of Saltfleet. Thus, some overall economies would be realized, and there would be a bit of a balancing.

The mayor of Stoney Creek recently has made some comments which give the impression that this is not what is going to happen, and that people in the former township of Saltfleet will not be able to look forward to lower hydro rates as a result of this bill. The imprecision given me by a reporter from the Stoney Creek News is that the mayor has been telling people that the rates in the former township of Saltfleet probably will not drop at present, at least to any significant extent, but that there will be long-term gains because the rate of increase will not be as great as the rate of increase would have been if they had continued to be Ontario Hydro customers.

I have no way of knowing where the mayor’s information comes from, or how he comes to that conclusion about future changes, because none of us can predict future Ontario Hydro rural residential rates, especially if there is a change of government.

The problem is, if people in the former township of Saltfleet are not going to see a substantial drop in their hydro rates, does that mean that people in the former town of Stoney Creek will see a dramatic increase in their present hydro rates to something close to the Ontario Hydro rural rate? If they do, I can tell the parliamentary assistant very directly that they do not want this bill; they do not want any part of it. That is surely not the intent.

I hope the parliamentary assistant can provide a reasonable amount of detail as to the residential rates that will be charged to hydro customers in both parts of the existing town of Stoney Creek, the old town of Stoney Creek and the old township of Saltfleet, and that he can put to rest the fears that are being raised by the mayor’s comments.

As part of the background information to this bill, there should have been a compilation of the rate structures that can be expected in each of the new hydro commissions, on the assumption that the new commissions will follow the kind of procedures a new commission is likely to follow. I do not want the government to tell them what to do, but surely the government knows what kind of rates will be in place when the new commissions come into effect next year. I do not understand why that information has been kept secret, and I hope that the fears I have mentioned are unjustified.

I hope that, as a result of this bill, hydro users in the former township of Saltfleet can expect next year a substantial decrease in their hydro rates, because that is what they deserve.

Further, on the rate issue, I am aware that the whole matter is going to have to go to the Ontario Energy Board, and there is one aspect of that to which I want to refer. At present within the town of Stoney Creek there is a provision offered -- not offered, but extorted by that hydro commission -- whereby a new customer in a home that is electrically heated has to pay a deposit of $200 before that hydro commission is prepared to offer that customer any hydro service at all.

I want to suggest to the parliamentary assistant that that kind of thing has recently been abolished by Bell Canada. We have finally convinced Bell Canada and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to get away from that kind of usurious deposit arrangement. I hope that something can be done to ensure that, when the new hydro commission comes into effect, customers who live in electrically heated homes in the former township of Saltfleet are not suddenly hit with a request for a $200 deposit before the new hydro commission is prepared to serve them.

I further hope that when the new commission comes into effect those who have had to pay this usurious deposit to the old Stoney Creek Hydro-Electric Commission will immediately get it back and deposits will no longer be required of customers for hydro service. Those deposits are very often an absolutely unreasonable amount of money compared to the amount of hydro the customer is going to use and compared to the ability of a tenant in an apartment to pay.

If you move into an apartment at $200 a month and find it is an electrically heated apartment, and the hydro utility wants another $200 before it will provide you with hydro, that is going way too far, in my view. That kind of thing should not be allowed by any hydro commission in this province.

Those are my concerns on this bill. I look forward to hearing the response, because some real concerns have been generated out there in Stoney Creek in the last three or four months simply because of the way this bill has been handled and simply because of a lack of information that is being provided to the public about the bill.

I hope it is a good bill, because the intent is good. But if the parliamentary assistant cannot assure us that it is a good bill, then it may be appropriate to take a look at it in a committee to find out exactly what is going on behind this bill, which has been clouded in a smokescreen, so that the customers of the new hydro service in Stoney Creek can be assured they will get the best possible hydro rates, which is surely what this House should be providing to them.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate my support for the legislation. As I see it, the object of the exercise is to restructure a number of small utilities within the Hamilton-Wentworth area, and I endorse that activity.

Unlike my colleague the member for Wentworth, I have a great deal of confidence in the administrative ability of our smaller utilities, and I welcome their existence, especially as they are now going to be restructured in the current context of municipalities through Bill 155.

3 p.m.

The Waterdown facility, which services the one square mile of the village of Waterdown, coincidentally happens to be run by my next-door neighbour, and I believe extremely well. After the restructuring takes place, I would hazard a guess that probably it would be her responsibility, again in administrative fashion, to oversee the activities of the amended and slightly larger utility.

I, too, am concerned about the problem of rates. I share the concerns expressed by both the previous speakers about the possibility of an excessive rate increase and the implementation of this bill at the same time as the Ontario Hydro rate will increase. With that rate increase -- and I am not necessarily suspicious about the motive for the bill -- I see some problems that can occur in an administrative fashion relating to the dispensing of the bill and the assumption on the part of the public that they are getting an excessive rate increase that would be unfair.

The primary problem in the delivery of hydro service, as I see it, is not the administration of the smaller utilities. The parliamentary assistant might recall the difficulties we had with the Dundas Public Utilities Commission some time ago, although I believe those problems have been straightened out by some personnel realignment. Our primary problem with regard to Ontario Hydro rates is the mismanagement of Hydro itself.

Ironically, as I was contemplating some brief remarks here today on the occasion of this bill late last night, I read today’s Globe and Mail as I often do. I think the Globe and Mail refers to it as the bulldog edition. In the Report on Business, which I never fail to miss, they have an advertisement for three rather extensive positions, one for a motion picture photographer, one for a motion picture assistant producer and one for a motion picture editor.

This is not a casual, passing advertisement in the classified section. This is about half a page by three columns, and that ain’t cheap either, sir, with respect. I would hazard a guess that an advertisement in the Report on Business might cost $1,000 in itself, which I regard as excessive. The bad news is they will probably run it for three or four days and in a couple of dozen other papers. I am at a loss to know why Ontario Hydro would require a motion picture photographer, a motion picture assistant producer --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the honourable member would return to Bill 93.

Mr. Cunningham: I was just getting there, Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence. My concern, and I will conclude very briefly, is that things are running wild in that operation. It is incredible to me the amount of money that is spent there on a daily basis without a great deal of accountability, if I may say so. We are going to have a problem when I have to explain to my constituents why they are experiencing rate increases and why in the rural areas the Ontario rural rate is what I would call usurious. I can only refer them to advertisements such as this, when they are hiring people. I never knew Ontario Hydro was now in the motion picture business. God knows what we are going to have next.

I support the legislation with the caveat that I, too, hope we are not in a situation a year or 16 months from now where we have to provide explanations to our people, especially in the rural areas, who are already overtaxed from other areas of government. I hope the parliamentary assistant, in his day-to-day activities, will attempt to see there is a little more than a cursory, casual examination of the activities of Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, general support seems to have been indicated for the legislation although, having listened to the member for Wentworth, I am not quite sure. It is too bad that members have tried to use the opportunity of this legislation to spend most of their remarks rationalizing or otherwise the rate structure in Ontario, whether Ontario Hydro’s or otherwise. It was an excellent opportunity for Hydro blasting, but that is par for the course.

Let me touch upon a few of the points that were made. First of all there was the reference by the member for Halton-Burlington to the overbuilt system, the rates being highest and whatever. Of course, that is not true, to start with. We all know, if one takes the highest low-density rate structure, it is higher. I will not even dispute that it is highest in the area west of New Brunswick, if I recall correctly what he said. But there is only a relatively small percentage of our population served by that rate. Again, that is taking a number out of perspective and using it as the blanket approach. That is completely inaccurate and conveys an incorrect message.

