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

April 6, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L027 - Tue 6 Apr 1976 / Mar 6 avr 1976

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

ZAMBIA HIGH COMMISSIONER

OLYMPIC SKI TEAM

MOOSONEE FORCES BASE

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES

STUDY OF ONTARIO PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

ASBESTOS PROBLEM AT HEDMAN MINES LTD.

ASBESTOS-CANCER STUDY

DON BERE HOMES LTD.

RENT INCREASES

TRUCKERS’ BLOCKADE

ANAESTHETIC SYSTEM INSTALLATION

LICENSING OF LAY PREACHER TO PERFORM MARRIAGES

WENTWORTH TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

CLEANING CONTRACTS AT QUEEN’S PARK

POLICE USE OF PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS’ FILES

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES’ NEGOTIATIONS

SLUDGE STORAGE

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

ACCOMMODATION FOR CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE STUDENTS

RADIOACTIVITY AT PORT HOPE

DESIGN FOR ONTARIO LAND-USE PLAN

HOSPITAL CUTBACKS

KIRKLAND LAKE AREA BUILDING FREEZE

RENTAL CONSTRUCTION

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

ARBITRATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

COMMODITY BOARD MEMBERS ACT

DRAINAGE ACT AMENDMENT

TERRITORIAL DIVISION AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

LOCAL IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton East with a point of privilege.

Mr. Mackenzie: In the House last night, Mr. Speaker, there was a rather unfortunate fall in the public gallery. I understand it’s not the first one. It involved my constituency secretary, from my riding office, who is in some considerable pain today as a result of that fall. I had asked her to come over to the House last night.

I have spent some time up in the gallery this morning, going up and down the stairs where the fall occurred, checking the steps, checking the lighting and checking the railings. There is certainly, especially at night, inadequate lighting in those galleries and certainly a need for some light right at the stair level because of the different floor levels. There is a need for a railing of some kind at either end where one comes down. The lady suffered a rather severe cut on her wrist because there are almost razor sharp edges on the brass leaves on the metalwork at either end of the gallery.

It would seem to me that it would be in order for the Speaker to take a look at the safety measures in the gallery. It seems to me that if we had a safety inspector check it we’d be in real trouble in this House. I would request your office to take a look at the safety measures in the public galleries.

Mr. Speaker: In brief response, we are having a look at all these matters which the hon. member has raised and we certainly assure you that we will take whatever action it would appear necessary to improve the situation. They are dangerous steps to begin with, but I think we are very fortunate that we haven’t had more mishaps.

ZAMBIA HIGH COMMISSIONER

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. members, a distinguished guest whom we have in our Speaker’s gallery today in the person of His Excellency, Wilson Mofya Chakulya, the High Commissioner of Zambia to Canada.

OLYMPIC SKI TEAM

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to the House this afternoon, the members of Canada’s Olympic ski team, who are seated in Mr. Speaker’s gallery.

I am sure we are all pleased to welcome back again our gold medal winner, Kathy Kreiner, along with her sister Laurie, accompanied by Ken Read and Rob Safrata, Steve Podborski, Dave Irwin and Jim Hunter; I’m sorry that Dave Murray isn’t able to be with them.

They are accompanied by coaches Scott Henderson and Lyn MacIntosh along with Keith Nesbitt, Luc Dubois and Ed Champagne from the Canadian National Alpine Ski Association.

As a group, they are bringing special honour to Ontario and Canada and on behalf of all of us, may I assure them of the appreciation for all that they do on behalf of the people of Ontario and Canada.

Mr. Lewis: You will be taxing their equipment tonight.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

MOOSONEE FORCES BASE

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that the Moosonee Development Area Board has entered into negotiations with the federal Department of Public Works to accept the assets of the Canadian Forces Station in Moosonee.

Members will recall that on Jan. 17, 1975, the federal Department of National Defence announced the closing of the base effective Aug. 1, 1975. Immediately following the announcement, a committee of local citizens from Moosonee and Moose Factory, including representatives of the native people and the white community, was established to determine the best uses for the base assets.

As a result of some months of deliberation, it was determined a major component use would be the development of a secondary school complex utilizing some of the buildings on the base. The concept was approved by the Minister of Education on Oct. 1, 1975, and a principal was hired on Nov. 25, 1975.

On Feb. 1, 1976, the James Bay Lowlands Secondary School District was formed, with the board to take office on April 1, 1976.

Disposal of other assets is proceeding, with 25 houses to be transferred to Moose Factory island and 50 houses to be assigned to the Ontario rural and native housing programme.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the best possible use is being made of the assets of the base in providing housing for people and in developing a secondary school complex on that site.

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to my remarks in reply to a question asked on March 17, concerning investment funds at Seneca College.

Prior to 1971, there was no need and very little opportunity for a college to accumulate a reserve. Funding was done on a budget-review basis, similar to the Management Board/ministries process. When funds were required by a college to replace equipment or to meet various needs as they arose, these were requested of the ministry and allowed or disallowed, depending upon the relative merits of the situation.

In 1971, the decision was taken to place the colleges on a funding basis similar to that of the universities -- essentially a BIU approach keyed to student enrolment. This change placed an extra responsibility on the individual boards of governors to husband their available funds carefully. Instead of just meeting routine operating expenses as they occurred, they now had to plan and budget to provide for equipment replacement, contingencies relating to wage and salary adjustments or arbitration awards, inflation, enrolment fluctuations, etc. It was made clear to the boards of governors that they could not expect any additional assistance from the government to meet deficits on operations.

Consequently, the boards undertook to set aside reserves to meet perceived needs and contingencies to the extent they were able to do so. The anticipated needs and the capability to set aside funds varied from college to college depending upon many factors some of which were: The age and condition of plant and equipment; the cost of servicing the respective community; the particular impact of the near-moratorium on capital.

In addition, in 1974, the colleges were advised by the ministry to set aside an appropriate amount against an anticipated wage and salary arbitration award. In 1975, they were again advised to set aside an appropriate amount against the next settlement. Indeed, a preliminary survey indicates that at the end of the 1975-1976 fiscal year, the amount available for short-term investments is reduced by $17 million, largely because of implementing salary and wage settlements.

These reserves in the college system have, for the most part, been in the form of short-term paper. The general level of reserves and surpluses across the whole system is not held to be inappropriate but reflects responsible management on the part of the boards of governors.

Some shortcomings were identified in an approach to CAAT funding based on student enrolment and in the spring of 1975 the Council of Regents was requested to recommend a better approach.

A special task force was organized, consisting of the members of the Council of Regents, two college presidents, two members of the boards of governors and ministry staff. Subsequently, the Council of Regents recommended a new formula approach to the minister in December, 1975, which was accepted and is now being implemented for the first time.

Concurrent with this work, the consulting firm of Woods Gordon was engaged to review the practices relating to reserves set aside by the colleges and to recommend guidelines. This report and another report prepared by an ad hoc committee of presidents on surpluses and reserves are now being considered in the context of the new formula approach. It is understood that the Council of Regents will be considering a draft set of guidelines on reserves and surpluses at its April meeting and, assuming that these meet with my approval, it is probable that the colleges will receive definitive guidelines on reserves and surpluses by May of this year.

In the meantime it is prudent for colleges to carry reasonable working balances to meet the expenditures they expect to incur. These balances are described in the colleges’ financial statements as either operating surplus or deficit, or reserves for specific purposes such as the replacement of equipment.

Mr. Lewis: Such as what?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Such as replacement of equipment. The total of such balances in the college system at March 31, 1975, was approximately $25 million or nine per cent of the total college expenditure in 1974-1975.

In addition, the college financial statements include among the reserves a sum calculated to meet specific unavoidable expenditures; these expenditures, as reported at March 31, 1975, include such items as retroactive salary increases and accrued sick leave credits which would become payable at any time. Finally, it is obviously necessary to have funds available to pay the day-to-day bills due to the colleges’ creditors. These liabilities reach a combined total of $36 million in the college system.

Since it is prudent to carry reasonable funds in excess of immediate needs, it is equally prudent to invest them. At March 31, 1975, a total of $58 million was invested by the colleges. Effectively it consists of two packages: All the $25 million in working balance is invested; $23 million of the funds required to meet the $36 million liability is invested because not all of the liability is immediately payable.

Reference has been made in the press to college investment portfolios. These are not portfolios as ordinarily understood; it is merely the result of keeping money in interest-bearing deposits until it is actually needed. The personal equivalent is putting one’s money into a savings account which one transfers into a chequing account when one wants to spend it.

[2:15]

Turning specifically to Seneca College, the college’s own investment

schedule at March 31, 1975, shows a total of $3,026,000. This was available because: 1. The college’s surplus and reserves amounted to eight per cent of the year’s expenditure compared with the nine per cent average of all colleges, and that amount was $1.6 million.

2. There was a time lag between the college receiving its revenues and the actual payment of $2.3 million liabilities anticipated on its March 31, 1975, balance sheet. This permitted the college to maximize its reserve by investing cash not immediately paid out, amounting to $1.4 million.

Further to my reply to the initial inquiry about Seneca’s investments, I reiterate that the present level of reserves is quite acceptable. As I said in the House on March 17, 1976, I would like to stress that I would not want to criticize a community college for building a reserve if this can be achieved through good management. There is every reason for such funds to be used appropriately for purposes for which they were designated.

However, I must express my concern over the nature of the investments chosen by Seneca for its reserves. I have been assured that the other colleges have invested their reserve funds in short-term notes. Seneca College, however, holds a combination of short-term notes and long-term bonds. I disagree with the college maintaining its reserves in long-term bonds. Consequently, I have directed Seneca College’s board of governors to provide me, before the end of this month, with an acceptable plan for bringing Seneca College’s investments into line with those of other colleges.

Once again referring to the overall college system, I would repeat that the general level of reserves maintained across the system is not inappropriate. However, we are aware that one of the smaller colleges has accumulated a level of reserves disproportionate to its needs. The new formula will permit us to correct this anomaly and the new investment guidelines will prevent its recurrence.

I will also forward to the critics of the parties opposite the details of the investment funds of all 22 community colleges.

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of privilege, I hope appropriately so, if we are not televising is it necessary that we have the additional lights?

Mr. Lewis: We are televising. It is most important.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is that right? I’m glad I made it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There is the cameraman up there.

Mr. Deans: Is the member for Hastings-Peterborough the dealer?

Mr. Reid: What time does the game start?

Mr. Martel: It’s even blue.

An hon. member: Tory blue at that.

Mr. Cassidy: Are you selling those?

Mr. Rollins: A dollar and a quarter.

