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

November 6, 1975

30th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L008 - Thu 6 Nov 1975 / Jeu 6 nov 1975

EMERGENCY MAIL SERVICE

MACGREGOR POINT PROVINCIAL PARK

RENT REVIEW

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT AMENDMENTS

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADVISORY COUNCIL

ONTARIO CREDIT RATING

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

PAYMENTS TO DOCTORS

PAYMENT FOR CATTLE PURCHASES

MISSISSAUGA INQUIRY

TELSO STRIKE

HYDRO EXPLORATIONS

HOUSING ACTION PROGRAMME

KRAUSS-MAFFEI SYSTEM

INJURED WORKMEN’S DEMONSTRATION

LIQUOR BOARD APPOINTMENTS

VIOLENCE IN HOCKEY

HOMES ON TORONTO ISLAND

PAYMENT FOR CATTLE PURCHASES

WATER POLLUTION TEST RESULTS

EXPANSION OF GO-URBAN

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW ACT

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I raise this matter on behalf of a number of my colleagues in the House and on my own behalf. You no doubt noticed in a newspaper

article about a week ago in the financial page the substantial profits being shown by the Bell Telephone Co. I wondered if you could prevail upon them to set aside some hundreds of the millions that they have made to provide telephones for the members of the Legislature in order that they could carry out their responsibilities during this legislative session.

As you can appreciate, it is virtually impossible for a member, after having been elected and having taken on very onerous responsibilities, to carry out those responsibilities without the use of some communicative device back to his or her constituency. A telephone would be useful. If you would take it upon yourself to look into this matter on our behalf as the guardian of the members’ rights, we would appreciate it very much.

Mr. Speaker Stokes: I will take advantage of the first opportunity to call this to the attention of Mr. Speaker Rowe, who is responsible for protecting the members and making sure the amenities are provided for them to carry on their duties, and I am sure he will take that into consideration.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to you and members of the House a group of 140 students from the E. J. James Public School in the great town of Oakville.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House and your attention, and welcome to this House, a group of the wives of the members of the Ontario Association of Educational Administrative Officers who are holding their convention in Toronto this week. These women are in your gallery attending today’s sitting.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

EMERGENCY MAIL SERVICE

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, like other Canadians, I have been anticipating settlement of the postal strike each day. But as each day slips by and the strike lengthens -- and no one is certain at this point just how long it may drag on -- I think it is I incumbent upon me to advise the House of the emergency mail service we have had in effect, and will maintain for the duration of the strike.

Special attention has been given to important mail pieces, such as GAINS and family benefit cheques and other vital service communications. For instance, senior representatives of my ministry are making appropriate arrangements with representatives of the Ministry of Revenue to distribute GAINS cheques that would normally have been due for delivery later this month.

The flow of essential mail between government offices is being handled by private courier service, bus parcel express, air express, special international mail service, telecommunications services and through the use of Ministry of Government Services’ vehicles.

Field offices of the Ontario government throughout the province have established drop boxes to receive, for distribution, essential mail from the private sector addressed to all Ontario government offices and to the members.

Mr. Roy: How about courier pigeon?

Mrs. Campbell: How about the telephone?

MACGREGOR POINT PROVINCIAL PARK

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that the MacGregor Point Provincial Park --

Mr. Gaunt: A good park.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- a new 2,500-acre recreation facility on Lake Huron, five miles south of Port Elgin, will be open to the public for camping by July 1, 1976.

As I have previously indicated to this House, MacGregor Point’s new campgrounds will replace those phased out at Inverhuron Provincial Park at the end of this season to comply with regulations of the Atomic Energy Control Board in line with the agreement made in 1973 with Ontario Hydro.

However, and I do want to stress this, Inverhuron Park’s swimming and picnic areas will remain open to the public free of charge, only Inverhuron’s campgrounds will be discontinued.

Costs of land acquisition and park development at MacGregor Point, to replace the equivalent facilities formerly provided at Inverhuron, were financed by Ontario Hydro with additional costs for the more extensive facilities provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Over 150 campsites will be available to the public by July 1, 1976, with a further 200 scheduled for completion by midsummer. When completed, the new park will contain more than four times the acreage of Inverhuron Park, thus expanding both day use and camping opportunities for the 4,000,000 Ontarians who live within a three-hour drive of this part of Lake Huron’s scenic shoreline.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Lewis: Housing, Housing!

Mr. Roy: The minister is still hesitant. Does he still want to change his mind once more? Go ahead, we will understand.

RENT REVIEW

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, today I will be introducing the Residential Premises Rent Review Act. The introduction of --

Mr. Roy: Is the minister sure about that?

Mr. Cassidy: The government should have done that 2½ years ago.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The introduction of rent control in Ontario at this time is in keeping with this government’s undertaking during the last election. It should also be viewed --

Mr. Singer: Which one, which one?

Mr. Lewis: Which day?

Mr. Singer: Which day, which undertaking, by whom?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It should also be viewed in the context of the federal government’s anti-inflation measures which it is designed to complement.

As the minister responsible for housing, I am and must be concerned with the possibility that rent control could have an adverse effect on the development of rental accommodation, which is already scarce in a number of our communities. In other jurisdictions, such a reduction has occurred and it is a distressing side-effect of the strong medicine of rent control. However, at a time when rents have been climbing, wages are limited and prices subject to review, rent levies must be legislated for the common good.

Hopefully, we will be able to interest builders in our housing programmes and the new federal housing initiatives so that, notwithstanding the controls, a better supply of accommodation of all types will become available in these communities.

The following are the general principles of the legislation:

Leases commencing before July 30, 1975, while not subject to this Act, may be considered by rental officials named under the Act if a tenant requests a review of the statutory rent increases allowed when such a lease is renewed.

Leases commencing between July 29, 1975, and Jan. 1, 1976, will be limited to a maximum rental increase of eight per cent of the rent paid in July, 1975. During this period the allowable increase cannot be appealed by either party. Appeals will be allowed either party for the balance of the term after Jan. 1. 1976. Provision is made to require landlords to refund overpayments.

Leases commencing between Dec. 31, 1975, and Aug. 1, 1976, will be subject to a maximum rental increase of eight per cent which may be appealed by either landlord or tenant.

Leases commencing between July 31, 1976, and Aug. 1, 1977, will be subject to a new maximum rental increase established by order-in-council which may be appealed by either landlord or tenant.

In any appeal case, the person affected by the appeal may ask to have the rents reduced rather than increased or increased rather than reduced, as the case may be. The onus will be on the landlord to demonstrate that increased costs justify the rent increase.

Disputes will be first heard by a rent review officer with a right of appeal by either party to the Rent Review Board.

Residential premises for the purpose of this Act will be either a dwelling unit that contains bathroom and kitchen facilities or land used as a site for a mobile home. Rent will mean not only the amount paid by the tenant for accommodation, but that paid for any ancillary service or “thing” such as parking or lockers. A tenancy agreement may be written, oral or implied.

We will be naming rent review officers in all parts of the province and making provision for the Rent Review Board to bold hearings across Ontario for the convenience of tenants and landlords.

The rent review officer will be empowered to approve the amount sought by a landlord if he is satisfied that the costs presented justify the amount of the rent increase. On the other side of the coin, he can order the landlord to reduce the rent increase to an amount less than eight per cent on appeal by the tenant and order the landlord to pay back rent already paid in excess of what is finally allowed.

Until such time as the rent review officer makes his decision, a rent increase up to the eight per cent limit established by the Act may be collected by the landlord. Also, the discontinuance by the landlord of a service, privilege, accommodation or “thing” which results in a substantial reduction of the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises will be considered a rent increase. Neither party may charge for any equipment or service which cannot be justified.

The rent review officer is empowered to review such actions by landlords and tenants who sublet. Tenants will not be able to sublet for a consideration greater than the rent that is lawfully charged by the landlord and may not charge any consideration for assigning the tenancy agreement.