He also talked about overbuilding. We will not get into this in any great detail because we have gone though it before. There is no doubt that the Ontario Hydro system -- the retail system or the wholesale system -- has world recognition in terms of its technology, its administrative abilities, its security of supply, its forward thinking and its forward planning. It is not recognized as such only in North America, but also throughout the world -- including the Hamilton-Wentworth area that we are speaking to in this legislation.

An overabundance of supply does have an effect upon rates. Many members -- a few opposite and the odd one in the third party -- take a capitalization cost and say that is the only cost of the overabundance of supply. They fail to recognize many other important considerations. They do not talk about the net revenues that accrue to the hydro users in the province because of export sales. They do not talk about the very positive benefits of being able to shut down some of the higher-cost generating capacity in this province.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: There is really nothing out of order.

Ms. Gigantes: I do not understand how it can be taken that he is speaking to the principle of the bill. He is launching into an enormous, long-winded defence of Hydro overcapacity.

Mr. Speaker: I am listening very carefully and, when there is something out of order, I will draw it to the members’ attention.

Mr. Ashe: I am glad to hear that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

I made specific notes relative to the honourable members opposite who spoke to the so-called principle of the bill, and I am trying to respond to them in the order that I noted them. I think the record will show exactly that.

There was reference made to overbuilding and 4,000 megawatts, and I am responding to that point. We all know that much of the system is not utilized because we do have the supply of hydraulic and we do have the supply of nuclear. It is those stations, using nonrenewable resources, that we are reducing at a time when we are trying throughout the world to cut down on our use of coal, oil and natural gas. These are the systems that are not operating because we have the opportunity to substitute with other forms of generation.

There was also reference made to the additional availability of 10,800 megawatts of hydraulic generation. In a straight number, yes, that is quite true. But, believe it or not, Ontario Hydro and others do look upon what is acceptable in this day and age environmentally and financially, and there is no doubt at all that 10,800 megawatts is not practical at all; about 2,000 megawatts is, and it is being examined in much more detail.

Mr. J. Reed: They never studied it.

Mr. Ashe: The member for Halton-Burlington is going off on a tangent, and I would love to respond, but respecting you, Mr. Speaker, and what we are trying to accomplish, I will pass at this point.

I am not quite sure whether the member for Wentworth is now supporting one-tier government in the Hamilton-Wentworth area. If he is, I wish he would get up and say so to this Legislature or to his constituents. If what he wants is a one-tier utility, I do not see how he can rationalize that position and at the same time say he does not want a one-tier regional government. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, which is somewhat incompatible, to put it very bluntly.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Isaacs: it is unrelated.

Mr. Ashe: It is completely related. I will give the member for Wentworth the benefit of the doubt, recognizing he was part of the municipal system and has not been around here too long. But it is too bad that, when he was in the municipal system, he did not know what was going on around him in the restructuring process. If he did, he would not have mentioned many of the time frames he did.

If he had been aware of the system, he would know there was a local study group, which had representation from all areas, that made up the committee that looked into restructuring. They, in turn, had a technical committee -- a resource group, as they called it -- which looked into all the items that were referred to: one-tier rates and combination rates, if one puts this municipality with that one or puts these three together. They looked at the projected rates for 1979 as well as the revenue requirements. They projected that same revenue requirement and anticipated rate to 1982.

This has been public information since May 1979, not May 1980. He seems to imply that these figures have been hidden from himself and the people he purports to represent. This has been available since May 1979. Nothing is being hidden by this government, by the members of that study team or the resource group behind it. I am quite sure, if the member had a better line of communication with the council in his area, he would be aware that they are aware of the numbers that are in here. Regardless of what the rumours are, they are there.

In terms of who makes the ultimate decision as to service areas and whether they charge all of their users the same rate or not, it is quite rightly the decision of the local utility, in this government’s view. If they want to have a different rate for the present service area from that for the new service area, that is their decision. We do not impose that decision on them. I would suggest to the member that most utilities will not go that route including, among others, the one that will be serving Stoney Creek. One of the reasons was to rationalize the rate over a total area.

The member was correct in two things. There is no doubt if there was a one-tier utility in the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth or if the areas he described, Dundas and Stoney Creek, went together with Hamilton, then his area municipality would benefit. This was a well-known fact.

The member’s elected representatives at the municipal level made the conscious decision that they were quite prepared to suffer, if that is the right word, the consequences of paying the higher rate for having a local utility but also having local autonomy. At least they were being consistent, because they have carried forth the same view vis-à-vis representation and regional government as a whole, whether it be one-tier or two-tier government. At least they are being consistent. The honourable member is not, I must say. In any event, they are aware of this.

There is also no doubt it is true in Stoney Creek as well as in pretty well all other areas that have taken a present rural area and added it to a present urban area -- in many cases it is only the urban area that has been served in the past -- that generally what happens is that the rural area comes down and the urban area in the short term goes up. It varies from municipality to municipality.

Also in the projections, they tried to see the advantages of that kind of amalgamation and the economy of service they could provide. They do not have to double everything by doubling the service area and so on. In the long run, it was felt they could give a better service at a more responsible level rate to all of the people they serve rather than just in the localized, urban area.

They key point I want to make in responding to the member for Wentworth is that there is nothing out of order and nothing untoward in the process. In terms of who should get the bill first, I can just imagine that one of the first members who would stand up in his place on a point of order if the government started distributing legislation before we tabled it in here would be the member for Wentworth, among others, and quite rightly so: Yes, we talked about the principles of the bill. Yes, the legislation has generally been based on the study team’s report.

We do not always agree 100 per cent, but they are aware of the principles and, as members know, we have had dialogue with the members that represent each area.

When the bill is finally printed, in each and every case of restructuring in this province, we have had copies of the bills delivered by courier in the quantities needed as soon as they were available from the presses. That is not the day they are introduced in this Legislature, I can assure the honourable member. They are just not available that quickly. It takes a day or two to print them. On the same day as we get them they are distributed by courier to the areas affected. Nothing was handled differently in the Hamilton-Wentworth area from the way it was done in Ottawa-Carleton or in all others that preceded it.

I appreciate the support of the member for Wentworth North for the bill. He got into the rate question, which I will not go over again, as to whether Hydro is running wild. That is a point of view that, needless to say, I do not support, for the reasons I have expressed previously.

Generally, I think it is safe to say that for this piece of legislation, as with the previous bill, there is general support in this Legislature. There is also general support in the area and in the municipalities this legislation is designed to serve.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

House in committee of the whole.

OTTAWA-CARLETON MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTHIC SERVICE ACT

Consideration of Bill 92,

An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in certain area municipalities in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

Section 1 agreed to.

section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Sterling moves that

section 2(6)1 be amended by deleting “two” and substituting therefor “three,” and that

section 2(6)2 be amended by deleting “two” and substituting therefor “one.”

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, this board, as outlined in the present section, would have a membership of five: the mayor, two members from within the village of Richmond, and two members from without the village of Richmond. My proposal is that the membership would be composed of the mayor, three members within and one without the village of Richmond.

The reason I am proposing this change is that the majority of the business of the hydro commission relates only to the village of Richmond, which is a community of 2,500 people,

whereas there are 9,000 people in the township of Goulbourn. Their business is of little interest to the rest of the township of Goulbourn at this time.