Mr. Lewis: You just saw “California Split,” did you, and it turned you on? I’m glad something does.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mr. Lewis: May I address a question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities? First, do universities, as distinct from community colleges, have public money -- not private endowments but public moneys -- which they use for the investment purposes, short- and long-term, that he just outlined for community colleges?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: As the member is well aware, the universities have quite a different responsibility in reporting those funds from that of the community colleges. I do not have those details here but there are funds in the system --

Mr. Lewis: Public funds?

Mr. MacDonald: Surplus from our grants?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Similar to the kinds of funds any institution, any business, would need whether it’s for cash flow or payment of debt. Those types of funds obviously are there and are required in short-term investments. Now whether they have similar long-term investments I can’t answer, but I will.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. By way of supplementary, can the minister give a broader rationale or can he explain the appropriateness of what amounts to a channelling of public money to private boards in the community college system to invest in the long term? How does the minister justify that use of public money?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It was a long statement, but I tried to say very clearly that I disagree with long-term investments of public funds.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m wondering, relevant to the statement that was made, could the minister disclose the name of the community college which now has, in his opinion disproportionate reserves?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: One of the smaller colleges, Lambton, has a very large number of dollars relative to its budget.

Mr. Bullbrook: One additional supplementary: Could the minister tell me what the reserve position of Lambton is at the present time and where its investments are made?

An hon. member: Because Lorne’s from there.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s exactly the college I thought it was. My college.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I can give the hon. member the number of dollars. I cannot tell him at this precise moment, although that information is readily available, where the investments are made. The combined surplus is $2,102,000; the short-term investments were larger than that, $2.3 million. However, I’m advised that because of some of the requirements for settlements, as I suggested in my statement, that reserve is reduced now to some degree. I would also repeat that we intend to establish guidelines, that the new funding method will take into full account that this reserve is in excess and that we will deal with that problem in the future years of funding.

Mr. Bullbrook: If I might be permitted one final supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, I think the hon. member has had two.

Mr. Bullbrook: One more, Mr. Speaker. You recognize it is my community college --

Mr. Speaker: Sorry. I do appreciate that.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- and it is their obscene reserves I’ve been talking about over the years.

Mr. Foulds: I thought it was Lorne Henderson’s community college.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member may ask another question in a moment.

Mr. Lewis: I have a further supplementary. In the light of what the minister is revealing today, with some obvious discomfort, is it not time to end the practice of these accumulated reserves, other than the short-term cash flow requirements, which we all understand? Isn’t it time to end the situation where $25 million of public money builds up, perhaps inappropriately invested in Ontario this way?

An hon. member: Give Lorne a sabbatical

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Again, I refer back to my statement where I say that we are establishing guidelines, and by May of this year we will --

Mr. Lewis: We don’t need guidelines; just end it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I agree; I’m not disagreeing with that position at all, but we have these two studies and we intend to consider them. Prior to this date, the Council of Regents were asked by this ministry to advise on that matter; and as soon as their April meeting is over I hope they will be able to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Sarnia wish to ask a further supplementary?

Mr. Bullbrook: I just want to ask if the minister would agree with my characterization, made over the years, of the reserve position of Lambton College, especially in the context of the need of restraint, totally as far as the government is concerned, that those reserves are obscene.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Oh I would caution the members of this House to use one community college out of 22 to draw conclusions that are unjustified against the other 21.

Mr. Bullbrook: But they’re under your ministry!

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I agree with the member opposite that the investment dollars of one college were in excess and we intend to do something about it.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary on this question; the member for Kitchener-Wilmot.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response to the original question on Seneca, but may I ask the minister if he would give some direction to the Council of Regents to take into consideration the complaints of the faculty and the students that in fact that reserve fund was built up because annual operating needs were not being met? Their claim is that, in fact, equipment purchases in the last two years have not been made -- not just replacements, but new equipment. That’s one of the things we’re against. Would the minister give such direction?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would think the member would expect that the board of governors would use their funds in the most appropriate fashion, not only to renew the facility itself but indeed to keep the educational process at a very adequate level. I believe that institution is doing that, and this year’s funding mechanism recognizes that there are, indeed two components to the system: one, the plant operation; and two, for lack of a better word at the moment, the educational process. We recognize that was perhaps a weakness in the previous funding method. This year was the first attempt, and it will be improved.

There is a review mechanism established in that process for the various colleges and we think, given another year’s experience, that the member’s request will be honoured.

STUDY OF ONTARIO PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mr. Lewis: A question to the acting Minister of Health if I may. Back on Jan. 20 I wrote to the Minister of Health asking for the rationalization study of the psychiatric hospitals in Ontario and have raised it since. Is it possible for the acting minister to table that study in response to the question?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the study. I shall find out if it is possible to do so.

ASBESTOS PROBLEM AT HEDMAN MINES LTD.

Mr. Lewis: A separate question, Mr. Speaker: Back on Mar. 4 I wrote to Dr. Fitch, the assistant director of the occupational health protection branch, about a problem at Hedman Mines Ltd. around asbestos, revealed from the ministry’s own information. Nothing was forthcoming. I wrote again on Mar. 26 and nothing is forthcoming. Can the minister get a reply for me?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I shall try.

ASBESTOS-CANCER STUDY

Mr. Lewis: One further question for the acting Minister of Health: What caused her to say that there was no link between asbestos and stomach or gastro-intestinal cancer?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I think the remark I made was that there is no positive correlation presently factually understood between asbestos and gastro-intestinal cancer. There is some incidence correlation which has been reported by certain workers, but this has not been borne out in other investigations. It is certainly something which is under study at the moment, but there is not a positive correlation.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, the minister surely realizes that Dr. Charles Stewart, at the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and Dr. Ritchie, pathologist at the University of Toronto, are at this very moment about to produce a paper, through her as the minister I guess, to demonstrate whether or not there is this link, and isn’t it a bit premature to make these judgements in advance?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I was not making a judgement, I was simply reporting on current medical knowledge in this area. That paper has not, as yet, been produced. I shall be interested to see it, sir, when it is.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister making a distinction between medical and scientific evidence? I ask that in view of the research done by Pontefract and Cunningham with regard to cancers caused by asbestos in experimental animals like rats and baboons.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I was really talking about medical scientific research and reports, and there is a difference. There are certainly some differences in sensitivity between certain laboratory animals and human beings.

DON BERE HOMES LTD.

Mr. Lewis: One last question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations if I may: Is the minister aware of the Don Bere development on Admiral Rd. in London and the problems the tenants in that development -- Fairhaven is the name it goes under -- have experienced since rent control legislation was introduced?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: To the best of my recollection I haven’t heard about that particular situation, no.

Mr. Lewis: I believe correspondence has gone to the minister. Could I, by way of supplementary, ask him to look at it? Apparently there is a major conversion under way to sell all the properties, with considerable problems for the tenants involved, and I wondered whether the minister could respond to their anxiety?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of situations of that nature, and I will certainly search out the correspondence which the Leader of the Opposition mentions and give him a reply as quickly as possible.

RENT INCREASES

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Minister of Housing: Could the minister explain why one of his officials, Mr. White, in the Hamilton Housing Authority, has confirmed that tenants there are being asked to sign leases three months in advance of the commencement of the lease and, in fact, for rents in excess of the eight per cent increase? Apparently Mr. White feels these are instructions he received from OHC.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on that. I will certainly look into the matter and get the information for the hon. member. I think, though, I should point out that it may be an official of the Hamilton Housing Authority, not an official of the ministry, who is making this statement. I will certainly look into that for the member.

[2:30]

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Has the minister spoken to those people in his ministry who indicated to us they do give instructions to the Hamilton Housing Authority? Can he tell us whether he has instructed the housing authorities to inform tenants fully of their rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the housing authorities have been advised that the Ministry of Housing, or Ontario Housing Corp. rather, will abide by the regulations laid out in the rent review legislation. We are not to be treated any differently nor are the tenants to be treated any differently from any other tenant in any accommodation in this province. If those directions are not being followed, we will certainly see that they are.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you. That’s the situation in Hamilton and I will be grateful to the minister if he will look into it.

TRUCKERS’ BLOCKADE

Mr. S. Smith: To the Minister of Transportation and Communications: In view of the traffic blockade by some Detroit teamsters at the Windsor border, which has piled up 50 trucks on this side and caused quite a problem for Ontario business people, particularly the farming industry, what action has the minister taken to ensure that Ontario goods can move freely at the border? Has he been in contact with the Michigan government or does he intend to do anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this problem but I will certainly look into it.

ANAESTHETIC SYSTEM INSTALLATION

Mr. S. Smith: To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: As a follow-up to my question of March 16, I wonder if the minister has had some time to think about the regulation of hospital anaesthetic systems, which at that time he promised to look into, regarding its inclusion in the Ontario Building Code? Has he looked into it and can he now report to us on that situation?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I don’t have all of the details at my fingertips but I have looked into it and we find that there was not only consultation but almost complete direction from the Ministry of Health in the establishment of the standards. The hospitals were also involved in providing input and we understand that the situation is very well in hand. They are all accepting these and the coroner’s report gave a great deal of guidance as to the method of installation of this kind of equipment.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: Is the minister aware that although the regulations are excellent, the difficulty is in their application -- which presently falls under the Ontario Building Code and consequently is a municipal responsibility -- in this highly specialized and dangerous area? Would the minister consider, for administration, bringing it under a provincial body which could have one expert who could look after the whole province instead of leaving it to chance in each municipality? That’s what we are worried about -- that there not be a repetition of the Sudbury problem.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to consider any suggestion which would improve the service and I would be quite ready to take it under advisement.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has the answer to a question which was asked previously, I believe.

LICENSING OF LAY PREACHER TO PERFORM MARRIAGES

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, March 29, the member for Fort William (Mr. Angus) asked me a question regarding the licensing of a lay preacher, Mr. Sanadius Fiddler, to perform marriages in native communities in northwestern Ontario.

I would like to inform the member and the House that I have now written to the chairman of the personnel committee of the Cambrian Presbytery of the United Church of Canada informing him that registration is being granted to Mr. Fiddler.

Mr. Speaker: Questions. The hon. member for Wentworth.

WENTWORTH TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Deans: Thank you, I am sorry; I was dreaming. I have a question for the Minister of Education.

Is the Minister of Education aware that the negotiations between the Wentworth Board of Education and its secondary school teachers have reached an impasse and that there has been little if any negotiation taking place in the last short while? Is he also aware that there have been two mediators involved now and there has not been any real progress made; and that the Wentworth county board has refused to negotiate with the elementary teachers until after the secondary school contracts are completed?