This Act will not apply to a number of residential premises. These include those owned by federal or provincial governments or government agencies, buildings of four residential units or fewer, luxury accommodation -- which is defined as having a rent of more than $500 a month -- co-operatives and non-profit housing and several similar exclusions. Also exempted are new buildings, no part of which were occupied for residential purposes before Jan. 1, 1976.

Any person who knowingly contravenes the limiting sections of the Act is guilty of an offence and on

summary conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000.

Mr. Lewis: Members opposite should be more enthusiastic than that. Or are you still kicking and screaming?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s completely consistent with what we said last August.

Mr. Nixon: On which day?

Interjections.

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT AMENDMENTS

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of the Residential Premises Rent Review Act for first reading this afternoon requires further legislation to ensure security of tenure. I therefore intend to introduce amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act next Wednesday, to protect tenants who become involved in rent disputes. I would like to review the main points of this legislation this afternoon because of the important connection between it and the rent review legislation.

The first important change will be to require landlords to give reasons for terminating a tenancy at the end of a term. No terminations will be permitted without notice to the tenant specifying reasons and particulars.

If the tenant does not consent, the landlord will be required to apply to a judge to obtain possession. He will have to satisfy the judge that reasons given for termination constitute “just cause” under the terms of the amended Act.

The list of just causes for termination at the end of a term will include such things as excessive damage to the premises, offensive or illegal acts, undue nuisance or disturbance of other tenants, or failure to pay rent. A draft of these provisions is being delivered to spokesmen opposite and will be made public this afternoon.

To protect other tenants, the amendments will also enable the landlord to terminate the tenancy of an unreasonable tenant prior to the end of the term. To get possession of the premises, the landlord may need to prove his case to a judge. Landlords will also be required to give the tenant notice of default and an opportunity to remedy it, before going to court.

In addition, special provisions will be made for landlords to obtain possession of rented premises for extensive renovations or demolition. Notice to tenants will be necessary and the landlord will, once again, have to prove the validity of termination to a judge if a tenant objects.

We are very concerned that tenants have the fullest possible opportunity to assess rent increases and contest them if necessary. To this end, landlords will be required to give tenants three months’ notice of intended rent increases, whether the tenancy is for a week, a month, a year or longer.

We are satisfied that the rights of good tenants will be improved -- and fully protected -- by these amendments.

Further legislative changes will be made to provide new rights to the owners of mobile homes who rent sites for them. The courts have declared that the Landlord and Tenant Act does not apply to tenants who rent the site but not the mobile home. In some cases, this has led to serious hardship. Amendments to be introduced next week will ensure that the provisions of the Act do apply, including security of tenure.

In addition, the tenant will be given the right to sell his mobile home while it is on the rented site, without payment of a fee. The landlord will have a right to refuse consent if he can demonstrate just cause.

Landlords of mobile home parks will be prohibited from making charges over and above reasonable expenses for such things as entry to or exit from the park, installation or removal of a mobile home or the granting of tenancy.

In addition, landlords will not be allowed to restrict the tenant’s right to purchase goods or services from the person of his choice. Landlords will be required to provide garbage disposal and maintain common facilities and internal roads, plumbing, sewerage and electrical systems in the park.

These initiatives will extend to Ontario mobile home owners a measure of legal protection unequalled in any other Canadian province.

Finally, important procedural changes will be made to the Landlord and Tenant Act to help a tenant present his case and obtain redress.

Tenants and landlords will be allowed representation in court by other than a lawyer. Tenants will gain the right to apply to a judge for termination of tenancy, a return of security deposits with interest, or abatement of rent. Presently, only landlords can make application to a judge under the Act.

Hearsay evidence will be permitted in court for the first time under the Landlord and Tenant Act, an important breakthrough for tenants who must rely upon their own spoken evidence to make their case.

The new legislation will allow a group with common interest to bring or defend an action before a judge if a judge approves. County and district judges will continue --

Mr. Lewis: We should have elections more often -- every six months.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- to adjudicate landlord and tenant matters to ensure that justice is served in this complex and contentious area. The excellent record of the judiciary on these matters deserves our continued support.

I intend to review the need for additional judges to provide for any increase in caseloads due to the amendments and to ensure prompt dispositions. In fact, we have already had preliminary conversations with the chief judge of the county court of the Province of Ontario.

There is more to come.

Mr. Lewis: What about Sept. 18 on an annual basis?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The Ontario Law Reform Commission will soon report to us on its analysis of the landlord and tenant relationship. Among other things, it will deal with the possibility of a standard tenancy agreement for Ontario. With this new report in hand we will consider the need for a new Landlord and Tenant Act.

Mr. Cassidy: There’s more enthusiasm over here than there is over there.

Mr. MacDonald: Long live minority governments!

Mr. Lewis: Who would have believed it?

Mr. Reid: Here comes the bad news.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Health has the floor.

Mr. Foulds: Is dental care next?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Most certainly a toothless opposition needs it.

Mr. Cassidy: From what we have just heard, the minister shouldn’t say that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the Minister of Health continue?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will if your opposition will permit. It is not your opposition, it is my opposition.

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADVISORY COUNCIL

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in the past few years we have all grown increasingly aware of the complexity of the problems involved in guarding the people of Ontario against the hazards of health in various occupational and environmental surroundings. Historically, occupational health measures were seen mainly as routine precautions against known dangers with promptly visible consequences, but in more recent years the industrial application of new developments in the field of chemical technology have greatly increased the possibility of hidden and unsuspected risks.

It is clear to me that part of the price of remaining internationally competitive is not to be paid by a sacrifice of life expectancy. It requires greatly increased watchfulness. This watchfulness must detect new hazards and react effectively and with the least possible delay against them. Decisive precautionary measures must also be imposed in the case of known hazards. There has never been any question of the province’s willingness to take ultimate responsibility for that watchfulness.

To reinforce this responsibility the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development announced in this House last April that the government of Ontario had decided to establish an advisory council on occupational and environmental health. This council will provide the formal mechanism for industry, labour and other interested parties to advise government on health standards and to recommend new policies and programmes. It will also assist government in defining how health safeguards can be engineered into new plants at the design stage.

As the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development also announced at that time, responsibility for inspecting, monitoring and enforcing health standards remains with the ministries of Labour, Natural Resources and Environment, but the advisory council will report to the Minister of Health. The Ministry of Health, and particularly its occupational health protection branch, will be the focal point for the setting of standards and for research applying to human health. The Ministry of Health will have clearly delineated responsibilities to assure that the standards are properly applied.

I have given this brief

summary, really for those members who weren’t here in the last session --

Mr. Wildman: There are a lot of us.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- to remind all members of this House of this background, since today I wish to announce the appointment of the Advisory Council on Occupational and Environmental Health, and these are the names:

Dr. Maurice Adelman, associate dean of graduate studies at the University of Windsor; Mr. Clifford Basken, international safety and health representative of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers; Dr. Carol Burnham of S. N. C. Consultants Ltd.; Mr. P. F. Clarke, vice-president of Texasgulf Canada Ltd.; Mr. Sidney Liswood, executive vice-president of the Mount Sinai Hospital; Mr. J. H. Lumb, director of employee services, Westinghouse Canada Ltd.; Dr. R. H. Martin, medical director of Dominion Foundries and Steel Ltd.; Mr. V. I. McCallum, executive assistant to the vice-president, nickel division, of Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. --

Mr. Martel: That’s like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just hold on now, your turn’s coming.

Mr. Martel: How can you have such people on it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Larry Sheffe, international safety and health representative of the United Automobile Workers. Is that Dracula?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Okay?

Mr. Martel: No, it’s just to correct the imbalance. You’ve got one --

Hon. F. S. Miller: There is an exact balance -- wait till I finish!

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Throw him out, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Reid: Name him, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: How come all the employers are in the first half of the alphabet?