There are no present plans to widen the scope of the area that is covered by the hydro commission, as most of the area surrounding the village of Richmond is agricultural land, and therefore there are no densely populated areas in the immediate area of the village of Richmond.

3:20 p.m.

As mentioned in my earlier remarks, the township of Goulbourn asked that all representation from outside the village of Richmond be eliminated; in other words, that the board should be composed of three: two representatives from the village, and the mayor.

Unfortunately, I cannot support their particular proposal because of the arguments put forward by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), in that there is some interest in the township’s having an outside representative on that board. That is because the eventual liability could fall on the township’s shoulders. That, in general, is related to the fact that the contract to supply bulk power is made between the township and Ontario Hydro, and the commission is an agent of the township.

I feel that, with one person from outside, any proposals for expansion would be brought forward by that person to the council, which makes the ultimate decision in terms of expansion of the hydro area, and that there would be someone there who would be concerned, with the rest of the ratepayers in the township of Goulbourn, as to the ultimate liability of the township. Therefore, I am proposing this amendment and urge the members to support it.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to go through all of the discussion I went through before as to the rationalization behind it. Frankly, I think the amendment still recognizes the spirit of having the input from those areas of the municipality not being served by the utility. That part, I think, covers most of the concerns that I did have.

Having said that, there is no doubt that I could argue equally vehemently that it should also be a balanced view, with the mayor holding what we may call, for lack of a better description, the balance of power, if there were ever a conflict or opposing views concerning the two-and-two philosophy.

That is the only concern I have about the three-one setup. Effectively, the liaison is there, but any meaningful voting power is removed with the three-one split; this again assumes that the mayor is always there with an unbiased, overview position representing the whole municipality. That is not there any longer, because we already have three-one, which could become three-two if the mayor sided with the one vote.

That still does cause me some concern, and I think two-two, overall, is fairer; but if, in the opinion of this committee, three-one-one is in order, I think at least part of the concerns about ongoing input and review capabilities are also there. So I think it is better than total removal.

What I am saying is, I think the

section as amended is best. The amendment as put forward is second best, but I do not have strong feelings against it.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word on this. I am somewhat bemused, having sat through the morning with both the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) and the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), and having discussed the representation on the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

An incredible amount of philosophy was put forward in support of the idea that the city of Ottawa, although it has the bulk of the population of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, has no right to come forward with the request that would have assured that it was close to being represented, in terms of representation by population, on the regional council of Ottawa-Carleton.

We heard arguments from the member for Carleton-Grenville at that meeting this morning about how it would do so much for harmony in the Ottawa-Carleton regional municipality if we could just get Ottawa to sacrifice its vote so that everybody who lived outside Ottawa would feel that it was not trying to overpower the rest of the municipalities within Ottawa-Carleton.

We have before us an amendment which seems to me to conflict with the very philosophy he enunciated this morning. I just wish he could explain the idea he has put forward here now, which the parliamentary assistant seems to accept. I can understand some reason for it, although I think one has to think in terms of the relative populations of the two service areas that are being combined here and wonder whether, under the growth conditions that will be occurring in the area, it is enough to have one vote from the township of Goulbourn. That vote is not going to carry much weight. It will be a liaison, as the parliamentary assistant says.

I can certainly see more reason for the proposition of spreading the votes around in this case than perhaps I could this morning, yet this very same member who this morning called upon the city of Ottawa to show its generosity of spirit and commitment to the regional municipal theory of government in Ontario is now saying to us it is going to be the village of Richmond which will end up with the liability.

My goodness, if the village of Richmond eventually has to face up to liabilities -- and we are not predicting that is going to happen; the honourable member is worrying about the final analysis I presume -- there are three votes on that commission as it is proposed in the bill that would provide protection.

The mayor of the township of Goulbourn is surely going to have a concern about that. What is the great fear? I don’t understand it and I don’t understand how this principle comes forward this afternoon when it was rejected by the very same member this morning. Perhaps he can explain, and if he can explain, he can convince me.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, maybe it is a lack of understanding of exactly where this commission serves or what it does serve. It serves only the village of Richmond. They don’t serve anybody else in the township as far as that goes, so therefore, in terms of the day-to-day operation, what is happening with the commission generally never comes before anybody else in that township at this time. There is no planning going on. There are no services outside of the Richmond area, and I really think it is stretching the point to compare it to the city of Ottawa and the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

When we talk about the impact the regional municipality has on the rural areas it is very significant. They hold the overall planning powers for the areas outside of the city of Ottawa, and that is the major objection to not having an equal representation, as between the city of Ottawa and the other municipalities.

In this particular case, the only people who are really interested in the commission are the people within Richmond. The ultimate financial responsibility doesn’t lie with the commission, it lies with the council. The commission will go to the council when it wants to borrow money, and the council will ultimately deal with it, and deal with the problem of expansion, if that is going to take place, if it wants that to take place.

Therefore, in proposing this amendment I have tried to balance the interest of the other township residents outside, who have very little to do with the business of the commission, with those people who in fact are using it on a day-to-day basis. I think the balance in terms of three to one to one is more equitable in this situation, and it is as simple as that.

Ms. Gigantes: The advantage in terms of rates under this proposal is going to go to those people who are served by the new commission. It will be going to the people in Richmond. It is those very people in the township of Goulbourn outside the town of Richmond who will be paying the Ontario Hydro rates and he says they have no interest in the ongoing everyday business of what that commission will be doing over the next few years.

3:30 p.m.

I suggest that they will indeed have an interest. For the member to say that the city of Ottawa has ultimate planning control over the outlying area municipalities of the Ottawa-Carleton region and, therefore, the cases are totally dissimilar is just not the case.

The city of Ottawa has participated in planning decisions that affected the outlying municipalities, but it has never voted as a bloc as it has done so in planning terms. Secondly, the outlying municipalities under the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act have exerted planning decisions which affected the downtown core of the city of Ottawa. That is the way life is and that is the way it has worked. This member this morning was lecturing the city of Ottawa about how it should continue to work that way and more so.

I think he is going to have to make up his mind on the principle involved here. I think the principle is very much the same indeed. I wonder how those several thousand people in the township of Goulbourn are going to feel when we go back to them and say: “Instead of having two votes in this new reorganized area, you who will be paying the higher rate in the reorganized area will only have one vote.

You are going to have one vote because it is the township of Richmond which eventually has to pay the bill.” Of course, this was an argument he rejected when it was presented in terms of the city of Ottawa within the Ottawa-Carleton regional municipality this morning. One did not discuss the fact that the city of Ottawa pays 65 per cent of the Ottawa-Carleton regional municipality taxes.

Mr. Sterling: How much did they spend?

Ms. Gigantes: Sixty-five per cent. And the minister would not even give them an extra seat. The city of Ottawa raises 65 per cent. The minister did not take that into account this morning.

Just what is the principle here and what are people going to say in the township of Goulbourn? They are not being advantaged by this situation except in that they get representation in the reorganized commission. Unless they get that representation, how are they being advantaged? Perhaps the member could explain that.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong this. The fact of the matter is that if the township of Goulbourn and its municipal council had asked this Legislature to give representation on the hydro commission to residents of Richmond alone, I would take that as some point of leadership as to what that township wants.