Will the minister personally review the situation with regard to the Wentworth county’s attitude toward its teachers and its responsibility to the public; and whether or no the teachers’ requests are reasonable or otherwise; and use whatever influence he might have to try to avoid what will ultimately be a strike?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, of course I would be very happy to become as familiar as my friend is with exactly what’s happening in Wentworth. I might point out to him that -- I am sure the teachers in that area know it -- that if they feel the board is not negotiating in good faith they can make such a charge before the Education Relations Commission which will be happy to hold a hearing and attempt to bring whichever party is not negotiating in good faith back to the bargaining table to do so. I’d be happy to find out exactly what’s happening. I know things aren’t moving as smoothly in the Wentworth secondary bargaining situation as they should on, but we’re always hopeful.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary question, if I may: Does the minister feel it proper that the board should refuse to negotiate with elementary panel representatives simply because it has been unable to reach an agreement with the secondary school teacher representatives? Does the minister not feel there is something terribly wrong with that board?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have learned from long experience in these matters that I’d like to familiarize myself completely with the details of what’s happening before I make any comment on a statement such as the hon. member has made. Not that I doubt what he’s saying but I’d like to know exactly what both sides feel.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, given that the date in the school year is somewhat late and the public school teachers are also working without a contract -- if think it’s the only board in Ontario which has neither a contract for the public school teachers or the secondary school teachers -- would the minister be willing to intervene personally this week so that a strike could be avoided?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated a few minutes ago that certainly if what the previous hon. member indicated is correct -- that the board refuses to negotiate with the elementary school teachers because it has not got a contract with the secondary school teachers -- I think those elementary school teachers should now or should have a few weeks ago put a case of bad-faith bargaining before the Education Relations Commission. Certainly that is the place that should go and the commission should make some determination.

Mr. Foulds: Could the minister indicate how many charges of bad-faith bargaining have been laid before the Education Relations Commission and the disposition of those charges?

Hon. Mr. Wells: From memory, as I recall, there was a charge of bad-faith bargaining made against us by the provincial school teachers and I believe the commission’s finding was that we were not bargaining in had faith.

There is a charge of bad-faith bargaining, I think, on the table regarding the Central Algoma situation, which has not been heard and which is presently part of the total process which is going on to try to bring that dispute to some finalization.

I think there have been some other charges -- I think there was one in Peel -- but I think they were withdrawn before any hearings were held.

Mr. Moffatt: Somebody intervened.

CLEANING CONTRACTS AT QUEEN’S PARK

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Labour, if I may. With all of her duties, is the minister aware of the problems surrounding the Portuguese women cleaning under contract at Queen’s Park?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mrs. Campbell: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If that is the case, does she not believe she should ensure that such contracts incorporate scrupulous adherence to the provisions of the Employment Standards Act legislation on prohibition of sex discrimination by job classification?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I was under the strong impression that sex discrimination by job classification was, if not totally eliminated, almost completely so at this time.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, that not being the case, I wonder if the minister would look into the matter? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General has the answer to a question asked previously.

POLICE USE OF PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS’ FILES

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On April 2 of this year, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) asked me a question concerning police investigation of psychiatric unit records at Toronto Western Hospital.

On Thursday, Dec. 11, 1975, two members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police proceeded to the Toronto Western Hospital psychiatric unit. They sought information as to what patients, if any, were absent from the unit during the evening of Nov. 7, 1975. This information was being sought as part of the investigation into the murder of Marion Peters. The officers were informed that this information would only be provided under the authority of a search warrant. On Friday, Dec. 12, 1975, the officers, armed with a search warrant, returned to the hospital.

As a result, they were provided with the names of seven persons who were absent from the psychiatric unit on Nov. 7, 1975. The officers subsequently sought information as to whether or not the patients in question would be capable of committing such

an act. The reply was in the negative.

I understand that the officers had no further contact with the staff of the psychiatric unit of the Toronto Western Hospital, no files were seized or examined by the officers. I have a report from the Metropolitan Toronto Police and I would like to table that, Mr. Speaker, if I may. It’s a little fuller.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary: The minister is saying quite definitively that they did not look at the files at all. They were simply looking at attendance. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is my understanding from the report I have received.

Mr. Breaugh: How do we balance the statement of the man who supposedly ran that unit, who said they did have the files, with the report the minister just read to us now which says they really didn’t look at files at all, that they simply wanted to know whether the people were there or not? There seems to be quite a conflict there.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I can’t account for any conflict of that nature. There might be. I have tabled a fuller report, and I suggest the hon. member for Oshawa should look that over and then, if he wants further information, I’ll try to get it for him.

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES’ NEGOTIATIONS

Ms. Sandeman: A question for the Minister of Labour and/or the acting Minister of Health: Could the minister please report on the progress of negotiations with 35 groups of public health nurses across the province? At least one of these groups has been without a contract since June of last year and many of them without contracts since Jan. of this year.

Hon. B. Stephenson: In company with the deputy ministers of both Labour and Health, I met about two weeks ago with the Ontario Nurses’ Association, representing the public health nurses and two groups of VON nurses. Last week we met with the representatives of the association of boards of health for the Province of Ontario. I am pleased to report that I think for the first time we made some progress and, hopefully within the next two weeks, I shall have further news to report about this situation.

Mr. Good: Supplementary: Could the minister inform the House whether or not a complaint of not bargaining in good faith has been laid by the nurses in the Peterborough area, where I believe there have been words to that effect bandied about?

Hon. B. Stephenson: To my knowledge, no such complaint has been laid before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

SLUDGE STORAGE

Mr. Reed: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Does the minister consider there is sufficient storage to hold sludge from sewage treatment plants in Ontario during the months the contractors are unable to spread it on the land, and does he consider the standards for that storage to be sufficient?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I think the hon. member is talking about a disposal site in his own riding, not too far from his farm, as a matter of fact where there is an abandoned --

Mr. Reid: How does he get it to his farm?

An hon. member: Oh, he wouldn’t be asking about that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Tell us it is not true.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- an abandoned quarry, I believe, that is being used by the contractor hauling sludge. There is no question that right about now the quarry is filling up, and as the warm weather comes along they will be able to get rid of that sludge, including at the hon. members own farm, which I’m sure is one of the recipients. I have had that request this morning from the mayor of Halton Hills and I promised him I would look into it. Hopefully we can get rid of the problems as far as that neighbourhood is concerned very shortly.

Mr. Reed: I wonder if the minister could tell us what standards his ministry has for those holding basins? Is he aware that the particular storage facility in question is not a quarry but an old sand pit, which is quite porous and open?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The hon. member is right, it is a pit; but I believe there were certain pouring operations there a few years ago. We have to satisfy ourselves that the site is safe from the point of view of contamination of the water tables and that has been done. The man has a permit to dump the sludge there; and from that point of view it is satisfactory. However, from the neighbourhood point of view, at this point it isn’t satisfactory, and the hon. member knows why.

Mr. Reed: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary.

Mr. Reed: What standards does the ministry impose before granting a licence to hold that sludge?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As I indicated, it must be environmentally safe in every way. It should be located in an area where it won’t be a nuisance to the neighbourhood, to the people adjoining the pit, for example, or the site. There should be a reasonable distance so that the smell, particularly, won’t aggravate the neighbourhood. That is the main reason. As to the question of traffic to that site, spillage is a problem, for example. These are all the things we look at.

Hon. W. Newman: It grows good crops, though.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy has the answer to a question asked previously.

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) asked me questions on Friday following my statement on the Pickering No. 4 unit. I can now give some additional information in response to those questions and inform the House of the current status in this regard.

Unit 4 at Ontario Hydro’s Pickering nuclear generating station will be back in service within one week if repairs which are now in progress prove to be successful. Hydro has been able to plug a hole in the damaged generator conductor and is now in the process of replacing the insulation which is around it.

If, however, tests prove the work to be unsuccessful, the unit is not likely to return to operation for up to several months. Hydro will then be forced to dismantle a large

section of the generator in order to gain full access to the damaged area.

The total cost of repairs will not be known until the unit returns to full power. The cost of replacing energy from the No. 4 unit with electricity produced in fossil-fired plants has been estimated by Hydro at up to an additional $5,000 per hour.

The damaged conductor is a very large hollow piece of copper. It is cooled by circulating water and it is located in the conventional or non-nuclear

section of the unit.

The work was done under Ontario Hydro’s supervision, partly by its own forces and partly by workers from the generator manufacturer, Howden-Parsons.

At this time it appears that it will be almost impossible to determine who left the threading tool in the unit.

ACCOMMODATION FOR CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE STUDENTS

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education: Is the minister aware of the urgent need for a statement from his ministry regarding accommodation for 900 francophone students under the Carleton board’s jurisdiction? Is the minister aware of an urgent request from the advisory committee to the Carleton board for a meeting with the minister before April 12, when they have to make a decision?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, just as background, perhaps I might tell the hon. member that I met on Feb. 23 with both the Carleton board and the Ottawa board about this problem and asked our regional director to work with the boards. The Carleton board would like the Ottawa board to sell them or lease them one of its schools. The Ottawa board is not so inclined.

The Ottawa board is providing the education for those francophone students from the Carleton board at the present time, and I saw no indication that the education being provided was in any way inferior. The Carleton board, however, has indicated it would like to have those students under its own jurisdiction in its own school, which is a commendable thing. But I think it has to be also pointed out we could find no indication that the education that those francophone students are receiving is in any way inferior.

I have asked our regional director to work with the two boards to see if we can’t help them come up with some solution.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: Is the minister saying no, he will not meet with the advisory committee to the Carleton board? Is that my understanding? Am I correct?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I might say that my friend, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) has been in touch with me daily about this particular problem --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Including Sundays.

Mr. Foulds: Even while you were away in Florida?

Mr. Yakabuski: He has been on top of the problem from the beginning.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In fact, he has made some suggestions to me about how we should handle the matter --

Mr. Lewis: I am sure.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- but they are not really acceptable to some of the Ottawa people. We do have a problem here; but if the advisory committee would like to meet with me some time, along with the boards, this could be arranged. I just want to assure them that I’m very much aware of the situation and the problem. At this point in time, if they would meet with our regional people there, I think that’s the way we can try to get some solution to the problem.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that the Carleton board will be meeting on April 12 to decide what accommodation they will have next year for 900 francophones and that it is very urgent for that board and the francophone advisory committee to know the provincial stand when it holds that meeting and takes decisions at that meeting?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I haven’t had any indication from the Carleton board, although I understand they were talking to some people last week; but if they’d like us to indicate some particular stand we have on this matter, I think I can give it to them by April 12. I have to tell them also, though, that there is not any money available for the building of new schools at the present time.