Hon. F. S. Miller: They weren’t all employers.

Mr. Thomas Sloan, Canadian director of the International Chemical Workers’ Union; Mr. K. Valentine, assistant director of the education department of the United Steelworkers of America; Mr. Edward Waddell, director of social services, Ontario Federation of Labour; and Mr. W. A. Webb of Telephone City Gravel Materials Ltd.

I would also remind members of this House that the council is fortunate in having as its chairman --

Mr. Roy: I think the minister has covered the whole province, yes.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- Dr. H. Rocke Robertson, whose appointment was announced last July by the Premier (Mr. Davis). Dr. Robertson was, from 1959 to 1962, both surgeon-in-chief at the Montreal General Hospital and professor of surgery at McGill. From 1963 to 1970 he was vice-chancellor and principal of McGill. Among his other distinctions, Dr. Robertson is president of the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada, and a member of the National Health Grant Committee, so that he is eminently qualified to chair the advisory council.

I would add that members of all government departments and agencies concerned will, from time to time and as required, attend meetings of the advisory council.

I am well satisfied, in fact, that the council as it is constituted gives proper, balanced representation of all the many interests concerned, and it is composed of well-qualified people, capable of a co-operative effort that will show that the province’s health and commercial prosperity can remain mutually compatible objectives.

The council has a major task, and I am sure all members of this House will want to join me in wishing it the fullest success.

Mr. Speaker: The provincial Treasurer.

ONTARIO CREDIT RATING

Mr. Foulds: Now for the bad news.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In response to questions from members opposite, as I recall from the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), and, I believe, the leader of the third party, had certain observations about the Premier’s --

Mr. Roy: That really makes you feel good, doesn’t it?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I believe the leader of the third party had certain observations about the Premier’s luncheon habits or dinner habits or something. I thought, although this is a matter of public knowledge today in the press, that it would be appropriate, and in answer to members’ questions and so that the record is complete, to put on the record the information which was contained in the Globe this morning, which is to the effect that Ontario had maintained its triple-A rating in the New York market.

[Applause]

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Triple-A, triple-A.

An hon. member: That’s triple-A in everything.

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: You’ve got to have one good day.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Don’t look so disappointed.

Mr. Gaunt: Did the Treasurer rehearse this?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I guess you guys are really disappointed.

Mr. Cassidy: Did you set this up in caucus this morning?

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: Is this conditional on the Treasurer’s resignation?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of embarrassing my friend, the leader of the third party, I think that I should put on the record an extract from the wire which was received:

“The province continues to exhibit economic strength, per capita debt remains moderate, and increases in provincial product remain substantial in a recessionary period.”

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of embarrassing my friend, the leader of the third party --

Mr. Reid: We are concerned about spiralling deficits.

Mr. Nixon: Read the rest of it, Darcy; put it all on the record.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Treasurer please continue with his statement?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would very much like to, although I must say I’m relishing this, Mr. Speaker, let’s string it out a little longer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You guys weren’t too impressed a year ago. It’s amazing the way you’ve changed.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I believe members on all sides will agree that we should not become in any way complacent about our credit standing.

Mr. Reid: Not as long as you are Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In expressing some concern, the rating agencies have identified a real problem area -- the fiscal responsibility provincial jurisdictions should shoulder without corresponding revenue gathering capacity. They have recognized that we in Ontario have been successful in maintaining economic strength during the recent recessionary period. We have recognized fiscal stimulus cannot be provided indefinitely without impinging on our credit standing and general financial integrity.

With this in mind, I’m confident that the programmes of restraint which I have announced recently and the collective efforts of Ontario citizens in support of the national anti-inflation programme, will help to maintain the continued confidence these institutions place in the management of this great Province of Ontario.

Mr. Roy: The minister can be forgiven.

Mr. Bullbrook: The constitution from Wall St., is that it?

Mr. Sargent: Two million dollar deficit.

Mr. Foulds: Has Lorne Henderson got a statement?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Hon Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, following the announcement last night of the results of the vote taken by the secondary school teachers of Metropolitan Toronto on the board’s last offer and whether they were in favour of a strike or not, I have spoken with the Education Relations Commission, and they have informed me that Mr. William Dickie of the Ministry of Labour has been named to inquire into the situation, beginning immediately, and to see if he can help the parties reach an agreement. I spoke to Mr. Dickie about an hour ago and he is now attempting to arrange meetings with the parties this afternoon.

I want to say this: I believe that a strike in Metro Toronto’s high schools can and should be averted, and I hope that both sides will work very diligently with Mr. Dickie over the next few days to come to a satisfactory agreement,

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Lewis: It has been quite a day, Mr. Speaker. I would like to congratulate the Ministers of Housing, Attorney General and Health and say that in the next election we are running on our record.

May I begin by addressing a question to the Minister of Education: Does the minister not feel that the appointment of Mr. Dickie really comes rather late in the day to effect a reconciliation at the bargaining table? Would he not, even at this point, respond to a plea for personal intervention on his part for these last five or six days, in order to avoid what seems imminent next Wednesday?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The answer to the first question is no, I do not. I might say that I count this kind of involvement as a form of personal involvement by the minister in this dispute.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is naive.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since it is quite within the realm of possibility that this House will have to deal with a continuing strike -- that is, some time before prorogation in December -- would the minister not agree that if he or one of his colleagues asks us to deal with legislation to end the strike some days, weeks, months from now, it would mean that his position was somewhat weakened if he had not attended a special meeting himself between the teachers and the board, hopefully in the presence of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and possibly in the presence of representatives of the Ottawa price control board before it goes to the point where the schools are closed.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding of how mediation occurs and how these matters are settled. I indicated in this House the other day that I have been in contact -- in fact probably every other day -- with both sides in this particular dispute. They know that I’m available if they wish to use my services at any particular time. As I said, I have been talking with them several times over the past four or five days.

There is going to have to be some very determined 24-hour work by people to help avert this strike. I just said a few minutes ago that I didn’t think it should happen; I don’t think it needs to happen. I count the kind of involvement that the Education Relations Commission has decided to ask Mr. Dickie to undertake on all our behalf as the involvement that involves me in it.

Mr. Lewis: It comes too late.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If either of the parties wants to talk to me at any time and to ask me personally to meet with them, I stand ready to meet with them. Mr. Dickie is one of the outstanding --

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Dickie has had difficulty in the public sector; don’t forget that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- mediators in this province and he is ready to work on this non-stop for the next five days to avert this walkout, I think we should give him the support that he deserves.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary: Would the minister not agree that his being available is not sufficient and that he has to speak for the parents and the people in this community who agree with the minister and everybody else that we do not want the schools closed? Would the minister not agree that eventually he must shoulder the responsibility of keeping the schools open or reopening them at some future date -- and we have done this in this House before -- and that if he allows the schools to close without some kind of personal, maybe public intervention, that it cannot be said that he has done everything possible to avert the strike?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, everything possible will be done before any strike happens or occurs in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: It is too late.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Everything possible will be done by this government, this ministry and anyone who has anything to do with the situation.

Mr. Lewis: I find it very difficult to ask this question but I’m going to ask it anyway. Does the minister not think that it’s rather late at this point in the day to introduce the old traditional wheeling and dealing, passing back and forth messages in the hotel corridors between parties as a last-minute effort to avert a strike in the public sector? Does he not think it would make a thousand times more sense for he himself to bring the parties together in his office or in a room with him in attendance and push them, constrain them, persuade them until we finally get a settlement? Isn’t that what he now does? He knows what is going to happen if they strike.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I have to say with great respect to my friend, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think that is the kind of approach that would work at this particular time.