Only one councillor comes from the village of Richmond, as well as the mayor. But there are three other councillors who do not come from the village of Richmond. If this was their concern, then they would have expressed that in terms of wanting it maintained the same way as it is now. The parallels are just a little bit ridiculous, I have to say to the member for Carleton East. The similarities are so wide apart that for the member to draw any parallel is just a little bit beyond belief in this case.

Mr. Isaacs: If I can comment, Mr. Chairman I certainly support the remarks made by my colleague from Carleton East. I think there is one other factor that is being forgotten in this debate. There was a study committee set up in Ottawa-Carleton, the same as in Hamilton-Wentworth, which I was very well aware of and which the parliamentary assistant described before.

The procedures that have led to this bill were presumably discussed by all the municipal councils and presumably the draft bill at some stage was presented to those municipal councils. Though if it worked in Ottawa-Carleton the way it worked in Hamilton Wentworth I do not know whether they were really satisfied with what they got. But there were representatives of Goulbourn on the steering committee and they were involved in setting up this procedure.

At the last minute, the member for the area comes rushing in with an amendment that they suddenly discovered they needed. I have to ask why this has arisen at the last minute and why that council did not have its input when it should have done back in the smooth flow of the procedure.

Mr. Ashe: Being fair to the member referred to, this is not a new concern as expressed particularly by the mayor of that municipality. I will acknowledge that. That has been her position particularly. I cannot say it has been until recently the position of the council particularly, but there is no doubt it was the position of the mayor for some time. Again, I repeat, I support the bill the way it is. I think the balance is fair overall and, therefore, I have to be opposed to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 2 agreed to.

Sections 3 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 93 reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Snow, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 65,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any remarks on this bill, which includes various amendments. I commented on them at the introduction of the bill. I would like to say I will be asking that this bill go into committee. I would ask for consent of the House to add a

section to Bill 65 which was not within the scope of the bill as introduced on May 1. The proposed additional

section was distributed to opposition critics a considerable time ago.

Subsequent to first reading we became aware of an appeal which is currently before the Supreme Court of Ontario and which puts the effectiveness of

section 147 in question. This is a

section that permits the owner of a vehicle to be charged instead of the driver for most offences committed under the act except moving offences. This concept has been a basic provision of the act since 1905.

As an example, if the intent of the

section were not upheld by the courts, we would have no choice but to charge individual truck drivers with weight offences and vehicle defects rather than the carriers for whom they work. This would in many cases, I think in most cases, be unfair to the drivers and would largely nullify the registrar’s disciplinary powers under

section 27 with respect to vehicle permits.

In view of the impact of an unfavourable court decision while the House is in recess, I feel that corrective action should be taken today. I ask for consent to re-enact

section 147 in a clearer form.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. MacBeth): The minister is asking for that consent now, and I gather the House has agreed.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, it is unlikely we would have an unfavourable decision while we are in recess because, while we are, usually the courts are in recess as well. I do not know if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

We support the legislation, and I am going to restrict my comments in the hope that will move this debate a little faster. I welcome the series of amendments in this particular bill. I am not going to go through them item by item because I believe they are self-explanatory. But I am particularly attracted to several items and I want to commend the minister for bringing them in, specifically, the changes as they relate to vehicles themselves.

I am appreciative of the amendments that will more clearly define the safety problems inherent in cars that have been tampered with.

3:40 p.m.

Those of us who do any kind of driving on the highways see all sorts of -- I guess I would refer to it as creativity on the parts of owners of certain vehicles. Cars are jacked up sometimes to an almost absurd height. With some of these cars one can almost actually feel the aggression of the owner by taking a look at it. I am not necessarily making a comment with regard to an offensive looking Woody Woodpecker on the rear fender. But we see them all the time, and one almost wishes sometimes he were an officer of the law, or that an officer of the law were close by to apprehend some of these people.

I am not saying everybody who has a jacked-up car and excessively wide tires is an irresponsible driver, but I would certainly like to see the accident statistics as they relate to these types of vehicles.

I can recall visiting in Saskatchewan with the select committee on company law and looking at one of the accident claims centres there. Because of their government insurance system they have government claims centres. They even have government body shops, I think. I do not necessarily subscribe to that point of view, but I do recall --

Mr. Bradley: Were they on strike when you were there?

Mr. Cunningham: I didn’t know they were on strike at that time.

I do recall looking with interest at the vehicles that were coming in. It was generally the habit of the driver of the vehicle to bring his or her car in when repairs or body work were required. Invariably, a lot of the drivers were younger males, and I think our insurance rates reflect that; certainly theirs do.

I saw a lot of cars that I would refer to as having been tampered with. They were jacked up. They had funny things done to their suspensions that I am not technically qualified to comment on. But I think if Ford or GM or anybody else wanted cars to be made that way they would have made them that way in the first place -- wide tires, noisy mufflers and a series of all sorts of other inventions that I don’t think are in keeping with safe driving and safety on the highways. So I support that aspect of the legislation and I welcome its adoption, especially the provisions as they relate to tires. I think it is a common-sense provision.

The minister has had meetings, I believe, with a constituent of his with regard to the product called Reflecto which they put on car windows now. This is becoming a bit of a problem, and I suppose that is why we are seeing it in the legislation today. I welcome that move as well. The only caveat I would offer is that we do not interpret this provision with a great deal of licence. I would prefer that we tread lightly on that.

I think it is all right as long as one can see through a window from a certain distance -- and I would hope that some consideration is given to people who have tinted windshields -- as long as the police can see in them. I think that is the principle behind the amendment as I understand it.

I have discussed it with the minister. I have his assurance that the regulations will be fair and equitable. I don’t want to see somebody in a situation where they have to have the windows in their car replaced or they have to incur a great deal of expense when one actually can see into the car. But I find it disturbing to drive on the highways and see a car beside me and it almost seems as if one is looking into a state trooper’s sunglasses. One can’t see what is going on in that car and one often wonders what is going on in those cars. I know the member for --

Mr. Nixon: I wonder about your car sometimes.

Mr. Cunningham: My car is just fine. When the member passes my car, though, he goes so fast he can’t see it.

I hope when the minister brings in those regulations that fairness is considered and a lot of people will not have to go to a great deal of expense. I’m also concerned about the people who are in the legitimate business of promoting a form of tinting, which I suppose helps people with sun glare and helps reduce the heat from the sun. I hope they are not put in a position of disadvantage.

I welcome the amendments, and I think most of them are excellent.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, we are in support of the bill. We see a number of safety measures in this bill which we certainly welcome and I am sure they will be welcomed by the public.

The safety measure concerning the proper use of tires is one that is particularly attractive and I think if we look at the kinds of accidents that have occurred, this will certainly add to the safety of vehicles.

The alternative of handing in your plates if, in fact, you are not prepared at a particular time to drive a vehicle which has been found to be unsafe is also attractive. Some people are going to be put in a particularly difficult situation at times and this solves that particular problem and gives them some options.

I was talking to the minister about

section 7 just before this bill came on for debate and received some assurances which I gather from what the Liberal critic has said he has also received. I do have a memo from Mr. J. E. Mundy, from Ener-Gard, who expresses some concern that this proposed amendment is terribly vague and that in fact companies such as his, which shouldn’t be disadvantaged, may in fact be disadvantaged. I recognize there is a study going on in the US and the minister has said once that study is completed and regulations come out there, he in turn will try and follow suit.