Mr. Cassidy: In the same vein, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister: What steps is the minister prepared to take in order to ensure the commitment to provide a French secondary school, which was made by the Essex County Board of Education, will be fulfilled --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a supplementary to this question.

Mr. Cassidy: Very much so, Mr. Speaker.

RADIOACTIVITY AT PORT HOPE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, a question to the acting Minister of Health: Is she prepared to assure this House that the results of the testing going on in Port Hope for radon gas levels will be made public?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the testing going on at the moment is being carried out both by the Ministry of Health, on occasion and by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada. If it is possible to get all of the results from the Atomic Energy Control Board, I think we might seriously consider announcing to those individuals who are affected directly, and to those individuals who are living in areas close to the areas where there has been radiation, the specific levels which relate to their particular domicile.

Mr. S. Smith: Why the secrecy?

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Could the minister tell me why this information will not be made public for general consumption so that all the people in the town and other citizens of this province know of the potential problems in this kind of a situation? Why the secrecy in this matter?

Hon. B. Stephenson: There isn’t any real secrecy in that I think the reports have been made public; all of the tests that have been done very recently have shown marked improvement except, I think, in one or two specific areas. We will be discussing this with the people from the Port Hope area very shortly, and I really would like to consult with them about their feelings about whether all of the report should be made public or not.

Mr. Moffatt: Supplementary: I would like to ask the minister, since she said in her original response, “if the information is forthcoming from the Atomic Energy Control Board,” is there some reason to suspect the Atomic Energy Control Board would not give information to the Ontario Ministry of Health?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry if I misled the House with that remark. There is no such doubt.

DESIGN FOR ONTARIO LAND-USE PLAN

Mr. MacDonald: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is the firm of Hedlin Menzies on an ongoing contract for consulting work with the ministry or with the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development? If not, what payment was made to that firm for the production of the draft statement of policy on agricultural land use?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Roger Schwass was retained by my ministry to do some work about three weeks ago. He’s a man with a great agricultural background, in case the hon. member didn’t know that

Mr. Lewis: It was a last-minute appointment.

Hon. W. Newman: He worked on “The Challenge of Abundance” as research director for 2 1/2 years. He’s had 20 years’ experience in the agricultural field. He’s done work on the Lambton-Sarnia --

Mr. Lewis: Three weeks before the final report.

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: And he is willing to produce the kind of political document you want.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: He knows more about agriculture than the hon. member will ever know, I tell him that right now.

Mr. Lewis: Certainly more than I’ll ever know.

Hon. W. Newman: As far as doing ongoing work is concerned, yes, he has done work for other ministries, and I know he has for this ministry in the past too.

Mr. Good: When in doubt, shout.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: But as far as I’m concerned, since I became minister, this is the first time we had the opportunity and pleasure of having him do some work for us, a little bit of work for us.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: His total cost will be somewhere around $4,000.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: For that statement?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: That’s $200 a page.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Rainy River with a supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute, please. We’ve had a very good question period up to now, I think everyone will agree, so let’s keep it that way.

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: Do you think I should sit down, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Yakabuski: Don’t blow up.

Mr. Mancini: The Minister of Agriculture and Food spoiled it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are wasting valuable time by these interjections. The hon. member for York South may have a supplementary.

Mr. MacDonald: I would agree that Roger Schwass may know more than I do, and certainly than the minister, on agriculture. However, will the minister answer my question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: About you there is no doubt.

Mr. MacDonald: Right, equally no doubt. My question is, was that $4,000, paid three weeks prior to the production of the statement on agricultural land use, for that statement alone?

Hon. W. Newman: He hasn’t even been paid yet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Rainy River, a final supplementary.

Mr. Reid: I would like to ask the minister how he justifies, in these days of restraint, paying an outside consultant for a study when he has people in the Resources Development Secretariat --

Mr. MacDonald: They wouldn’t give the right answer.

Mr. Reid: -- and TEIGA, and also in his own Ministry of Agriculture and Food? How does he justify an outside contract like that?

Mr. MacDonald: He provided the right answer.

Hon. W. Newman: I justify it very easily. I have been working with our own staff for some time on the preservation of agricultural land.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: You blew it.

Hon. W. Newman: No, we had all the facts and figures together on a lot of it.

Mr. Reid: Why did the ministry pay somebody $4,000 then?

Hon. W. Newman: Does the member want an answer or doesn’t he?

Mr. Reid: I am not getting one. If the minister had the facts and figures, why did he hire him?

Hon. W. Newman: If the member wants an answer, he should sit there and listen.

Interjections.

An hon. member: They don’t want to hear the answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. minister take his seat? We want fewer interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: Who is “we”?

Mr. Reid: We want more answers.

Mr. Speaker: I think I am speaking on behalf of the assembly generally. The hon. minister may complete his answer.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Roger Schwass was brought in some time ago to do some preliminary work for us on this. I’d just like to tell members one thing, that the final copy, which will be dealt with at the appropriate time, was not even seen by Roger Schwass or Hedlin Menzies. It was done by myself and my own staff working late at nights.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I announced that as a final supplementary. The member for Quinte.

Mr. Lewis: This one isn’t over yet, not yet.

Hon. W. Newman: You bet it isn’t.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Quinte wishes to ask a question.

Mr. Lewis: It was $4,000; just three weeks before the design plan for Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

HOSPITAL CUTBACKS

Mr. O’Neil: Could the acting Minister of Health tell the House why officials of the Belleville General Hospital have been unable to get a rationale for cuts ordered by the ministry in their hospital and why they have been unable to receive supporting information on how this decision to cut approximately $564,000 from their budget was made?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The officials of those hospitals in which cuts have been recommended or requested have been given information by the ministry. They have also been informed that if they have questions about this they may appeal to the ministry for a discussion, and in almost all instances in which there is question about the cutting of hospital beds or the decrease in budget, that kind of discussion is taking place. If the Belleville hospital wants to have this kind of consultation with the Ministry of Health, it is at perfect liberty to request it.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: I don’t believe that information has been supplied for the Belleville General Hospital; I would ask that if it hasn’t it now be conveyed. I would also like to ask were not mathematical calculations made to determine the nature and severity of cuts in the hospital; and is the ministry able to provide this information to members of this Legislature?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The regression analysis was most certainly made available to all of the hospitals involved in this programme.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Did the minister know that her regression analysis is in every instance wrong?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would question that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Okay.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Very definitely.

[3:00]

KIRKLAND LAKE AREA BUILDING FREEZE

Mr. Bain: In the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), I would like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development and to the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Is the government aware that a building freeze, administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources and in effect since 1962 in the Kirkland Lake area in the townships of Lebel, Pacaud, Otto, Marquis, McElroy, Boston and Master, is causing the people of these communities a great deal of difficulty? Is it aware that originally when the freeze was put on, people were told it was going to be temporary and that the government would introduce a development plan that would allow for reasonable and rational development in these townships? What and where is that development programme and when can we expect it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the actual plan that the member is speaking about but I will certainly draw the matter to the attention of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and he Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) who, I believe, would be the people who would be involved in such a plan.

Mr. Bain: Supplementary: The plan I referred to was described as a development plan to replace the blanket freeze. I was wondering if the provincial secretary could also inquire within the Ministry of Natural Resources about a promise that was made to set up a committee on which would be local people to investigate what would replace the freeze. Could the provincial secretary also report on the status of that committee and when it is to be set up?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Natural Resources and to the other two ministers, as I said before.

RENTAL CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Givens: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing what has been the tempo of construction of rental residential accommodation in the urban areas of Ontario since the imposition of rent controls?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member any figures on that. As the hon. member I think knows, there have been tender calls put out for proposals to provide rental accommodation. When they terminate we will be able to have some general idea as to what sort of reaction we are getting from the builders as to the possibility of what rental construction will be carried on this year.

Mr. Givens: Supplementary: I am not talking about low-rental housing. I am talking about the general market. Is it not a fact that construction of rental accommodation has come to a virtual standstill in this province?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe I can properly answer that, to say it has come to a virtual standstill. I have had indications that the building industry is backing away -- yes, indeed -- from the construction of rental accommodation. But I would like to have an opportunity to attempt to get the correct figures to present to the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: They were not building any units before the legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that commencing Wednesday, April 21, and until further orders the House will not sit in the chamber on Wednesdays.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment on that motion before it carries, before it is considered by --

Mr. Speaker: The motion has already been carried.

An. hon. member: Sit down.

Mr. Cassidy: I was rising to my feet.

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t hear any objections.

Mr. Cassidy: I did and I was rising to my feet.

Mr. Speaker: Then I will withdraw the carrying for a moment and I will hear the hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: I don’t want to indulge in a long debate, I just want to say that the question of Wednesday sittings of the House is something which has been under study by the select committee of the Legislature studying the fourth and fifth reports of the Camp commission. For those members of all parties who are from the vicinity of Toronto, they are probably aware from discussions with their own caucuses of the disparities, one might say, between out-of-town members who cannot return to their ridings on Wednesdays, and who therefore find it difficult to spend an idle Wednesday here in Toronto -- not completely idle --

Mr. Reid: You should try researching your speeches.

Mr. Cassidy: -- as opposed to those members within commuting distance of Toronto who return to the ridings in order to do some constituency work. There are real difficulties, which I know we will discuss later on when the select committee’s report comes forward, which are caused by that difference in condition between the out-of-town members and those closer to town.

It is my understanding from what members of cabinet have said that in fact the cabinet does most of its business on Wednesday mornings, and therefore the Wednesday sittings are not required to be vacated because of the cabinet’s own work. I just don’t think the motion should pass without that being remarked, although the question is going to come up later in time. I don’t think it should he accepted that all members of the House are happy with the fact that for the past three years, at the whim of the cabinet, we have not been sitting on Wednesdays.

Mr. Deans: Just a comment on this matter. I agreed with the House leader of the government that this motion would be put, and that it should say “until further notice.” I assume now, as I did then, that that means at some future date we will discuss it again. We were waiting for the report of the committee in order to do that. Though my colleagues and many other people may feel some change should be made, it can’t be made until we fully understand the implications of the committee’s deliberations.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s the best lecture you’ve given.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Johnson moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Election Finances Reform Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, this bill would permit weekly newspapers that go to press on Tuesday, which constitute a majority, to accept election advertisements. The wording of the present

section creates many unfortunate difficulties.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

ARBITRATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 1,

An Act to amend the Arbitrations Act.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on Bill 1,

An Act to amend the Arbitrations Act. It was introduced by the hon. minister on the opening of the assembly as a bill with a minor amendment. I simply want to say to the minister that the amendment would in fact contradict an amendment which was made to the bill at a recent time.