Mr. Lewis: Okay.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary on the minister’s answer to my leader. I wonder if I could ask the minister, in view of his comment that everything will be done and in view of his comment of yesterday or the day before that he feels that there are some special concessions that should go to teachers vis-à-vis the inflationary board in Ottawa, has he been in touch with the board? Is he in a position to tell the teachers what sort of concessions the board might look at?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the comments which were attributed to me and which were correct in the press yesterday had nothing to do with the Metropolitan Toronto secondary school teachers and their dispute with the board.

Mr. Roy: But you have been talking to the board.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I was referring to the Metropolitan Toronto separate school teachers and their indication that they had a signed, or at least some form of agreement on monetary matters before Oct. 14 and were attempting to get a determination from Ottawa as to whether that is considered to have been an agreement under their guidelines, and that therefore the guidelines they have announced would not apply to that contract because there was an agreement before Oct. 14. That is what we’ve been talking to Ottawa about but not, and I emphasize, anything to do with the Metro Toronto secondary school dispute.

The line of action that will have to be followed there is that they will have to come to a signed contract and then they will have to go to Ottawa and talk to them about whether they’re entitled to special consideration or not. The Anti-Inflation Review Board will have to rule on that at some time in the future.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Lewis: A question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Now that it appears conclusive that the automobile insurance companies will be raising the premiums in the next several months, based on rate determinations of some few months ago, is the minister prepared to intervene on behalf of the consumers of Ontario to protect them against illegitimate price increases by way of premiums of 35 to 50 per cent in some cases, given the anti-inflationary guidelines to which the minister subscribes?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows very well, we intervene all the time in rate setting.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on.

Mr. Cassidy: We are not aware of it. You do it behind closed doors.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The headline on which the question is based is a slight indulgence in unwarranted hysteria. These rates took effect in January and July of this year. I have to assume that somebody recently got a rate increase and suddenly realized auto insurance rates in Ontario have gone up. Speaking of rate increases, I understand the Premier of the province just west of us is not very happy about the 35 per cent rate increase on his car, and he’s got publicly-owned auto insurance.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, would the minister not consider it a pig-at-the-trough attitude on the part of the automobile insurance companies -- to use the minister’s delicate phrasing -- in view of their intent to extort from the consumers of Ontario who pay premiums more than they should take, without public justification and apparently with agreement on the part of this government despite its stand on the guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has to borrow somebody else’s phrases in order to be fairly explicit.

Mr. Lewis: That is right.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am flattered, I truly am. I feel that the Anti-Inflation Review Board in Ottawa may very well be shirking its responsibility in not looking at the increases. However, the excuse that they use for not looking at them is that they were all approved prior to the adoption of the price increases.

Mr. Nixon: By the provincial authorities.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We will look at them .in a continuous way, and to the best of my knowledge there has been no application put before my ministry for rate increases since the adoption of the guidelines.

Mrs. Campbell: Look at them is right. But they do nothing.

Mr. Martel: That will only be three this year.

Mr. Singer: Would the minister not agree that the time has come for this government to publicly examine insurance rates and in public, so that the people can see just how it happens? And could he explain to us what kind of application is ever put before him for increasing the rates? It is done unilaterally.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the question has been asked before, and the answer is the same. I do not believe this is the right time to start intervening in rate setting in the private sector.

An hon. member: When is the time?

Mr. Nixon: This is the time.

Mr. Lewis: On wages it is all right; but premiums, no.

Mr. Moffatt: In light of the answer the minister gave to the leader of the official opposition, I would like to ask him whether he really intends to investigate the complaints which have been lodged with his ministry with regard to exorbitant rate increases in the taxi cab industry, which is apparently controlled by a monopoly?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is not a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, certainly we investigate every complaint that is lodged with the ministry. As to specifics, I’ve had one letter on taxi insurance rates. As far as I know that particular situation has been favourably resolved. There are some increases, and they are due to cost increases and repairs. There is nothing secret about the method whereby rates are established. If costs go up, rates go up -- and that’s a natural thing.

Mr. Speaker: This is the final supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Minister, in view of the fact that Ottawa has stated that there would be no rollback in this case -- and this is just as important as the price of gasoline, because everyone has to pay it -- when is the time that the minister will review this? When will he make them open their hooks and show cause why they have these increases of 25 to 50 per cent; when is the time?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: As I have already said, if a new application for a rate increase comes before my ministry, we will deal with it in the same way that any price increase is dealt with in this province.

Mr. Singer: There doesn’t have to be an application at all; they do it unilaterally. The minister knows that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We have opted into the Ottawa guidelines and we think that the Anti-Inflation Review Board should be looking at these things. That’s their responsibility.

Mr. Singer: Point of order. Surely the minister has to recognize there doesn’t have to be, there is never an application for a rate increase.

Mr. Speaker: That’s not a point of order.

Mr. Singer: He is misleading us. He is misleading the House.

Mr. McNeil: The member for Wilson Heights is speaking to the gallery.

Mr. Singer: No, I am talking to you, so that even you will understand -- that is, the member for Elgin.

[2:45]

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Treasurer: Is not his statement of last Thursday reduced to travesty when the government of Ontario refuses to intervene to govern the rate-setting of the automobile insurance companies, which clearly exceeds dramatically the guidelines which the government would otherwise wish to enforce?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the government intend this particular price increase for the consumers simply to be imposed by the automobile insurance companies -- with no books open, no questions answered, no accountability -- and maintain its position that wages should be tightly controlled?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this question has already been answered, and very adequately, by my colleague.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s a rubber stamp.

PAYMENTS TO DOCTORS

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Health. Would he report to the House the present situation in his negotiations with the medical practitioners on an increase in payments to them under the provisions of our provincial legislation? Can he assure us that the negotiations that he says are close to fruition are not going to be based on any increase which would give the doctors more than $2,400 a year extra or would break the guidelines that have been referred to so frequently by the Treasurer?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the discussions have been going on and, as in the case of many discussions that are closing in to an agreement, there has been virtually a news blackout on them. I think it is wise that this should be maintained. I only point out that I have been encouraged by the fact that in the negotiations the people on both sides of the Clawson committee have been trying to interpret the government’s guidelines and to live within them. That, as I said yesterday, was a refreshing change.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary to the minister: Has he naturally put a rider on his negotiations with the doctors that whatever the agreement might be, it would be referred to the wage and price control board in Ottawa under the circumstances we’ve been talking about?

Hon. F. S. Miller: As I understand it, I wouldn’t need to pot that rider on; whether I wanted them referred or not, they are subject to that referral.

PAYMENT FOR CATTLE PURCHASES

Mr. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Correctional Services. Can he now give us a fuller statement in this House as to the relationship between the government and Essex Packers, since there continue to be reports from farmers who have supplied livestock to Essex Packers at the facilities at the Guelph Correctional Centre that the livestock have not been properly paid for?

Would the minister not agree that under those circumstances there is almost inherent in the business relationships between the farmers and Essex Packers a relationship involving the government of Ontario, since for so many years livestock did go into the Guelph Correctional Centre and was paid for directly by the government?

Hon. J. R. Smith: In responding to the question, I think the leader of the Liberal Party should be aware that it is a licensing agreement between the Ministry of Correctional Services and Essex Packers of Hamilton. Through this agreement the farmers are selling directly to Essex Packers, who in effect are operating the abattoir at the Guelph institution. They are not selling their cattle to the Ministry of Correctional Services.

Mr. Good: Supplementary: In view of the fact that most farmers feel that because the cattle were going into a provincial institution, and since a million dollars of provincial money was going into the abattoir to update its facilities, does the minister not agree that there is some kind of moral obligation on the part of government to have an investigation to see what some of the facts are?

Would the minister comment first on the rumour or report that before the receivers went into the operation, people from the bank that forced the receivership were in there saying selectively which farmers should be paid and which farmers should not be paid prior to the receivership? Would the minister ascertain whether there is any truth to the report that the farmers who were paid were those farmers who owed the bank that forced the receivership?