With that kind of safeguard, I do not see any reason to delete this section, as I might have earlier had some inclination to do. Certainly, as the minister pointed out to me, one never knows when a certain new fad may come on the market and we may suddenly be flooded with a whole bunch of people putting up these kinds of view obstructions and making enforcement so much more difficult.

Section 9, which is the provision to stop some of the various manifestations of what we shall call art work -- some of it is art; some of it, it seems to me, more to be ego tripping -- is certainly going to be extremely welcome. I only wish that at the same time we could have done something about some of the noisy mufflers, which certainly are as much of a nuisance as some of these fellows running around in these jacked-up cars in my area.

I have no objection to

section 10(2), but why has the minister introduced it at this time? Has he had any complaints? What was the reason behind it? I am sure the minister has had some submissions on this and I would like to know why there is a need for the change at this time.

Certainly

section 19 will be welcomed by a number of municipalities. I guess it overcomes a number of enforcement problems, but there is a problem that we are going to hear about from the trucking industry and more particularly from the drivers. It is a problem which I brought to the minister and suggested that he and the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) should do something about. That problem is that if you stop trucks from going in the outside lane then you have to do something about those people who drive at snail’s pace in the centre passing lane.

Otherwise, there is another safety problem, namely that the trucker, even though he shouldn’t, will tailgate. He can’t pass on the inside lane because the fellow driving there is doing 30 miles below the speed limit and the fellow in the middle lane is doing 20 miles below the speed limit and we have passed a law that says he can’t use the outside lane. I recognize, as does the industry, that it makes sense not to have large vehicles in the third lane, but at the same time we simply must do more in terms of driver education, enforcement and penalizing those who drive and obstruct traffic in the middle lane.

Those are the only comments I have on this bill. I welcome it and it has our full support.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: I want to participate just briefly. As some of the members are aware, some of my views on the Highway Traffic Act are somewhat unorthodox, but I want to put them anyway on

section 9, forbidding jacking up the rear ends and modifying the suspension.

One of the greatest things for a young man is to fiddle around with a car. The minister well knows there are certain people who are very interested in that. I am not one; actually I am not very handy. I can turn the key and make it go, but when it comes to any modifications, it is game over. When the ashtray gets full, I trade the car, but that is another matter.

I always have a great deal of respect for young people, usually young men, often those who have very little interest in school work or really anything else, but who get really entranced with fooling around and modifying cars. I suppose it is dangerous. My friend from Essex North (Mr. Ruston) from his own experience tells me that one cannot control those jacked-up cars in a skid.

I feel we are getting pretty conservative in our controls. Pretty soon everybody is going to be so uniform that any opportunity actually to put on a few extra lights and modify a car so that it is a little different from one’s neighbour’s is all going to be illegal. I want to sound that little warning.

The other thing I want to bring to the minister’s attention is a matter of urgent importance. It can be related to

section 11(2), Mr. Speaker, though I know you do not want us to discuss sections specifically. That is where the bill deals with school buses.

We have a rule that if one owns a bus it cannot be painted yellow and black. Some of my constituents are big farmers who have acres of strawberries. They have bought school buses that are fully inspected, properly licensed and everything else. They come under all the regulations appropriately. They use these to drive into the city -- the city of Brantford usually -- to get young people and take them out to the strawberry fields to do the work. They have been informed by the minister’s officials that the bus must not be yellow because there is liable to be some confusion and people are perhaps going to get into accidents. There is going to be some additional danger, so they must paint it.

My constituents object to this. They say if they are not going to be able to use the yellow bus the alternative is to phone up a chartered bus operator locally, pay $100 a day minimum and then the bus that arrives is a yellow and black bus. That is a proper school bus that is used during the school season as a school bus.

This is a place where we in the Legislature have sort of overregulated ourselves. I have asked the minister’s officials and the minister himself finally to find a proper solution so that my constituents can use these buses that are inspected for safety for the use for which they were intended, that is, transporting young people, in this instance in agricultural pursuits.

So far I have not been informed that any solution is available except to paint the bus. Maybe that is what they will have to do, but I am sure the minister with his well-known intelligence and his independence -- he is one of the few ministers who actually runs his ministry -- can cut through the baloney of all the people who say there is no solution and find a solution. I really think the present situation is inappropriate. Otherwise, this is a great bill.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable members for their comments regarding this bill.

The members for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) and Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) made reference to

section 7 of the bill relating to the coloured coating obscuring the glass. I appreciate their concerns and their comments. It is not our intention to prohibit the tinting or darkening of the glass for the normal purposes that one has tinted glass in an automobile. The wording in the bill says “any coloured spray or other coloured or reflective material that substantially obscures the interior of the motor vehicle when viewed from outside the motor vehicle.”

I realize we have to rely at this moment on the wording “substantially obscures.” I think the reflective coatings that totally obscure the view are the ones I am really after, and they obviously would meet the requirements of the term, “substantially obscures.” I think, Mr. Speaker, that as a lawyer you would agree with me on that legal point. Would you?

Mr. Acting Speaker: The chair has no comment.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In any case, we are very concerned about problems that have been brought to me, in which people are starting, not in a big way, to put reflectorized film on the windshield and side windows of the driver’s compartment of a vehicle, thus totally obscuring the driver. In cases of accident, witnesses are unable to identify the driver of the vehicle, and things of this type. This has been recommended to me by the Ontario Traffic Conference, by the Ontario Safety League, and by others.

The member for Etobicoke mentioned

section 10(2) of the bill. That is a change in which we are deleting the requirement for road building machinery on a highway construction project to bear the name and address of the owner. Most contractors who own their own equipment would obviously have their names on the machines. But, given today’s economy, many operate leased equipment; they lease equipment from another contractor or from an equipment leasing company, and they do not particularly want to display the name of another contractor or a leasing company on equipment which is on their project.

When there is a sign up on the project that says ABC Contracting, they don’t want XYZ’s name on the equipment. That is the reason for that minor modification.

Section 19 was the next one mentioned. That is the provision to allow a municipality to designate that the inside lane of a three-lane highway not be used by the larger trucks. That is the same provision we have for our provincial highways, and would apply to the Don Valley Parkway or the Gardiner Expressway. I was surprised that they did not have that kind of authority now but apparently it has never been in the act. We are bringing the municipal authority into line to enable it to do exactly what we do on our provincial three-lane-or-more and one-direction highways.

I recognize the honourable member’s comments regarding people who get into that centre lane and drive at a slow speed. We discussed this at great length during our estimates. There is a provision in the Highway Traffic Act that a person must not drive at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal or reasonable movement of traffic. I know how hard that is to enforce, and probably it is not enforced to a great degree by my colleague the Solicitor General and his police forces across the province. On the other hand, I have not had very many complaints about that particular problem myself.

I drive about as much as most people on those highways, and I really have not found too many people holding me back in the centre lane or any other.

In speaking to the remarks of my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), I did not know he was such a hot rod fan as his interest would indicate. We really do feel that these situations in which people put major modifications on automobiles, in particular, jacking up the rear end to an abnormally high position, are dangerous. I realize people are not supposed to rear-end any vehicles, but when it does happen in such a case it is very dangerous. The car can run underneath, rupture the gas tank and, if it is done at a high speed, the car in front can end up on top of the car that hit it.

This is an amendment that has been recommended by the Ontario Safety League and the Traffic Council.

4 p.m.