In 1973,

schedule B to the bill was replaced by a provision providing that the Lieutenant Governor in Council could establish maximum and minimum fees which could be charged under the provisions of the Arbitrations Act. Consistent with that, the bill, as it was then drafted, provided for a maximum fee. it provided, of course, that the parties to a submission could agree otherwise, but it put an upper limit on the maximum amount which an arbitrator could charge for his services.

I simply want to say to the minister that the provision which was amended in 1973 states quite categorically that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can make regulations prescribing the maximum and minimum fees chargeable by arbitrators under the Act. It seems to me to be totally and quite inconsistent. It’ll provide, by this amendment, that the parties to a submission to an arbitration could agree to provide higher fees than are permitted under the statute by regulation.

I would draw to the attention of the minister that the fees are by no means negligible. For each day’s sitting, consisting of at least six hours, there is a minimum fee of not less than $150 and a maximum fee of $250. If, for any reason, a sitting takes place but there’s no actual reference proceeded with but it’s simply for the purposes of a postponement, the minimum fee is $40 and the maximum fee is $80. Then, for additional hours that are spent, there is a minimum of $20 and a maximum of $30.

I’m simply saying to the minister that he cannot now so amend the bill, by this amendment, to provide that the parties to a submission can agree to a higher fee than is fixed in accordance with the statute by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as the maximum as well as the minimum that may be chargeable under the Act. For that reason, simply because the bill is inaccurate, we would have grave reservations about supporting it.

Mr. Breithaupt: The comments made by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) are, I think, quite complete. I would appreciate hearing from the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) as to the reasoning behind this circumstance which apparently would now allow the rates which had otherwise been agreed upon to be changed after the Lieutenant Governor in Council may have fixed certain figures.

While this bill was used as the traditional minor situation upon which to allow the procedure of the House to develop after the bringing in of the Speech from the Throne, it would appear that a somewhat more important principle flows out of this bill than is normally the case with the usual Bill 1 which we’ve seen in the various legislative sessions. If the Attorney General could give some explanation as to this matter it might complete our remarks on this; otherwise, of course, it could go to committee for further detail back and forth.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, perhaps to recapitulate what my colleague has said in this regard -- in any event, to straighten out the matter as I understand it so we’ll get clarity in the wording. By

chapter 2,

section 2, in 1973, an amendment was made to

section 18 of the Arbitrations Act. Taking that particular amendment, which knocked out the words “that provided by

schedule B” in the seventh and eighth lines and substituted “the maximum prescribed therefor,” the section, with the new amendment being proposed here today, would read as follows:

“The parties to a submission may agree by writings signed by them or by making such agreement a part of the submission to pay to the arbitrator or to the arbitrators, if more than one, such fees for such day’s attendance or such gross sum for taking upon themselves the burden of the reference and making the award, as the parties see fit. And no arbitrator shall take or receive from either party to a submission any greater fee than that agreed upon or, in default of agreement, the maximums prescribed therefor and the receipt of any greater fee may be regarded as a misconduct justifying the setting aside of the award.”

My question comes down to the situation -- without sending it into committee I don’t think -- if the minister removes the reference to

schedule B but nevertheless retains the wording of “the maximum prescribed therefor,” where is the prescription set out? What reference is made within the statute as to where this may be found?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which has been proposed in Bill 1 is, in my view, simply to rectify an omission that occurred in 1970 with respect to the revision of the statutes. My information, in looking into the history of this, is that this was simply a printer’s error; in other words, it is to conform with the way the

section read in 1960.

It’s true that obviously there are fees prescribed in the regulations but in certain instances -- these may very well be relatively few instances -- the parties to a dispute simply cannot persuade or obtain the services of an arbitrator in a matter which is of a highly complex nature.

As a matter of fact, it would appear that

section 22 of the bill as amended in 1973 confirms by implication that the omission was not intentional. For example, it provides that the taxing officer shall not tax fees higher than is prescribed by the regulations and then come the words, “except as provided in

section 18.” It is my view that this is a reference to the omitted words. Furthermore, it’s quite obvious that for very valid reasons the Act provides a penalty or indicates that receipt of any greater fee may be regarded as misconduct justifying the setting aside of the award.

It’s my information that many parties to disputes -- I can’t give particulars -- have regarded the 1970 revision as an omission and certainly have been conducting themselves according to the principle that was laid down in the 1960 bill; namely, that the parties to the dispute could agree to a larger fee than that prescribed. As I’ve already said, in certain arbitrations where a great deal of expertise is required, in this day and age one simply cannot get an arbitrator for the maximum fee of $250, as difficult as that might appear to many people.

We’re also concerned that this amendment should be made retroactive to protect past awards as there is a possibility that there may very well have been a technical contravention of

section 18. When one looks at the history of the legislation and how the

section read in 1960, I’m firmly of the view and totally satisfied that what we are attempting to do is simply to rectify what was, in effect, a printer’s omission.

With great respect I don’t see any contradiction to the amendment as provided in 1973. I don’t see that it is inconsistent, namely, that although the fees are those as prescribed by regulation, the parties can, in certain circumstances in special cases, agree to a higher fee. Not to amend the legislation, in my view, might make it very difficult for parties to complex disputes to obtain the type of arbitration which is not only in the best interests of the parties but, of course, in the best interest of the public who are often affected by these disputes.

I don’t think there is really anything further I could say to assist my hon. friends other than what I’ve just outlined.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Renwick: To committee.

Mr. Speaker: It is so ordered? We will turn it over to the committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved second reading of Bill 3,

An Act to amend the Representation Act, 1975.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned we feel that this is a good move. I think both members concerned are willing that this should be done and are anxious that these name changes take place, and we are quite willing to pass it as far as this reading is concerned and have it referred directly to third reading.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, it has been a traditional ability of members of the House to involve themselves if the name of the riding they represent may be changed from time to time because of particular local circumstances. It is a courtesy which is afforded to the members, and certainly if it is the decision of the members and of the areas they represent that they wish to have the names of these two ridings changed to make them more acceptable and more factual in the areas which they represent, then we certainly agree with it and would acknowledge that this bill can immediately go to third reading.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, as the member representing one of the ridings I rise to support this bill. The change will give recognition to the facts as they exist, that the riding of Welland is now comprised totally and solely of the cities of Thorold and Welland. It recognizes that Thorold has been, in fact, elevated to a city as of last July 1, and therefore has a new prestige and a new prominence in the Niagara Peninsula. I just point out, too, that of course Thorold plays a key

part in the Niagara Peninsula. For instance, St. Catharines and Brock riding get many of their facilities from our area, including their water system and they take our sewage away from us. So I have to say that we look down from Thorold a little bit on St. Catharines and I think we should recognize, in our riding name, being a bit above that municipality.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill, and I want to say that I do appreciate the efforts on behalf of my own government and all the members in the House to let this legislation come forward at this time. As you know, about half of my riding is in the regional municipality of Durham, half of my riding is in the regional municipality of York, and, of course, when it was named Durham North the residents in the York part of the region felt that they had been neglected by not having it called Durham-York and I rise to support this bill to rename the riding Durham-York.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have only one comment. I want to know whether the minister understands that the name Gwillimbury was the maiden name of Lady Simcoe?

Mr. Speaker: Is there any further discussion on second reading of the bill?

The motion is for second reading of Bill 3.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 3,

An Act to amend the Representation Act, 1975.

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch, in the absence of Hon. Mr. Snow, moved second reading of Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is it wise to proceed with a bill that has been the subject of controversy --

Hon. Mr. Welch: He is coming.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, he is coming? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the minister is coming immediately.

Mr. Sargent: Come on, Jim, you are holding up progress.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have any statement on second reading or shall we proceed with the debate?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would just like to say, before we start the debate on Bill 4, that it is my proposal that after second reading this bill be referred to the appropriate standing committee of the House so that we could have the opportunity of having different segments of the industry which are interested, and the public as well, make their points known on this bill.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, the minister’s statement that it will be referred to committee is a welcome statement and we feel that such an action is appropriate. The amendments in 1973 to the Public Commercial Vehicles Act have aroused a certain amount of concern among those in the business and it is only right that the people be given an opportunity to express these concerns and have these points of view heard and examined.

We support the principle of the regulation of leasing. The member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) has brought the need for regulation to the attention of this government on a number of occasions and for a number of years. Those legitimate business operators in the business, I am sure, have also brought their concerns about the need for some form of regulation to the attention of the minister.

It is regrettable that the government has waited so long to bring about some form of regulation. We, on the other hand, have a number of anxieties about the bill. It appears to tar all the leasing truckers with the same brush. The bill appears to us to be somewhat simplistic and we look forward to the deliberations. Thank you.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the reaction of my colleague who just spoke on behalf of the NDP. I gather from his remarks that, in effect, they are supporting the government on this bill and will vote in favour of the bill in second reading.

Mr. Philip: That is not what I said.

Mr. Reid: I find that somewhat surprising but I guess they have to do what they think is best. This party is going to move an amendment; in effect, I believe it is what we generally refer to in the House as a hoist motion. Members will find it on the notice paper and I would like to read it into the record. Our reasoned amendment reads:

“That Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act, be not now read a second time but be read a second time two months hence and that during the interval the subject matter of the bill be considered by the standing committee on resources development and that the committee report by May 31, 1976.”

We don’t believe in the principle of this bill as stated and outlined in Bill 4.

The effect of the bill obviously will be to put a number of people in the leasing business and the trucking industry in the Province of Ontario out of business. The effect of our amendment will give everyone involved in the trucking business in the Province of Ontario time to prepare briefs and submissions to the committee which will be looking into the matter.

My friend from the NDP indicated that he thought those people operating under PCV licences were legitimate operators. I assume he meant by that that those who didn’t have PCV licences were illegitimate. This party does not hold with that stand and I find the NDP twisting and turning on this particular issue somewhat strange to say the least. Obviously they’re not supporting these small independent people in the province who are trying to make a living.

Mr. Wildman: That’s not what he said.

Mr. Reid: We feel that the OTA has indicated that there are up to 15,000 people in the leasing business in the Province of Ontario. The minister has indicated that there are a fair number; we don’t know exactly how many. The effect of this bill, if passed through second and third reading by this House in the next little while, would be to put very many of these people out of business.

The bill provides, as members know, in

section 3(

a) that, in effect, a leased truck could only go one way and would have to return empty in many cases. In other words, if one leases a truck in Toronto for a trip to Windsor, the truck would have to be returned empty from Windsor to Toronto.

[3:30]

It’s obvious in the transportation business that one cannot operate efficiently or economically that way and the effect of the legislation is to put these people out of business. We can’t agree with that.