Hon. J. R. Smith: I am also concerned about the farmers who have received NSF cheques. As to what the hon. member has said, the receiver appointed by the Bank of Nova Scotia, Laventhol and Horwath, in fact did not go into the plant and make any such determinations. The only involvement of our ministry is that, in co-operation with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman), we did obtain a legal opinion as to whether or not we could force Essex Packers or the receiver to pay the $165,000 which has been approved for the overall cost of equipment on the total installation to the farmers for their cattle.

We understand and have been told that legally there is no way they can be bound to use that money to pay the farmers for these cattle.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary question: May I ask the minister when this legal opinion was rendered?

Hon. J. R. Smith: Last week.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: May I say the Minister of Agriculture and Food wasn’t aware of it. Did the minister pass along this opinion to the Minister of Agriculture and Food?

Hon. J. R. Smith: I wish to assure the hon. member that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is very much concerned with this and has done everything possible to try to get payment.

Mr. Roy: The minister didn’t answer the question.

Interjections.

Hon. J. R. Smith: Yes, he was aware.

Mr. Worton: In view of the fact that the minister indicated that all persons who supplied beef after Oct. 17 were receiving their payment for their steers or their cattle, and an individual who sold on Aug. 23 had his cheque returned NSF, would he not agree that somebody was selective about who got paid and who didn’t?

Hon. J. R. Smith: I have not had an opportunity to receive a statement from the receiver or the management of Essex Packers as to which farmers were paid.

Mr. Roy: Would the minister look at it and report back to the House?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk have any further questions?

Mr. Nixon: Not at this time.

MISSISSAUGA INQUIRY

Mr. Gregory: I’d like to direct a question to the Attorney General. In the matter of the judicial inquiry into the affairs of the city of Mississauga and in view of the decision by the divisional court yesterday, is it the intention of the Attorney General to take a look at

section 240 of the Municipal Act which permits a municipal council to direct a judge of an adjoining county to conduct an inquiry?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I recall the decision of the divisional court, they stated that the attempted use of

section 240 in these circumstances was, to quote the divisional court, “unnerving”. In the circumstances, we are going to review the matter thoroughly to determine whether or not any amendments to the Act would be appropriate.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary.

Mr. Gregory: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Since it is the member for Mississauga East’s question, he should be allowed a supplementary first.

Mr. Gregory: Further to the same question, in light of the ruling and the resultant cost which is being assessed against the city of Mississauga, would the Attorney General consider requesting the Ontario Provincial Police or the Peel regional police to investigate the motivation behind the calling of the inquiry?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Such a request would fail clearly outside the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. I think that if there are any parties to these proceedings who feel they have been abused there are civil remedies that are available.

Mr. Singer: Is the review that the Attorney General talks about likely to be retroactive in its effect, if he comes to the conclusion that the statute should be changed, or is it henceforth and forever more?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Generally speaking, I don’t think in these circumstances I would support any principle of retroactivity.

TELSO STRIKE

Mr. Mackenzie: To the Minister of Labour: Would the minister consider a quick appointment of a disputes advisory committee as provided for in the recent amendments to the Labour Relations Act to try to deal with the difficult strike at Telso in Tillsonburg, which involves some 48 women, mostly making about $2.60 an hour, and is now the longest strike in the Province of Ontario, over 14 months’ duration?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, my predecessor in this office was asked that question and did consider the appointment of a disputes advisory board and decided that because of the length of the strike and the character of the strike the disputes advisory board mechanism would be unlikely to be useful. Therefore, a specific individual with much experience in labour relations -- who was, at that time, the retired president of one of the major unions in Canada -- was appointed to investigate this problem. This he has done.

He has reported directly to both parties but we have not as yet had the report from that gentleman. When we do, we hope we shall also hear something from the parties to the dispute.

Mr. Mackenzie: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that as of right now employees are being called up individually by the company in this dispute and given two weeks to make up their minds whether they are going to stay with the company or be finished once and for all?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I was not aware.

HYDRO EXPLORATIONS

Mr. Peterson: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Was he consulted and did he approve of Hydro’s excursion into the exploration business, by way of joint venture, to the tune of about $9.5 million?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I fully concurred.

Mr. Peterson: Is it the minister’s understanding that Hydro has unfettered discretion to enter into exploration agreements, in view of the fact that Ontario Energy Corp. was formed for this purpose?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Mancini: Energy at cost?

Mr. Sargent: What did he say? We can’t hear him.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the member wouldn’t babble so much, he would hear.

I said no.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is suggesting he knows what he is talking about.

Mr. Lewis: Ontario Hydro is going to hang him yet.

HOUSING ACTION PROGRAMME

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing: As part of the government’s housing action programme whereby his predecessor directed the appropriate government departments involved in land use planning and private and public housing projects to expedite the processing procedure, could he advise the House as to the manner in which the directive was implemented, the degree of success experienced to date and the areas in which this directive could be expanded and further improved upon?

Mr. Roy: That’s really of urgent public importance.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the hon. member what the degree of success has been. I am familiar with some of the --

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you buy him a coffee, John?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- directives which were issued by my predecessor. I can’t tell what degree of success there has been. I do know there has been an improvement in the expediting of material through the ministry to get decisions on planning for subdivisions and severances. That has been increased. The only thing I can say is that we will be meeting the various ministers in the policy field involved with land in particular to see if we can speed up the process even more.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation and Communications has the answer to a previous question.

KRAUSS-MAFFEI SYSTEM

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker: In response to a question concerning my predecessor’s commitment to table before this Legislature the final cost and settlement concerning the Krauss-Maffei programme, I would like to provide this

summary. During the contract, MTC paid Krauss-Maffei --

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

Hon. Mr. Snow: Take the hay out of your ears.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is too much noise in the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that these figures were published about two or three months ago but I am I only too happy to give them again. During the contract MTC paid Krauss-Maffei $6.4 million. We now have that amount repaid to us, and in addition we have been paid another $2.8 million which covers the complete cost of staff salaries, MTC legal costs, travel and housing in Germany and all other costs directly related to this contract.

[3:00]

In addition, all subcontracts were settled at no cost to the ministry and all restoration of the CNE was accomplished to the unanimous satisfaction of the CNE officials.

Mr. Cassidy: As if it never took place.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As a result of this settlement, the ministry received repayment of all its costs, and the Krauss-Maffei project has not resulted in any cost or expenditure by the Ontario taxpayers.

I am advised that this

summary includes all travel and expenses associated with the contract on behalf of both MTC and the Urban Transit Development Corp. However, to avoid any confusion, it does not include the cost of the ministry advertising campaign in 1974.

Mr. Reid: That’s a big one. That’s a biggie.

Hon. Mr. Snow: This campaign included the promotion of the new capital subsidy policy, the dial-a-bus experiment, the staggered work hour programme, the GO Transit programme, the transit fare stabilization programme, driver safety and the TATOA initial expenses. The total cost for promotion of all aspects directly related to the CNE GO-Urban project is estimated at $67,157.

Mr. Good: That wouldn’t even pay for the trees.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would point out that the total costs of the payouts for this programme were $9,186,880. The receipts were $9.2 million. Taking into consideration the $67,000 in promotional costs for the GO-Urban project, and taking into consideration $48,657 received in provincial sales tax, including all the promotion expenses, the net cost to the taxpayers of Ontario was $5,379.

Mr. Reid: Little more than a thin dime.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary: Could the minister tell us if the cost of the Scarborough route study is included, if Mr. Foley’s salary is included and if the costs of all of the people assisting Mr. Foley are included, and the extent of those costs?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have the complete information here, which I will table and send over to the member. He can examine these figures, and if he has any further questions after that, I’ll be pleased to answer them.

Mr. Germa: A supplementary: Could I ask the minister if all our engineers have been returned from the Krauss-Maffei plant in Germany? In other words, have all expenditures ceased as they relate to the Krauss-Maffei project?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Certainly all expenditures relating to the Krauss-Maffei magnetic levitation system are included in this, and there is no further work going on regarding that project.