With regard to the yellow buses for the farmer and his strawberry pickers, the legislation states that the yellow and black colouring is reserved for school buses, so they can be readily identified. I do not have a total explanation, but we do allow those buses to do charter trips. I presume it is provided in the legislation that they can use their school bus, with the school bus sign covered up, for charter for other purposes. I think that is part of the economy of the whole business, that they have the right to use those buses for charters.

We do not allow buses for other purposes to use the yellow and black colours, I think for obvious reasons. Contractors, construction companies and many industries have buses for carrying employees to and from places of work, and church organizations have their own buses --

Mr. Cunningham: Election buses?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Election buses, yes -- none of them are yellow and black.

Mr. Cunningham: I hear they’re really well equipped.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Never having been in one, I wouldn’t know.

I understand -- the honourable member brought this to my attention before -- that the farmer in this particular case bought a used but mechanically fit and certified school bus in order to carry employees to and from his farm operation, and he is not allowed to leave it yellow and black.

The honourable member and I have some disagreement, but not of a major nature. I think if we are going to have

an act that reserves the yellow and black colouring for the use of school vehicles, we have to apply that legislation to everybody.

I do not have an answer for the honourable member’s constituent, other than to advise him to do a paint job on his bus.

I think that answers the comments that were made by the members.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 65,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Sections 1 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.

section 19:

Mr. Philip: Regarding

section 19, and the minister’s comments, that he had not had very many complaints about the problem of the middle lane, I would point out to him that I did give him a petition, with I forget how many thousands of signatures -- 6,000 or 7,000 -- complaining about that. Most of those were from truckers driving in his area, and from his riding and the surrounding ridings between his area and the Hamilton, Rexdale and Toronto areas. He has had that many complaints. It does not relate directly to this bill, and therefore I am not going to expect an answer, but I would just make the point.

Section 19 agreed to.

section 20:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“

(20) Section 147 of the said act as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1975, second session,

chapter 14,

section 2, and 1976,

chapter 37,

section 18, is repealed, and the following substituted therefor:

“147(1). Subject to subsection 2, the owner of a vehicle may be charged with and convicted of an offence under this act or the regulations or any municipal bylaw regulating traffic for which the driver of the vehicle is subject to he charged unless, at the time of the offence, the vehicle was in the possession of some person other than the owner without the owner’s consent and on conviction the owner is liable to the penalty prescribed for the offence.

“

(2) The owner of a vehicle, except when he is also the driver, shall not be convicted for the contravention of any of the provisions of subsection 3 or 6 of

section 63a or of sections 82 to 114, 117, 120, 125 or 139 or any regulation or bylaw made or passed thereunder or under subsection 8 of

section 63a or of any of the provisions of any bylaw passed under any act regulating or prohibiting turns on a highway.”

Hon. Mr. Snow further moves that sections 20, 21 and 22 of the bill be renumbered as sections 21, 22, and 23 respectively.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, I know this particular item is found in the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act. It is the same as where the owner can be charged even if the owner is not the driver. Am I correct?

Hon. Mr. Snow: May I explain it? Perhaps the honourable member was not in the House when I explained this amendment at the beginning of the bill.

This amendment has nothing to do with the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act. It is the Highway Traffic Act. We are making an amendment because of a case that is before the Supreme Court of Ontario right now. We do not know what the outcome of that case will be, but if the court were to rule against the act, then we would not be able to charge a trucker, for instance, for overloading his truck. We would have to charge the driver rather than the owner. We would have to charge the driver of a car for a parking ticket rather than the owner of the car.

Because of this case that is before the courts, and because a decision may come down during the summer, we are rewording this clause to clarify that situation.

Mr. Warner: I understand that, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate it. I understand the problem the minister faces. Certainly if a trucking company is involved in deliberate overloading and so on, and we want to get at the owner, that is fine. But it seems to me there is another side to it.

We came up against this in the Petty Trespass Act. There was a similar situation, and a similar kind of clause was put into that bill. In that instance, it meant that if a person who owned a car lent it to someone else, and the person to whom he lent it committed some kind of minor offence, such as trespassing, a third party could then lay a charge. If they could not identify the driver of the vehicle, they could lay a charge against the owner. I do not agree with that. It seems to me it is not a very good part of a fair system of justice.

The person who commits the offence is the person who should be charged, and not a third party who is innocent. He did not do anything wrong; he did not commit an offence. Maybe the minister should ferret out the part that applies to the trucking industry and deal with it separately.

4:10 p.m.

As I read this amendment, it seems to me that the minister is dealing with all vehicles, with all drivers and with all owners. There is no differentiation. Am I correct in that? If I am not, then that is fine; we can end it here. But as I read over the amendment, it deals with all vehicles, all drivers and all owners. It does not make a differentiation between certain classes of vehicles.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think the honourable member is correct on that. But it does not apply to moving offences, for instance; it applies to offences unrelated to the driver. It does not only apply to trucks; it also applies to cars. One would not be able to issue a parking ticket for a car parked in front of a fire hydrant on University Avenue unless the policeman happened to be right there and identified the driver and then charged the driver with illegal parking. The police would not be able to go up and down the street finding illegally parked vehicles and ticket them. So basically we would do away with parking fines without this provision.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify this: It does not apply to moving violations; that is what the minister was just saying.

That is a little better. We certainly encountered the concept in the Petty Trespass Act which I objected to -- and, fortunately, my colleagues in this party objected to it; no one else did -- of charging someone with an offence when the person did not commit the offence. That seems to me to be the wrong thing to do. We should be charging people who commit offences. However, if it does not apply to moving offences, then I think there is sufficient safeguard in there, and I will agree with the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It applies to equipment defects. If a vehicle is stopped on the highway for being unsafe -- for example, if a truck going through one of the truck inspection stations is found to have poor brakes -- we would not be able to lay a charge against the transport company that owns the vehicle. We would have to lay the charge against the driver without this provision if the court case goes against us. It is before the courts now; we recognize there is some uncertainty in the act and we want to correct it regardless of which way the court case goes.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, we have had representations from the unions, who have said this kind of thing is necessary. There are employees who have been intimidated by their employers into either driving unsafe vehicles or overloading. It should not be the driver, the employee, who is taking that responsibility. The real culprit is the person who has the authority of that company, and he is the one who should be found guilty of that offence.

That is what I believe the minister is trying to accomplish in this. That is clearly supportable. I think we will find that the drivers and the unions that represent them are supportive of this kind of amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Section 20 agreed to.

Sections 21 to 23, inclusive, as renumbered, agreed to.

Bill 65, as amended, reported.

LIBEL AND SLANDER ACT

Consideration of Bill 1,

An Act to amend The Libel and Slander Act.

section 1:

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on

section 1 which was amended in the committee and I don’t have any objection to that. My objection would be to

section

Section 1 agreed to.

section 2:

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I think most people would agree that the wording in

section 2 is a little conflicting, although there was a minor change made in it in the committee. There was a recommendation made by the Ontario Press Council through its solicitor, Mr. J. J. Robinette; however, that recommendation was not accepted by the committee.

The problem I have is that the

section is too broad and leaves anyone putting something in the paper or news media or whatever almost free to comment in any way he wishes. One of the submissions we had made to the committee was from Moreland A. Lynn from Midland, Ontario. I just want to mention one or two items with regard to his objection to it:

“The adoption of the proposed amendment would allow a defence of fair comment if a person could honestly hold the opinion expressed in the material published. On the surface this amendment may appear to be simple and easily applied. There is no question in this writer’s opinion that the majority of letter writers would state that they honestly held the opinion they expressed if they were challenged in a court of law.