The Liberal Party represents the individual in this Province of Ontario and we can’t see that happen to small entrepreneurs who are trying to make a living. The minister has indicated that there are perhaps some illegalities in the present situation. If so, this bill is not going to do anything really but put a lot of hard-working people out of business.

Perhaps if there are amendments to be made they should be made under

section 2 of the Act, dealing with leases, if there is something there which doesn’t meet with the minister’s approval. To bring in a bill which, in effect, says one can continue in business as long as one continues to drive standing on one’s head and with one’s hands tied behind one, does not make sense to this party.

The OTA has indicated that it is losing a great deal of business to the independent truckers in the province but I think it’s a case which hasn’t really been proved. If there are problems, and we agree there are problems with the public Commercial Vehicles Act as now constituted, this kind of ad hoc-ery or patching up is really not going to solve the fundamental problems involved. It is not going to solve the situation and we can’t support the bill. We feel it’s bad legislation. I would be interested to hear the remarks of the member for Riverdale, who is very good on this sort of thing, and hear what he has to say as to the efficacy of this particular bill.

What our amendment will do is to give people time. That’s what we want to do primarily -- to buy time for these people who are directly affected so that they can at least continue to operate and to give their legal staffs or themselves time to prepare submissions and briefs to the board.

I think it’s high time that the whole Act, the Public Commercial Vehicles Act, was looked at in total. A lot of the independent truckers are in business and have operated under the Act in the way they have because they could neither afford the time nor the money nor the expensive lawyers to go before the Highway Transport Board and prove public convenience and necessity. So many of them have gone the other route into the leasing line because they couldn’t afford it or were turned down for one of many reasons by the Highway Transport Board.

I don’t think anyone who knows anything about the trucking industry wouldn’t agree that when somebody applies for a PCV licence all the others in the industry are there to oppose anybody else getting into the business.

Their rates, which are filed under the Act, are somewhat similar and one wonders where the element of competition is. The OTA and those people who operate under the PCV Act do have a point in that they are much more regulated than the people under lease. All the people whom I have talked to who operate leased trucks are quite willing to accept any regulations which are reasonable from the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Surely, to put them all out of business -- or 95 per cent of them -- to put out people who have operated legitimate businesses for a number of years -- by one piece of legislation to put them out of business overnight -- is just not fair. I would think it’s not even anything approaching natural justice.

Again, we admit there are problems. This bill is not going to solve them. We would ask the NDP to join with us in supporting our notice of motion which we think will go some way in giving people time to make their submissions, both the people who operate under the PCV licences and those who operate under lease. We’re not against the OTA or the organized truckers -- they have a valid point of view -- but we do not feel that this bill is going to solve any of the problems related to the present Act and we would ask the minister to reconsider.

We would hope the bill would go to committee without passing second reading in the House and that the committee can redraft the bill so that it will be fair and equitable to all.

Mr. Young: The minister will be answering later on I guess. I am rather interested in the speaker who has just brought his bit of wisdom to us, because it is not very many weeks ago that we had the dump truck industry facing a problem. At that tune we united in order to bring the dump truck industry under regulation. To bring them, as a matter of fact --

Mr. Reid: But you aren’t putting anybody out of business, which is what this bill does.

Mr. Young: We brought them under a regulation which had existed before 1966 --

Mr. Reid: It will be debated.

Mr. Young: -- and we all voted that they should apply for entry into the business. In other words, we limited the number of dump truck owners who could come into the dump truck industry.

We are now facing a problem of whether or not we are going to have the same kind of philosophy applied in continuity to the whole transport industry.

Mr. Bullbrook: You are putting guys out of business.

Mr. Young: We already have the regulations for the transport industry.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s not correct.

Mr. Reid: That’s not right.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member rises on a point of order.

Mr. Mancini: I would ask you to ask the members of this House, since this is such an important piece of legislation and since it concerns so many jobs for so many people, to try to keep their remarks on the bill please.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview was doing a little historical background pertaining to the second reading and the principle of the bill. Would the hon. member for Yorkview continue and keep his remarks to that?

Mr. Young: I might quote from the letter, which I think all of us received, signed by Cecil Green, chairman, committee on policy, the Organization of Independent Truckers. He says: “It will be supported by every person who still believes in free enterprise and unrestricted competition.”

I think nobody, literally nobody, in this House believes in unrestricted competition and complete free enterprise. We give these phrases a lot of lip service, but years ago I think civilization came to the place where they realized that unfettered free enterprise, unfettered competition, only resulted in chaos, and so in industry after industry after industry and profession after profession, through the whole facet on our civilization, we have brought in regulation.

I don’t need, here today, to go over the industries that we have regulated in this way; the doctors, the lawyers, you name it. In industry after industry, we have found that unfettered free enterprise and unbridled competition Just did not pay, and as a civilization, to bring order out of chaos, we have had to bring in regulation.

This happened with the trucking industry years and years ago -- a couple of generations ago as a matter of fact -- and gradually out of the chaos that industry found itself in, the PCV Act resulted. So those who wanted to get into the industry had to submit to certain rules and regulations. We wanted to make sure that we had a living for those who were in it and we had to regulate as far as distance is concerned, and we had trade unions who organized the drivers and other employees, and we had certain rules and regulations about safety of trucks, about loading and overloading, and all these things came under regulations.

I think, most of the people in the transport industry accepted the necessity of the thing, including the dump truck industry at that time. So class F licences were issued, but then in the mid 1960s the dump truck operators, for some reason or other, wanted to get out from under and this Legislature did agree that the dump truck operators should be exempt from the regulation. We know the chaos that resulted there. Finally, after all kinds of disruption and demonstrations, a commission was appointed. Mr.

Rapoport made his report and at least some modicum of regulation was reintroduced into the dump truck industry, and we have that now. it is being modified a bit, as the minister announced the other day, but the fact is that we had to bring back regulations into that industry.

As far as the transport industry is concerned, I might indicate that there are I suppose four modes by which goods are transported. First of all, many companies own their own fleets of transports -- Eaton’s, Simpsons, these people. As far as I am concerned, they own their own delivery trucks and so on. They operate those, they hire their own drivers, they maintain the fleet, they have mechanics, shops and so on. A great many industries do it that way and they are not concerned as far as the PCV is concerned but, of course, the Teamsters and other unions do organize their drivers and their workers in certain respects.

Then we have the leasing firms, firms which own equipment. They own the rigs and they will hire out those rigs to certain people and certain industries who want to transport their own goods in the same way. In other words, the business decides that it doesn’t want to maintain the mechanics, the machine shop and all this, so it goes out and hires the rigs from the company which owns them and which maintains them and it pays them a fee for that kind of service.

In addition to that, we have the whole transport industry with which we are concerned here today, the industry which owns rigs, sometimes single individuals and sometimes fleets. That industry has over the years transported goods from one place to another across this country and particularly across this Province of Ontario. That’s what our concern is right now. Those industries, those single-driver industries or multi-rig industries, come under the PCV Act.

They have to establish a need; they have to establish that by entering this industry they are not going to create havoc in the industry. They have to buy their licences. They have to abide by the regulations as to where they can transport, whether it is from Toronto to Montreal, Toronto to Hamilton or Windsor or wherever it may be, clear across the province. It is wide open but within certain limits. They have to make sure that the goods are insured, their rigs are insured and their drivers are properly looked after, and all of this kind of thing is there. These are the people who come under the PCV licence.

But in later years there have been people, owners of single rigs and companies, some of which are very large companies, that have sort of operated in the province without the PCV licence. They go to a company that may want goods transported from here to Windsor and they say: “Because we operate more cheaply, we don’t have to come under the PCV Act and our expenses aren’t as large, we can give you a better rate.” So they give a better rate and they transport the goods for those people. Many business firms do it this way.

Mr. Reid: There’s a little more to it than that.

Mr. Young: Well, this is fundamentally what happens. They are escaping the rules and regulations of the PCV Act. The result is that we are simply saying that there must be regulations if these people are going to operate, if they are needed -- and I am willing to grant that since there is such a big demand for this kind of service perhaps the so-called regular trucking industry is not providing all the services that should be there.

I don’t know, but this is what we can look into when this bill is referred to the standing committee where we can hear representations from all people who are concerned with this whole deal. But the fact is, if we are going to have an industry which is viable, it must be an industry which comes under the regulations, which obeys the law and which from time to time has to be looked at.

[3:45]

Now these people who operate outside the regulations are people who many of us have looked at for a long time; there’s been a lot of concern about it. I just want to say that the statement here is hardly correct. That is, these people are not all little guys and the regular transport industry is not all big guys. Out of the 2,000 or so regular transport firms and individuals, we have, according to my figures, something like 827 single owners in that group out of the 2,000. It’s not quite half, but very close to it. The average holding is about four rigs per company.

On the other hand, among the pseudo-leasers or whatever you want to term them, you have some very large companies. Some very large American companies have come in and are pounding our roads here in Ontario without the benefit of regulation. They go where they wish; they simply move where they want to go. They are not restricted as far as rates are concerned and many of their rigs are operating without cargo insurance because many of them can’t get it. Some of these, of course, have been brought before the courts on many occasions because they are in violation of the law of Ontario.

So it seems to me that if we are going to believe in a society of law we must say that all the people who are operating in business or as individuals should be brought under the rule of law. That’s all we’re saying here today.

Mr. Bullbrook: The bill doesn’t do that, that’s the very point.

Mr. Young: All right, we have no objection to that happening. And so if these people are willing to get their licence and come --

Mr. Bullbrook: It’s a dishonest piece of legislation.

Mr. Young: -- under the law or if, on the other hand, we should amend the legislation so that there’s more latitude for this kind of operator --

Mr. Reid: That’s not what the bill does.

Mr. Young: -- then that’s the kind of thing --

Mr. Bullbrook: The principle of the bill doesn’t say that.

Mr. Young: All right. This is the fundamental thing which we are looking toward. I think all of us have to recognize there is something wrong here and that the operators of trucks pounding the roads in this way are operating outside the present regulations and the present legislation.

That’s why we’re willing to support this legislation. We’d like to see it come to the standing committee so that everybody can make his representation, then we’d come back to the House and perhaps there will be amendments at that time which should be considered and considered seriously.

Mr. Cunningham: I’d like to speak briefly in favour of our reasoned amendment to hoist this legislation.

To say as the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) did just recently, that this legislation was somewhat simplistic is really an understatement from my point of view. Clearly, to me what it does is legitimize what I perceive to be some direction by some senior civil servants who feel that this is in fact an illegal activity. I would ask if they could justify this by demonstrating to me whether all these people who are going to be affected -- in fact put out of business -- have in fact been placed before the courts at any time.