Mr. Singer: When did it stop?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We do have other research projects going on at the present time in research and development work regarding the light rail system and the linear induction motor.

Mr. Roy: The Premier (Mr. Davis) should send his medal back to Florida.

Mr. Singer: Could the minister tell us when the relationship with Krauss-Maffei stopped? That isn’t the last thing the Premier told us. When we stopped the present experiment he said we were continuing a relationship with Krauss-Maffei. When did it finish?

Mr. Nixon: Because we had North American rights to this great programme.

Mr. Roy: Yes, you considered putting wheels on it.

Mr. Singer: When did it finish?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t have the exact date here, but I will get it for the member.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister not agree that even if we got almost every nickel back, money alone will not buy the three years of initiative and time we have lost, which could have been used in developing an adequate transit system for the needs of the Province of Ontario?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I would not agree with that at all, because research and development on other projects has been under way all this time; there has not been time lost.

Interjections.

INJURED WORKMEN’S DEMONSTRATION

Mr. di Santo: Thanks to my friends on my right, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that some police officers who are qualifying themselves as community relations officers, are visiting some injured workers who took

part in the demonstration at the opening of the Legislature, would the minister tell us what is the purpose of this investigation, which seems not to be part of the official investigation held by the Speaker of this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I don’t understand the question. Is the member suggesting that there are two investigations going on?

Mr. Foulds: Among other things.

Mr. di Santo: There is an official investigation which is conducted by the Speaker of this House, but I have been informed that police officers are visiting injured workmen who took

part in the demonstration and asking some peculiar questions, and this is the reason I am asking the Solicitor General the purpose of this parallel investigation.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how many investigations are going on. I know the Premier had announced that he has asked for an investigation and I assume the various security forces involved, including the Metropolitan Toronto police and our own forces here, will be questioned as to what did happen.

I know that investigation is going on. I haven’t seen the report as yet. We will follow it up as quickly as we can so that we can get that report into the hands of the members, but I don’t know that there is any more than one investigation going on. There are probably many inquiries, but all part of the one investigation.

Mr. di Santo: A supplementary: Since the Speaker of the Legislature has assured me that he has never asked a police officer to get involved in his investigation, would the minister investigate this matter and report to this Legislature, and if so, when?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best, sir.

LIQUOR BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Given the recent announcement from Mr. Mackey about his impending retirement, is the minister about to avail himself of what is clearly a splendid opportunity to modernize that medieval mockery that we all know to be the LLBO? Further to that, would the minister consider the appointment of an erstwhile cabinet minister and Hanover haberdasher as the right place to start with such a reorganization and modernization?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If I may answer, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Lewis: He’ll last about as long as Paul Taylor.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If I may have the opportunity of answering a question addressed to the Hon. André Ouellet, I would be glad to do so.

Mr. Roy: Oh, don’t get smart. It is pretty close anyway.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If the hon. member had been here a few months ago he might have heard the debate in which many members participated --

Mr. Roy: The minister didn’t know the name of the ministry until two weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- in the modernization of the Liquor Licence Act an-1 the Liquor Control Act. Those Acts have been passed, they will be proclaimed shortly, and appointments to the boards will be announced shortly.

Mr. Conway: Appoint Winkler, I dare you. Appoint Winkler. You will be sitting ducks all right. Just try it. Go head, boys, just try it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will you show a little courtesy to the member who is trying to ask a question?

VIOLENCE IN HOCKEY

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Attorney General: In view of the shocking circumstances that we saw at Maple Leaf Gardens last night, in view of those shocking incidents, and in view of the comments that he has made as to what his direction would be in such an occurrence, could the Attorney General please advise us as to what action he may be taking or might have taken?

Mr. Givens: He can ask that in his own caucus, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the game at Maple Leaf Gardens last night, I can advise my colleagues that a charge of assault causing bodily harm has been laid by the Crown attorney of the county of York against a Detroit hockey player by the name of Dan Maloney.

Mr. Roy: Is the Attorney General going to proceed by way of

summary conviction or indictment on this charge?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the member his counsel? Is he trying to get a ruling?

Mr. Roy: No I just want to know. It’s the minister’s election.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the question is a good one.

An hon. member: It will be the first one.

Mr. Roy: Tell the Premier that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I just have to advise my hon. colleague that I am not in receipt of sufficient enough information, and I don’t know if the Crown attorney is yet, to make that determination at this time. I can tell members that the investigation is not yet complete and it’s only when the investigation has been completed that the Crown attorney, who has conducted the case, will be able to make the determination whether to proceed by

summary conviction or by indictment.

Mr. Good: Check it out with Harold Ballard, too.

Mr. Roy: Doesn’t it seem strange that the minister would lay charges before completing the investigation?

Mr. Renwick: Not at all -- not at all.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No.

Interjections.

HOMES ON TORONTO ISLAND

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Attorney General, although he may wish to transfer it to the House leader. In view of the support of the majority of this House for the preservation of the homes on Toronto Island, including the new Attorney General, and in view of the fact that a private member’s bill would not normally come to a vote in this House, will the minister commit the government to make such a bill a government order in order that is can be passed, and will he also commit the government to ensure that royal assent will be given if the bill is passed by the House?

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: Ask him if he is going to move back.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: My support for maintaining the island community is well known and certainly predates my election to this House, and my views have not changed, but of course I am in no position to commit the government to any particular course of action at this time.

PAYMENT FOR CATTLE PURCHASES

Mr. Gaunt: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. When did the minister become aware of the legal decision rendered in connection with the Essex Packers matter? Does he agree with it? If so, what steps is he taking in order to guarantee the payment of the farmers?

Hon. W. Newman: I did have an opinion yesterday. That doesn’t necessarily --

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: It doesn’t necessarily say that I particularly agree with it, and at this point in time I’m still looking at the matter to see what can be done to make sure the farmers do get paid. We are still holding the cheque that the Province of Ontario is owing at this point in time.

WATER POLLUTION TEST RESULTS

Mr. Angus: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. What conclusion has his ministry made in the astounding results of the many water quality studies conducted downstream from the pulp and paper mills that are at present shut down in Thunder Bay? Secondly, has the ministry not done the same intense examination of the water downstream from the many other mills in this province? If he has, could we please have those results? Thirdly, would the minister advise me why the testing related to the Great Lakes Paper Co.’s pulp and paper mill --

Mr. Sargent: Question.

Mr. Angus: -- is done a mile away, while others are done as close as a quarter of a mile with almost similar results --

Mr. Sargent: Question.

Mr. Angus: And finally, in light of these remarkable revelations, what is the government prepared to do to correct the situation?

Mr. Cassidy: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: My first conclusion is that if you don’t have any pulp mills in the province, you won’t have any contamination downstream from those mills.

Mr. Lewis: That’s great.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There’s very little time left in question period.

Mr. Bullbrook: Thank God.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As far as other mills are concerned, yes, we have the same type of surveillance and continuous analysis of the waters downstream. That information is on file at the various regional labs, as well as the ministry offices here. The analysis of the Great Lakes Paper Co. mill was made a mile away, as the hon. member said, and also closer -- although a mean average was given for results of that particular mill. If the hon. member wants some specific information closer, that is available to him.

As far as correcting these situations is concerned we will continue to enforce the orders we have against these mills to make sure, particularly when they start up again, that their abatement programmes are on time.

[3:15]

Mr. Angus: Could the minister advise the House what those regulations and requests have been and what those pollution abatement programmes are of those mills?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: These are long-standing orders. They have been in effect now for four or five years. It’s a matter of making sure that they are on schedule; that they are complying with the staging requirements and if possible are even ahead of that in the event that there’s extraordinary contamination of the receiving waters.

Mr. Sweeney: Like Dow Chemical -- four or five years.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Givens: I’ve been getting up for ages. Can you see this far back?