“What constitutes an honest opinion? How does one judge whether an opinion is honestly held? Is ignorance of fact or failure to determine the facts grounds for holding an honest opinion? This writer is also confident that editors and publishers would defend their letters to the editor policy by simply stating that people believe the writer to hold the opinion as an honest one.

“While the editor or publisher might not be correct in making this assumption because of the difficulty, cost, personal risk, loss of grace with the media and the general pain, anguish and other suffering, the vast majority of individuals maligned would not or could not seek recourse through the proper legal process. One cannot separate the practical matter of cost to the individual from the argument considering this amendment.”

The letter does go on, and comments are made with regard to the Cherneskey case, which has brought about this amendment. I have great reservations about this amendment; I realize that it has not been passed and that the committee brought it back to be passed here. The majority of those in the committee passed it. I think there is a great reservation on the part of those people who may be maligned by the comments made.

I have a copy of an

article which was published recently in the Windsor Star. This letter was sent to the member for Windsor-Sandwich and to the mayor of Windsor, who sent it on to the Windsor Star. It is very damning of their comments in general over the past couple of months.

I do not want to take a lot of time, Mr. Chairman, but he winds up his

article in this way: “Would you be so kind as to assist me and the people of this church in bringing this matter to the attention of those who may help put some controls on the licence of the Star under the guise of freedom of press.” It is signed by Mr. R. N. Gouliano of Glenwood United Church in Windsor. He has written a very good

article which covers his concerns with regard to sensationalism and reporting without grounds, making reports with regard to rumours and so forth.

It is a matter of the greatest concern to many members of the Ontario Press Council. They appeared before the committee and discussed this particular section. There were reservations with regard to some people in that area. I have the

article from pages 38 and 39 of

chapter 1, the chairman’s foreword, with regard to some of the comments they received from the press.

They wind up the last two paragraphs in this way: “The Cherneskey decision has not changed our policy. We would no more publish defamatory material in a letter to the editor than we would in our own news column. Both require the same vigilance. I do not believe publishers should try to escape the responsibility, and I do not believe the Cherneskey decision will inhibit letters to the editor. Therefore, I do not support the proposed amendment to the Ontario Libel and Slander Act.”

4:20 p.m.

There are great reservations about this. It says, “Where the defendant published defamatory matter that is an opinion expressed by another person, defence of fair comment by the defendant shall not fail for the reason only that the defendant or the person who expressed the opinion, or both, did not hold the opinion, if a person could honestly hold the opinion.”

That might he fine for the parliamentary assistant to diagnose, but my opinion is that whether one held the opinion or not, as long as one thought it was fair comment the judge would say one was not guilty and one could print almost anything one wanted. I see the parliamentary assistant is shaking his head that that was not what it meant, but I think it does mean that. I want to stress as strongly as I can that I oppose the reporting of this bill in its present form, especially

section 2.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, we give accord to the legislation as it has been thrashed out, winnowed though and shredded in committee, and has emerged in this way.

There still may be an ongoing, I might say, misunderstanding. The question has been asked, what constitutes an honest opinion? That is exactly why we have juries, honest people on juries, et cetera, objectively assessing the evidence, hearing and seeing and empathizing with, if one will, the witnesses, and able to decide, we think better than anyone else. It is not an arbitrary opinion of the judge or anyone else; it is a jury of peers that makes that decision.

The legislation does not come to all that much, having worked it all through. It comes precisely to that, that the whole problem has been shifted over, as it always was in any event, but it is made clear now that the problem reposes in the jury to determine whether it is fair or unfair comment.

Let us take a couple of instances. A writer writes a letter into a newspaper which is defamatory and brings some individual into disrepute in his community. The individual who is writing that letter does not believe or himself does not honestly hold that opinion. There are many instances in which he ought not to hold the opinion, and this is an element we have never discussed, and there are plenty of cases in which there is no reason why he should honestly hold it.

A neighbourhood may be riddled with rumours about something or somebody, usually about an elected official pulling off some stunt or ripping off the treasury or something, and no one speaks up. Wherever the potential letter-writer goes, he hears these words. He does not have a clue as to the truth or falsity. He does not believe them one way or the other. He writes a letter to the newspaper and says, “It has come to my attention that Mr. X is purloining the crown jewels, pearl by pearl.” There it is; it is not his opinion, nor ought it to be his opinion.

In the way of press freedom it is better that these things do get public exposure and be aired. Where the previous law seemed to say that the individual who did the writing or perpetrated the initial expression of the thing had to hold an honest opinion about it, the legislation goes further and says that is not necessary.

Secondly, when a letter comes into the hands of the publisher and goes to the editor’s desk, is there any reason in the world why the editor, in terms of freedom of speech, ought to hold the same opinion or an identical opinion or an honest opinion in line with the other honest opinion? It seems to me not, et cetera.

In no way in this legislation is he off the hook. Neither is the person who wrote the letter in the first instance, nor is the person who made the comment on TV off the hook if on all the evidence, cross-examination and the whole thing, digging out what his motives were and what was operating there, the jury comes to the conclusion that he could not possibly have held an honest opinion in this particular regard, but it was actuated. I am afraid we get into the grey zone and into the black zone of malice itself at that particular stage.

If it is done deliberately with malice aforethought and with intent to injure or irresponsibly, regardless of its consequences, then the results will follow, but they flow through the jury. So it comes out at the end that I have very considerable faith in juries, particularly in this particular kind of matter, where there is a shrewd assessment of human characteristics, motivations and what circumstances surround a situation. That is exactly why they exist and why we put faith in them. I think the legislation is fine now.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, I guess to say libel and slander law is difficult is to say the very least. It is less understood by the public and by lawyers of all the areas of law. This is probably one of the areas which we least encounter as practising lawyers.

The member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) was not able to be in committee because he was tied up with another committee. He did not have his chance at that time to express his concerns, and that is why he is expressing them today in the Legislature. There was presented at that time, however, a very clear and concise statement as to the law relating this particular amendment to the Libel and Slander Act.

It should be remembered that this law does not prevent a person from suing another person for a defamatory statement. All it does is give a defence to the publishers. It does not give a defence to the person who has actually made the statement. Secondly, the fair comment must be based on facts which are true. If the comment is not based on true facts, then it is not a fair comment. The change in the law in this area actually was what everybody thought the law was before the Cherneskey decision. Some people interpret that Cherneskey decision one way and other people interpret it another way.

This change in the Libel and Slander Act is to delineate clearly what the law is and what defence the publishers are entitled to.

I think the committee, in general, felt that on balance it was important for publishers, especially publishers of small weekly newspapers who do not have a legal staff, to have this protection in order to maintain the right of freedom of expression through letters to the editor. That is really the playoff and that is the balance. That is the decision the committee took and that this Legislature has taken on second reading. That is what the bill is all about.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of

section 2 standing as part of the bill will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 2 agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

Bill 1 reported.

4:30 p.m.

On motion by Hon. Miss Stephenson, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendment and one bill without amendment.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, our party, during the years I have had the honour to be the leader, has become more and more alarmed about the way in which environmental matters have been going from bad to worse in Ontario.

Some years ago, at the beginning of the 1970s, when the then Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) stated it was industry’s responsibility to clean up its waste, the polluter must pay and made other such ringing declarations that the people of Ontario believed action was around the corner.