What I see this legislation doing in essence is putting a large number of small independent truckers out of business and very quickly -- overnight in fact -- into bankruptcy. The ramifications of this, at least from my point of view, I’d like to share with the members of the Legislature, through you, Mr. Speaker.

I think, first of all, thousands of gallons of fuel are going to be wasted because people are going to have to return these large trucks from their place of business emptly. To run any kind of business that way, especially when we are suffering fuel shortages, to me is ludicrous.

Mr. Bain: Footnote your sources.

Mr. Cunningham: I would, as well, like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the higher transportation costs for the people of Ontario would be inflationary. The first people to scream whenever the Consumer Price Index increases are my friends in the NDP. I would ask them at this time what effect they think this is going to have on the cost of goods if, in fact, people are going to have to transport their goods and be subject -- the manufacturers of Ontario at least -- to the mercy of the Ontario Trucking Association, which is, they are quite right, uniform and non-competitive.

The service aspect is another point I would raise in favour of not putting the legitimate -- I repeat, legitimate -- leasing operations out of business. Many of these people operate in very close muon with various manufacturers throughout Ontario, and they have a kind of relationship that our Ontario Trucking Association and the established companies which fall under the purview of the PCV Act, do not enjoy and cannot facilitate.

I find this type of legislation to be ex post facto in nature; I find it to be arbitrary; I find it to be unfair; and, to tell the truth, I don’t find it particularly typical of a party that would espouse the essence and the principle of free enterprise. We are not only going to affect all the people -- the families, the people who drive these trucks, the people who hold mortgages on them, many of which I am sure are secured by their houses and personal chattels -- but also a number of companies that rely on these companies for lower transportation rates so that in fact they can stay competitive.

Increased fuel costs, increased hydro rates and increased wages in Ontario are slowly putting many companies in this country either out of business or in a non-competitive position as it would relate to the United States or to other companies. I think that to further increase the cost of their business is not only inflationary, but it’s going to cause severe dislocation, it’s going to put people out of their jobs and I think it’s going to be excessively unfair.

Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with you a few remarks here put forth in a letter to all of us by Mr. John F. Bulloch, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. On April 2, 1976, in a release to us, he strongly urged that the members of the Legislature oppose Bill 4 when it is presented to the Legislature for second reading on Tuesday, April 6. Mr. Bulloch said:

“The purpose of this bill, in our judgement, is to put private truck-leasing companies out of business by preventing return-lease arrangements. If this legislation is passed, a small manufacturer in, say, Windsor, leasing a truck for a trip to Toronto, would have to return the truck empty. This would increase the cost of leasing substantially and waste scarce fuel. At present, the truck can be left in Toronto at a depot and a separate lease agreement can be made by the lessor with another small business.

“One-way leasing is very adaptable to the needs of small firms, since it provides a degree of speed, flexibility and, more importantly, economy that large trucking firms cannot provide. Bill 4 is an example of big government working closely with big business to the disadvantage of the consumer and the small business community.”

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business represents 32,000 Canadian owner- managers, 16,000 of whom are located in Ontario.

In addition to the support of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the independent truckers also enjoy the support of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Industrial Traffic League, the lumber companies of our north, more recently the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers Association and obviously -- by the participation today of the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) and myself as well as, of course, the other members of my party -- the Liberal Party in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, through you I would suggest, possibly to the minister, that we might take a more universal approach to what I perceive to be a real problem in Ontario -- and I don’t think there is anybody in the Legislature who would argue against it -- and that is, transportation and the relationship of it to the trucking industry in Ontario. I would say to the minister that possibly the time has come when we should have a select committee, not only to examine the possible ramifications of Bill 4 in terms of putting people out of business in this particular industry, but to examine the entire industry across Ontario.

Maybe there are, as the hon. member pointed out, violations in the area of insurance; and certainly there are some members of the lease-holding operation who clearly aren’t operating in good faith and could be termed to be pirates. But again, to use this shotgun effect, in essence to put a number of people out of business overnight like this, is grossly unfair.

The hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) indicated it was a dishonest piece of legislation. I think I must share his point of view in that I don’t think the government is being straightforward with these people. I don’t think they have made any attempt, before introducing this legislation, to solicit some meaningful feedback from that community and the community that is affected by it. In essence, I think if the minister wants to put these people out of business, why doesn’t he just table a piece of legislation to say “We want you out of business”.

To fool around in this way and say they can go only one way and regulate it by poundage I think is fallacious and, at the very least, dishonest.

In concluding, I would ask that the members of the Legislature not only in the Liberal Party but all members of the Legislature who favour private enterprise and who would be inclined to support the little man in Ontario who is trying to make an honest buck -- certainly I think that for the most part, that would be most of the people who are involved in the independent truckers’ association -- I would ask the NDP and other members who would look upon this in a favourable, fair and compassionate way to support our reasoned amendment.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in the words of the last speaker, I want to look at it in a very compassionate way. I want to look at it in terms of the little man. I want to talk in terms of the man who, for 20 or 25 years in this province, has probably had to carry a heavier burden of technological change, economic change and social change on his back than anybody else. That is the line driver for a regular truck company. Let me just add to that; let me talk about some of the unsung people. Let me talk about the men who go down and work on the loading docks at night and load those trucks.

They have been working a long time in this province. They haven’t asked anything from anybody. They organized themselves a union. They got themselves the right so that they didn’t have to drive all day and all night and on the loading docks they won for themselves the right so that they didn’t have to do this or that and get a NSF cheque. I love these free enterprisers with their independent businessmen, I really do.

I want to talk about those so-called little men and I want to say something about compassion. It’s all very well for a Legislature to come in and to take a look at legislation and say, in the light of 1976, to bring some immediate or short-term or even weekend benefits to a certain segment of business, therefore we will cut away the standards, the rights and the conditions that other people have had to work for 25 or 30 years to obtain.

Mr. McEwen: And control.

Mr. Drea: I very seriously question the concept that this is the legislation which will help the little man. The little man, after all, goes to work at 6 or 7 o’clock in the morning and he doesn’t expect anything more than that he will be paid the prescribed hourly rates and that his cheque will be cashed.

Mr. Cunningham: He is going to lose his job.

Mr. Drea: He also asks one more thing and I don’t really think it’s very much in terms of our society today. That is that when he leaves work on Friday, he can be reasonably assured that there is a job on Monday. I realize that there are a great number of --

Mr. Cunningham: Not with you guys.

Mr. Reid: Not if he works in a hospital, he can’t have that assurance.

Mr. Cunningham: Not if he is a social worker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Drea: I don’t really think it is very much for a man to ask and it may not be much in terms of all the free enterprisers. It may not be very much in terms of all those who have never worked and I don’t think it is very much for this Legislature to recognize that there are people who have a very solid requirement for their job.

They went to work under certain terms or conditions, they have done those and now it turns out, because of economic or social or technological conditions, that we are about to say, because it benefits one segment of the industry -- we stand here and we beat our breasts on behalf of free enterprise and the little man. I will tell members that far too often today, the only reason the little man in free enterprise gets started is because he’s trying to undercut the pensions or the conditions or something else that the working man has fought a long time for.

[4:00]

Mr. Cunningham: You don’t know what you are talking about.

Mr. Sweeney: In other words, close the door for anyone else to start.

Mr. Drea: I say that very seriously, and maybe they should take a look at it.

Mr. Cunningham: You are not even talking to the bill. You are not even speaking about the bill. I’d like to know where you think you have licence to ramble on like this. You are not even speaking to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Drea: I am talking to the bill. You raised it with your compassion. You raised it -- your compassion, your little man, your independent man, but I am setting the record straight.

An hon. member: Don’t get mad. Keep your cool.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill. I think it is high time we try to rationalize many of the innovations that are coming into highway transport. I think it is high time we took a look at the companies that have pioneered transport across this province. It is high time we looked at the people who have paid wages, who have developed road routes, who have developed traffic patterns in this province. I suggest that nobody gets a more friendly reception in this House than somebody who is talking for small business. But I suggest this is the first time that Mr.

Bulloch -- and I received exactly the same thing as the members did and I looked at it more in sadness than anything else --

Mr. Cunningham: Did you read it?

Mr. Reid: Did you have somebody read it to you?

Mr. Drea: He has been massively misadvised. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, a vote against this bill --

Mr. Riddell: That has nothing to do with the bill.

Mr. Drea: -- is a vote to turn trucking and highway transport, and all the ancillary services that are with it, back to where they were before the war.

Mr. Cunningham: That’s nonsense.

Mr. Drea: I suggest very seriously that members who want to vote against this should think of the little man. It’s about time they thought of the little man’s pension, the little man’s job security, the things the little man has been able to bring home to his family through a combination of his own efforts to organize and the regulation of this industry in the province.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill although I have some reservations, as had the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), and I am glad that the bill will be referred to committee so that we can hear the representations of the people involved.

Mr. Reid: That is not what you are voting for. Do you understand the parliamentary system?

Mr. Foulds: You people should talk about understanding the parliamentary system and process.

Mr. Reid: The principle of the bill is not to debate it in committee. The principle of the bill is putting people out of work.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member from Algoma will continue.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen beside us here want to put this whole thing off and we are going to face more chaos in the system if we continue to put it off. We will have more and more people coming into the business unregulated.

Mr. MacDonald: The Liberals are always in favour of unregulating things.

Mr. Wildman: They bring out this red herring of free enterprise and helping the little man -- and I agree with the last speaker, what about the little man who has been under the PCV and has been working under this? They are not helping him any when they say let’s put it off and let more of those operators come in unregulated.

Mr. Cunningham: How does this relate to the bill?

Mr. Wildman: I don’t know.

Mr. Nixon: You are voting for it.

Mr. Wildman: I don’t know that this is the answer, but to put off any control of these people for four months or two months is not going to solve anything. Why not get it into committee, hear the representations of everybody and get it solved as quickly as possible?

Mr. Bullbrook: Because you can’t amend the principle of the bill then.

Mr. Wildman: How can we, as they are suggesting, support the principle that we have unfettered competition? That’s ridiculous. None of the truckers wants that.

Mr. Reid: That’s not what the bill says. Have you read the bill?

Mr. Wildman: Yes, I have read the bill.

Mr. Reid: Did you understand it?

Mr. Wildman: This bill will not allow for two-way leases, right?

Mr. Reid: And what’s the effect of that?