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I make an appeal on behalf of the member for Armourdale? He has been excluded and should surely take priority.

Mr. Speaker: You are wasting the question period.

EXPANSION OF GO-URBAN

Mr. Reid: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Can the minister indicate to the House how much his ministry is spending this year in the expansion of GO-Urban, bringing commuters into downtown Toronto? How much is it costing the Treasury and how many more people does he feel are going to use this expanded service?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Trying to establish an urban base?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’ll have to get those figures of course, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know whether the hon. member wants those figures for the last 12-month period, for this current calendar year on this current fiscal year, and which lines he is referring to.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary: How does the minister square his policy of expanding GO-Urban to bring people into the downtown core of Metro Toronto when other government studies, COLUC, the Toronto-centred region plan, and even the city of Toronto are trying to decentralize? His policy is to centralize everything in downtown Toronto. How does the minister explain that conflict?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That’s very easy to explain, Mr. Speaker, because I don’t think the hon. member understands that these trains run both ways.

Interjections.

Mr. Morrow: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that time is running out I’m willing to surrender my time to the hon. member for Armourdale who seems to have an urgent question.

Mr. Givens: Thank you, no.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: A question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation.

Interjections.

Mr. Morrow: If the hon. member for Armourdale is not to take my turn I will take it myself.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Edighoffer from the standing estimates committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976:

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TOURISM

Ministry central office ...........$705,000

Industry development .........$7,034,000

Trade development .............$2,578,000

Tourism development ........$7,326,000

Operations ........................$6,501,000

Communications ..................$860,000

Administration ...................$1,601,000

Ontario Place Corp. ...........$3,795,000

Industrial incentives and development ......... $15,550,000

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to provide for the Review of Rents in respect of Residential Premises.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Foulds: Seconding that bill is the best thing the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) has done.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The great northern legislation bill.

Mr. Martel: Not his greatest hour.

Mr. Singer: Whatever happened to the Unconscionable Transactions Act? We didn’t hear a thing about that this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It was just a thought.

Mr. Singer: No Act to amend the Unconscionable Transactions Act?

Mr. Lewis: But the minister told me in that debate that it meant everything.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

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

An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have a statement?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No.

Mr. Lawlor: This is a housekeeping bill. It won’t take a great deal of time. It’s a missed cross-reference under the Judicature Act, subsection 5, referring over to

section 20 of the Financial Administration Act.

Section 20, as it presently stands, has to do with guarantees of government investments only and substituting

section 12 of that Act which has to do with the range and types of investments which the Treasurer has power over. It brings the Judicature Act and the moneys paid into court under this particular head.

One other point that I wish to mention is that the Financial Administration Act itself has been amended in 1973 to extend and elaborate the powers of the Treasurer, so that there are very wide investment powers indeed. I don’t think the matter requires any further particulars.

Rather than send it into committee, as far as I am concerned I would ask the minister to tell me who the three people are who are on the finance committee touching the matter of the investment of court funds. That’s the only question I wish to know about.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am sorry I can’t answer that question as to the identity of these people, but I will have that information for my friend by tomorrow morning.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I might just point out that the hon. minister introducing the bill and moving second reading will have the opportunity to reply to any questions, propositions or proposals made by any of the members. In other words, he will speak last.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Attorney General for discovering the necessity for this bill and bringing it in. It certainly effects a major change in the law. I would have thought that he would have been talking this afternoon about amendments to the Unconscionable Transactions Act but instead he chose to amend the Judicature Act in such a meaningful way that we can nothing else but support the bill before us.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I rise only because I’m delighted to see the correction which he has made, but I regret that there is a further error in the bill. I understood that this was the first session of the 30th Parliament and his bill provides that it will be known as the Judicature Amendment Act, 1975, second session.

Mr. Singer: Ah! That is so they can have the bill for February.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill?

Mr. Deans: The bill surely can’t go ahead.

Mr. Renwick: The bill must go to committee, obviously, for amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I don’t have a copy of the bill. Is there a technical error in it?

Mr. Good: No, it says “first session”.

Mr. Singer: They want a technical error so they can amend it next time.

Mr. Speaker: Apparently it’s in order. Do any other hon. members wish to speak? The hon. Attorney General?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I have nothing further, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Renwick: No, it will have to go to committee to make some corrections.

Mr. Speaker: I haven’t been informed. Is there an error?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The clerk advises me there is no error in it. He mentions that it refers to the 2nd session of 1975. I don’t see it myself, just glancing at it quickly.

Mr. Good: It is in

section 3.

Mr. Singer: Yes, but it doesn’t say 30th Parliament.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order; on the front of the bill we have the first session of the 30th Legislature and I am going to be told now that this is the second session in 1975. Is that rational? All of the bills that are before us today have this error. I don’t mind how they are corrected but let’s not quibble about it.

Mr. Speaker: It’s not exactly contradictory. It’s a little unusual; I think I agree with that.

Mr. Singer: Let’s have an election on this important issue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This is as relative as the member’s amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I am advised by the clerk, who is the expert in protocol and procedures here, that it is in order.

Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, our caucus agrees with the principle of the bill which prohibits the operation on a highway of a vehicle of a class prescribed by a regulation unless a sticker evidencing compliance with the inspection and performance requirements is displayed. We don’t feel it should be referred to a committee, but we have serious reservations about some of its applications as they affect the dump truck industry. We would like to know, or have the minister explain, what leads him to license dump trucks on a regional basis rather than having province-wide control of entry into the industry.

Surely in order to make a living drivers should be able to operate and to move about the industry to follow available work.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, probably we should be dealing with Bills 2 and 3 at the same time. We have no objections to the bill. We might be interested in the details, exactly how these inspections are going to be carried out, and how often they are going to be carried out. But this has been a move for which the trucking industry itself has been asking for some time and we are in agreement with the principle of the bill.

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, the bill is the result of the inquiry into this particular industry. The report of the inquiry has 47 specific recommendations and the ministry has responded by including four of those recommendations in this particular legislation.

While the four are valid and are certainly necessary, it seems to me that one of the things we should really be doing is making sure that when we bring forth legislation, such as that called for in the particular bill, it should not be passed in isolation, when there are other ministries which of necessity must take action to guarantee there will not be hardship as a result of the action of the government. I suggest to the minister that is what is going to happen.

With this particular bill all of the items in the report which dealt with limiting the activities and actions of the trucking industry are in some way dealt with. But the trucking industry in its brief and the many briefs that were submitted to the inquiry specified and detailed the fact that if legislation, for instance, 55 brought forward which requires that all loads carried in open dump trucks should have a tarpaulin attached when that load is being transported over a hard-surfaced road, then obviously 10 to 12 minutes will be added to the delivery time for that particular load.

What will happen is that the truck driver over the course of a day, because he works on a fee-per-load basis, will End that he is short one load or more each day; he is going to be penalized for complying with this particular act.

[3:30]

I submit to the minister that the whole business will result in a lot of cheating by the operators unless they are given some way by which they can recoup those particular financial losses. What obviously will happen is that, for the first week of enforcement, every load will be covered with a tarpaulin; in the second week some of the loads won’t be; and by the third, fourth or fifth week, all the loads will be back where we are right now.

It would seem to me that it would be in the interests of the minister and of the industry to make sure, if regulations are placed upon the operators, that the regulations are reasonable and do not impose the kind of financial hardship that this particular one is going to.

I checked with operators in this particular industry and they informed me that it takes 10 to 12 minutes to tarp-cover the average kind of gravel truck. Larger ones will take significantly longer and, of course, smaller trucks will take a few minutes less. But over 10 or 12 loads, an hour and a half will be added to the working time or that amount will be subtracted from delivery time.