When the Environmental Assessment Act was brought in, it looked as though Ontario was going to lead all other jurisdictions in terms of the quality of its environmental protection legislation. Sadly, what has happened, during the four or five years that I have had the opportunity to be a witness to these proceedings, is that the legislation has been more honoured by the avoidance of it than in its application. I suspect it has become the best-known, virtually unused legislation anywhere in the western world.

Instead of having the polluter pay, we have had a situation where the public has had to pay. The public has paid for the cleanup of lead in the Toronto area. The public has paid by means of grants for paper companies to do some cleanup when they were polluting water in various parts of Ontario. The public has to pay to have its point of view presented at various hearings in the environmental assessment process.

We have seen a situation where the environment has enjoyed a very low priority in the government of the present Premier (Mr. Davis). Time after time, he has appointed ministers who have not been given the resources with which to conduct an effective ministry. They have been trying to cope, as best they can, with a ministry that has been one of the most notoriously weak in the government of Ontario. They have been hampered by a lack of genuine policy on the part of this government.

The Premier has appointed a succession of ministers who, despite being well-meaning individuals -- as far as the present incumbent goes, he is one of the most pleasant gentlemen in the House; he is a well-meaning, sincere and principled individual -- none the less, have been unequal to the task of turning that ministry around and making it a truly effective protector of the heritage which is its responsibility.

In this particular debate, I do not want to engage in the usual kind of interpersonal rancour which seems to have marked a good many of our clashes in recent times. Believe it or not, on a personal level, I actually have a lot of respect and admiration for the minister and the way in which he conducts his personal life. I think he is sincere and well-meaning; I have come to that conclusion. But I honestly believe he is unequal to the task. It may be that nobody would be equal to the task of taking that ministry and making it an effective ministry.

Given the low priority that ministry enjoys in terms of the amount of money, the amount of effort and the amount of attention given to it by the Premier, it may be that nobody could run that ministry effectively. For sure, the present incumbent, despite the best of his intentions, has not been able to do so. Again, to give him credit, he has to bear not only the difficulties he has today, but a legacy of distrust, a legacy of bungling, a legacy of ignoring the real problems in Ontario.

This legacy was not of his creation. It is not his fault that is the reputation the ministry has had. But it is, unfortunately for him and for the people of Ontario, a genuine problem which he has inherited and which he does not been able to turn around, despite his sincere efforts to do so.

I would like to review with the House the dreadful lack of policy and to cite individual examples to indicate the way in which our environment has been mistreated in Ontario.

As I have said before in this House, so many of the arguments in which we engage on matters dealing with taxation, with health, with education, with culture and recreation and so on, so many of these debates, important as they are, will be forgotten 20 years from now, when my children will have grown into their 30s, when they will have their own children at an age able to understand and ask questions about the lakes, the rain, the trees, the grass and the chemicals in our environment.

They will be able to understand the kinds of illnesses which will be coming to light then, the kinds of blights which people will start to recognize then and the kinds of difficulties our streams and lakes will be in then.

It seems to me that 20 years from now, when they have forgotten our other arguments in this House, people will know that somehow or other we failed to protect the really sacred trust we have, which is the beautiful, the magnificent and the healthful natural environment that is Ontario’s heritage. They will know that somehow the people who lived at this time failed to take the steps to protect what really was not ours to consume, not ours to waste and not ours to despoil, but was ours only to conserve and protect for future generations. They will see that we did not do so.

Long after any possible contribution I might make to politics or to speeches or the record of this House will have been forgotten, I would hope that someone would recall, and that I, at least in my old age, should the good Lord allow me to live to that, will be able to look back and recall, that I did what I could and said what I could about the environment, an issue that means more to me than any other single issue.

In many ways it is the issue that brought me into politics. It is with considerable disappointment that I have to recite for this House and for you, Mr. Speaker, a litany of failure, a litany of hesitation, a litany of weakness, a litany of poor and inadequate responses due to a lack of genuine policy direction.

Let us look at the question of acid rain. No one believes that acid rain is primarily an Ontario problem. We all recognize it as an international problem. We all recognize that the experts differ among themselves on what percentage of the rain that originates here falls there, or that originates there falls here, and how it gets mixed up and so on.

Yet what we know for a fact is that 140 lakes in the Sudbury area are now considered biologically sterile. We know that we have the largest single polluter in that business of sulphur dioxide here on the soil of Ontario. We know that Inco is the largest polluter; we know that our own Hydro plants are significant polluters as well.

4:40 p.m.

The minister argues that the Americans are in some ways even worse and that the American plans for the future are in some ways even worse. They are, and this alarms me. It is a fact, and when I see that fact I am filled with terror, I am filled with loathing, I am filled with great fear about the future. It does not fill me with pleasure to be able to say, “Look at the Americans; they are worse than we are.” I don’t get any feeling of enjoyment out of that.

But we in Canada have to clean up our own act. If we have the largest polluter in North America and that polluter can clean up, that polluter should clean up. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. Yet we know the story of Inco. We know that all Inco has been asked to do by this minister is to continue to pollute at its present rate for another couple of years and then to make a modest reduction of 20 or 25 per cent. This is well within their capability without any extensive change except for a certain new process which they have already said they are prepared to do.

After that, there is going to be a study. We are going to see another of this government’s famous series of studies. Long after I have gone and forgotten this place, I will remember that this was the government which had a study for every occasion. There are some doctors I know who have a pill for every occasion. Whoever walks into the office gets a pill whether he needs it or not. Here, it seems to me, we have a government with a study for every occasion. It does not matter what the occasion is. Whether it has to do with the environment or anything else, they have a study for it.

A study is not what is needed. Enough studies have been done to show that Inco could clean up, that Inco could introduce a new type of furnace that would cost about $400 million but would recover close to $300 million from energy savings alone. It would incur a price hike in terms of the price of nickel which is very modest and not a real problem commercially speaking, and it would cut slightly into the profits of Inco in the short run.

What do we get instead from the ministry? We get an unwillingness to go to Inco and force the company to do that. We get the old blackmail, the old nonsense that it will cost jobs to clean up at Inco, when the truth is that it will create jobs to clean up at Inco. The union at Inco, to give it credit, had the courage to stand up and say it knew it would create jobs to clean up at Inco. But somehow or other, the minister is going to protect the union’s jobs better than the union itself.

He is prepared to stand up and buy the old blackmail that Inco likes to throw around and suggest to us that there will be fewer jobs. The truth is there will be a greater number of jobs with the cleanup and the minister should know that.

It is interesting, by way of an aside here -- and this will interest the members on all sides of the House -- that Inco has, as one of its growth areas, a subsidiary that makes pollution control equipment. Brokers are suggesting that people buy shares in Inco, pointing out that this is a real growth area for Inco -- the production, via its subsidiary, of pollution abatement equipment. What a company this is! They are prepared to make money on everybody else’s cleanups but they are somewhat hesitant to do their own. And they pull out the old chestnut of telling us that it is going to cost jobs.

The sulphur dioxide and the sulphuric acid from Inco can be used in a process which would produce fertilizer when combining the acid with phosphate rock. That would create hundreds of jobs in northern Ontario. But we do not hear about that from the minister. There is not a single study by his ministry looking into the possibility of creating a fertilizer manufacturing industry that would make use of Inco’s pollutant byproducts.

Basically, we believe Inco should be forced to clean up, that it should be forced within five years to come below 1,000 tons a day of sulphur dioxide, that it can do so, th