Mr. Wildman: These people here want to allow pseudo lessors to come into this business and take business away from legitimate operators who have been operating under regulation for so long, because they don’t want to control these kinds of leases. I can’t support their reasoned amendment because I think it is just going to continue a chaotic system. I think we should pass this bill and control the entry into the industry, as has been suggested by many speakers previously, both on this side and on that side of the House.

Mr. Reid: The reasoned amendment doesn’t say that either.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to the bill as it stands now because of the basic principle of this bill. We are not sure what the intent of the government was in bringing it forward. In the short time I’ve been in this Legislature, I have disagreed with bills the government has put forward but at least their intent was clear.

I have to agree with two of my colleagues who have said that this is basically a dishonest bill. The government surely knows that what will happen if this bill goes through is that upwards of 5,000 independent truckers will be put out of business. It can’t be any other way.

Mr. Wildman: Why don’t they apply for PCVs?

Mr. Sweeney: In 1973, only three years ago, this Legislature -- I have to assume with the support of the entire House -- passed another piece of legislation which, in effect, said to these same 5,000 truck owners, “Yes, go out. What you’re doing is legitimate. There is enough room in this province for different ways of serving the people.”

Even the member of the NDP earlier stated that there are different needs for the transportation business in this province and that different forms of transportation have arisen to meet those needs. If we believe the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea), we have closed the door forever. We are now fixed forever -- in this day of change, surely not -- and no new methods can come forward. Everything that is now fixed is going to be fixed forever and we’re not supposed to touch it because of the people who are already in it.

Mr. Wildman: Let them apply for a PCV.

Mr. Sweeney: Surely, we can’t do that. What we’re saying here in effect -- and what I think the government is saying -- is that over the last three years the government has realized there are some problems with what’s happening here. Okay, we can agree to that but what, in effect, the government is doing is saying that because there are some problems with some lessor-owners, it is going to crucify all of them.

Mr. Mancini: That’s what you’re doing.

Mr. Sweeney: That’s the same thing as saying that because some people who walk into a bank will rob it, the government is going to convict everyone who walks into a bank -- because someone might rob it. That’s what we’re against. We’re against the overriding principle of this bill which will, in effect, destroy small businessmen who are meeting a recognized need.

Mr. Wildman: If there’s a need for them.

Mr. Sweeney: If the government can demonstrate that there are specific problems with the way this is operating now, let us deal with those -- but not with this. This isn’t dealing with the problem; this is crucifixion. There are other truckers in this province who have difficulties, too.

As my colleague has said, let’s look at the industry but don’t let’s destroy a piece of it. Let’s not cut off one of its arms. That’s what we’re opposed to and that’s what the principle of this bill is. That’s why we must oppose it in principle. That’s why we must bring through a reasoned amendment.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to speak for a few minutes about the bill because it’s obviously a difficult one from the comments which have been made on both sides of the House. I don’t pretend for a moment to be able to speak with the emotional depth of feeling with which my colleague, the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) or, on this particular occasion, the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea), spoke about the problems which are involved in a bill such as this.

I’d take this bill to be the addition to an already complex

section of the Public Commercial Vehicles Act of a couple of additional items which, if found to be the case, will invalidate what would otherwise be construed or could be construed as a valid lease of a commercial vehicle for the carriage of goods.

I think the reason we would support the bill -- particularly when the minister has indicated, as we wished him to indicate, that it would go to the standing committee on resources development for serious consideration -- is that we support the proposition that the business of the common carriage of goods on the highways of Ontario must be subject to regulation and licensing -- in the interests of the public, the interests of the drivers and in the interests of the owners of the vehicles.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s very meritorious but this bill doesn’t do it.

Mr. Renwick: If we do not support the principle of the addition of these particular items to the

section of the bill which is being amended -- it’s the addition of two items to a very long list of items -- then we are, in substance, saying that we most allow a method by which persons can engage in the common carriage of goods on the highways of Ontario without a licence. It’s just that simple.

What we are saying to the minister, and saying very clearly, is we do support the bill. We think it is essential that what has become a very awkward

section of the bill,

section 3 of the Public Commercial Vehicles Act, has got to have a hard look taken at it to see whether or not there is room for what will be construed as illegal activities to be brought within a legal framework. It would be our hope that somewhere out there in the committee, with the representations and comments which are made, a different method can be devised that will not make illegal what many people probably consider to be, from their own point of view, a legal method of carrying on business. I think that’s what we’ve got to search for and that’s what we’ve got to find.

The problem was placed very simply in a number of cases; and of course the ministry, to uphold the principle of the common carriage of goods in the province, had to do something to deal with the legal cases that were coming before the courts by way of prosecution under the Public Commercial Vehicles Act. I want to refer briefly to the one which came before the courts in 1972 and which led, the following year, to the amendments we made to sections 2 and 3 of the Public Commercial Vehicles Act to try to deal with the problem.

In retrospect, I think it’s fair to say that if we had all known at that time of the difficulties that this was going to occasion, it may well have been that at that time it would have been wise to have had the matter thrashed out and dealt with in a standing committee of the Legislature or in some other proper form so that we could have arrived at a better solution.

In any event, in the case to which I want to refer, Regina vs Tobias, it’s quite a simple case; it’s very clear as to what took place. Mr. Tobias owned a tractor and several trailers. He was picked up one day on the highway in the city of Windsor when he was driving the vehicles described in the charge; that is, a tractor unit and several trailers. He was then charged with operating without a licence under the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

The actual factual situation was not difficult. The vehicles were carrying steel, which had been picked up at Hamilton from the Steel Co. of Canada and was consigned to Namasco, a company doing business in Windsor. Namasco was the owner of the steel listed as consignee on the bills of lading which were produced when the vehicle was stopped. It is clear that a commercial vehicle was being operated. The question is, was the accused the operator?

At that point, I want to make this distinction: It was again stated very early in the history of this particular form of licensing of common carriers, that the interest and purpose of the Act is to regulate the use of a commercial vehicle in the business of transporting, for compensation, goods for the public generally. I think that’s a fair statement of the principle of the common carriage of goods.

The Act in no sense was to affect a vehicle used exclusively for the transportation of the goods or materials of the owner of the vehicle. It was very clear that if a person owned his own vehicle and he carried his own goods in it, it was never the intention of the Legislature to license that vehicle. On the other hand, if he was not the owner of the vehicle in which his goods were being transported, it was the intention of the legislature to license the vehicle for the common carriage of that person’s goods as a member of the public generally.

That was the situation which the county court judge, His Honour, Judge Zuber, was faced with in the Tobias case, and he put it very simply. He said:

“Now in general terms if the accused, Mr. Tobias, operated as a carrier and carried the goods of Namasco, he would have to be licensed under the Public Commercial Vehicles Act. If, on the other hand, Namasco was simply carrying its own goods, using its own trucks, I think it’s equally obvious it did not have to be licensed as a public commercial vehicle.”

[4:15]

The defence which Mr. Tobias gave, of course, was to produce an agreement which purported to be a lease of the vehicles to Namasco on a net basis so that, for all practical purposes, while he went through the form of leasing the vehicles, all the substance of the obligations remained on Mr. Tobias. The result was that the court simply said that that was not a valid lease and it was a sham.

In 1973, we tried to deal with it in the Legislature by stating very clearly that, if certain incidents occurred in an arrangement between the owner of goods and the owner of a vehicle, it could not be supported as a valid lease and would be ruled out. We listed a series of them -- I think eight altogether -- which would invalidate and require a court to hold that it was not a valid arrangement for the leasing of the vehicle to an owner to escape the responsibility of having a public commercial vehicle licence.

It was quite interesting to look back at that debate which took place in June, 1973. With varying degrees of misgivings, the members of all the parties in the House agreed with the passage of the bill, including the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid). I think the member for at that time Essex-Kent (Mr. Ruston) spoke on the bill. Certainly my colleague, the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa), spoke at some length on the bill. I made a couple of, as usual, irrelevant and innocuous comments about the bill.

Mr. Nixon: Just like today.

Mr. Renwick: That’s quite true.

Mr. Reid: You are consistent anyway.

Mr. Renwick: When I read what I said in 1973, I chose those particular adjectives quite appropriately. They were quite innocuous and quite irrelevant. They seemed to have caught the attention of the House on that occasion. I am trying to make amends on this particular occasion for my lack of knowledge of the depth of the problem.

If the problem, which had been created by the series of court cases in the legitimate effort of the government to regulate the common carriage trade in the Province of Ontario, had been raised at that time, we might have made a lot of progress because the various items which rule out an arrangement as being a valid lease are now already lengthy and there is nothing to indicate that the arrangements which are covered by these additional items wouldn’t also have been ruled out under the existing provisions that are set out in

section 3 of the bill.

For reasons which are obvious to the ministry and to us, it appears that these relatively large tractors and trailers were driving their way through the statute and upsetting and disrupting the very sound principle of the regulation by government in the public interest of these engaged in the common carriage of goods.

So we support the bill because we support that principle, but we are very much concerned that the actual details, as presently set out in the existing Public Commercial Vehicles Act in sections 2 and 3, to which this present bill simply adds one or two additional items and an additional section, require very serious and careful consideration to see if there isn’t some other way in which it would be possible to bring within the ambit of the Public Commercial Vehicles Act a number of persons who likely consider that their operation is legitimate and that they are just subject to unnecessary harassment by the Ontario Provincial Police to enforce the provisions of the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

The amendments which we passed in 1973, while they touched upon some of the problem, did not really come to grips with it, and I do hope that at this particular time, when the bill goes to the committee, we will come to grips with it. I want perhaps to labour it slightly by pointing out, so that the record will at least show it, the kind of difficult problem that we have got ourselves into in trying to itemize at great length the kind of arrangements which are not to be considered valid arrangements.

Section 3 of the Public Commercial Vehicles Act, as presently worded, in substance says that, subject to subsection 2:

“Where a commercial vehicle is used for the transportation on a highway of goods that are owned by a person other than the owner or lessee of the vehicle and are being transported pursuant to any arrangement or agreement between the owner or lessee of the vehicle and such other person under which the owner or lessee directly or indirectly receives compensation or consideration of any kind for the use of the vehicle, the goods shall be deemed to be transported in the vehicle by the owner or lessee of the vehicle unless such arrangement or agreement constitutes a valid lease of his vehicle to such other person by the owner or lessee of the vehicle.”

In subsection 2, we went on to list a series of items which, if they are contained in a particular agreement, shall deem that agreement not to be a valid lease. We provide that it must be in writing, that it must have exclusive possession, it must provide for the payment directly of the driver of the vehicle, and a number of these other items, which makes it for practical purposes a legal conundrum to decide in any particular instance whether an agreement made between the owner of a vehicle for the lease of that vehicle to a person who wants to