What seems to me also to have happened on this particular bill is that it has ignored the request of the industry itself to make sure there is recognition of the fact that overloading has been encouraged by previous legislation and that operators have purchased licences which are in excess of the safe limits for their vehicles; but that was provided for in the previous Act. Because they have overloaded and overloaded, the price per load has gone down. What is going to happen is we are going to impose these new limits and the price per load is going to stay where it is.

That’s going to work a hardship on those people because, by virtue of Bill 111, they are prohibited from taking collective bargaining action.

It seems to me that through his connection with this government, the minister really should have made sure that particular action by his ministry was not in conflict with what another ministry was saying. I plead with the minister and encourage the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) to deal with that particular clause at the earliest possible moment, because it is going to cause the kind of hardship in that industry that will see a number of small, one-unit operators go into bankruptcy.

I am not trying to tell horror stories, but I am advised by a significant number of single-unit owners that is exactly what will happen. Those people, without benefit of any kind of collective organization or any ability to negotiate fair prices, are at the mercy of the construction industry on the one hand and of the aggregate industry on the other hand. The person in the middle, the small businessman in the middle, is the one in this case who is going to be penalized.

It is not by accident that those particular points were the first ones raised in every brief that was submitted to this inquiry by the aggregate industry itself. The people in the aggregate industry know full well that if collective action by the dump truck operators is allowed, the aggregate industry will be faced immediately with higher rates, because those kinds of higher rates will be necessary as a result of the provision that is included in this bill.

Further, nowhere in the bill is there any kind of provision which will cover the brokers who deal in aggregates at this time. The brokers are not controlled in any fashion at all. It is not required that they post any kind of bond. It is not required that they have 30 days’ payment time or anything like that -- and some of the payments for work done in the spring are not made until December of the same year. I realize it’s not part of the job of the Minister of Transportation and Communications to pass that legislation, but it seems to me that kind of concerted effort by the government should have been taken in this case.

Also, the whole question of the boundary crossing between Ontario and Quebec, which was one of the major points of the operators in eastern Ontario, has not been investigated at all to my way of thinking. Obviously, we need some kind of agreement between the provincial government in Quebec and this government, but nothing has happened. It’s fine for operators to come in from Quebec, as long as reciprocal arrangements are provided the other way. But, because of the licensing in Quebec, that cannot be done.

Just in conclusion, what I would like to say to the minister is that I think the legislation he has proposed is a good first step. Let’s bring the other shoe down as quickly as possible so that this particular legislation will be the kind with which the operators can comply. I suggest to him that if he doesn’t he is going to have tremendous difficulties in enforcement, and I think that will lead to greater cost over the long run.

Mr. Speaker: Do any I other hon. members wish to speak to this bill?

Mr. Young: This bill is the culmination of years of difficulty in this whole industry. Those of us who have been in this House have seen over the --

Mr. Ruston: On a point of order please. Would you advise me; I understood that we called order No. 3, which is Bill 2 -- was that correct?

Mr. Speaker: Bill No. 2.

Mr. Reid: The previous speaker was speaking about Bill 3. Which one are you on?

Mr. Martel: Why doesn’t he wake up.

Mr. Young: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted --

Mr. Reid: The member was talking about Bill 3 wasn’t he?

Mr. Martel: Two bills and they are mixed up.

Mr. Young: This bill is the beginning of the culmination of a long process of struggle.

During the past few years those of us who have been here have seen dump trucks parked outside this building on several occasions and we have seen the frustration and the desperation of those men who drive those trucks as they faced bankruptcy.

Mr. Reid: On a point of order. I hate to do this, but I am confused. I listened to the previous member speak; he was speaking about Bill 3. Now it appears my hon. friend is also speaking about Bill 3. Are we on Bill 2 or are we on Bill 3?

Mr. Speaker: We are on Bill 2; I had difficulty at first. I did find the

section which the hon. member for Durham East was speaking on, so I presume he was in order dealing with the covering of vehicles and so on, which is covered here.

Mr. Reid: We are talking about safety specifically.

Mr. Speaker: This has to do with further safety inspections and so on; I haven’t considered that the hon. member for Yorkview was out of order.

Mr. Deans: He’s not out of order at all. He is perfectly in order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview may continue.

Mr. Reid: He was on Bill 3.

Mr. Deans: If the member for Rainy River would read the bill before he stands up.

Mr. Reid: Oh, shut up Deans!

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: Take your pomposity somewhere else, and let’s deal with the business of the House.

Mr. Young: There is obviously great frustration in the party to my left.

Mr. Martel: The aspirant to the leadership.

Mr. Young: That may well be.

Mr. Martel: Where’s Bob?

Mr. Young: In any case, as far as this party is concerned, we welcome this beginning in the implementation of the Rapoport report. This was the man who was appointed as a commissioner to look into the whole problem of the dump truck industry, and this bill is right on that problem.

Mr. Good: Nothing to do with Bill 2; it is Bill 3 you are talking about.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, there seems to be a difference of opinion. I suggest there is quite an overlapping of the two bills having to do with the various loads, and so on. I would think that with the approval of the House you might be allowed to stray from one to the other. We can only deal with one at a time, but since they are overlapping I don’t see how you can completely separate them in your discussions. If the hon. member will continue, we will try to ensure that there will not be repetition by the same member in the second Act.

Mr. Reid: We are going to get the same thing on the next bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: But we hope it will be different, fair enough.

Mr. Young: I did not intend to speak at any great length. I think what has been said already is fairly adequate. However, I do want to add my urging to the minister that he speak with his fellow ministers in this government and that a bundle of legislation be brought in to supplement this particular bill; the legislation which will deal with fundamental problems dealt with the Rapoport commission, problems dealing with bonding and with pay with the matter in Bill 111.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Sorry. I didn’t get the member’s first remarks.

Mr. Young: Problems dealing with bonding, with the brokers and the bonding, because this is all part and parcel of this whole problem. As the hon. member for Durham has pointed out, if we implement this suggestion and tarps are used, then of course the bargaining position of these people who must use the tarps is seriously affected. We would hope that the Minister of Labour will bring in supplementary legislation to clear up that particular point.

The thing that disturbs me just a bit; the Rapoport commission makes certain recommendations but the hon. minister’s bill, in respect to inspection for example, simply says that “the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations;” the commission recommended some annual inspections.

We also know that the tarping of a load was recommended, but again the bill simply said: “the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,” prescribing this thing. I would hope that the minister will indicate to us, as he replies, what his plans are to make these matters of regulations effective and to bring them to a logical conclusion.

I would simply like to point out too that the matter of transportation and loading is not covered in this bill. Perhaps I’m just a little bit out of order here. As far as the Minister of Transportation and Communications is concerned, unless the Rapoport commission and its recommendations are looked at and unless this minister thinks seriously in terms of shared responsibility as far as overloading is concerned, then again his legislation is frustrating.

There is no question that at the present time the aggregate owner, loading the truck, overloads all too often. If the truck owner objects, then he’s told to go home, there is no work; this is a matter of knowledge in the dump truck industry. While the hon. minister may shake his head, the fact is that this often has happened according to information that I have received and the information that the commission received.

So I would hope that matter of shared responsibility can be faced up to, or in lieu of that that very stringent inspection be undertaken so that overloading does not take place at the expense of the man who owns the truck and who in desperation may overload because he has a $30,000 or $35,000 investment upon which he must meet payments.

So we do hope this bill will be taken to the committee of the whole House, not outside to the standing committee. We do want to offer certain suggestions at that time, so we recommend that the bill go to the committee of the whole House.

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is one aspect of this bill to which I would like to make reference and that is

section 8, dealing with the covering of loads and prescribing the roads on which the various regulations must be enforced.

For eight years we’ve been talking in this Legislature about the hazards to 401 traffic coming towards Toronto with the blowing sand and the dropped gravel along that highway. Any vehicle that travels that road any distance, with any consistency or regularity, normally has the paint chipped off within a very short time because of the dropping of loads.

We’ve been told by former Ministers of Transportation and Communication that regulations were being drafted. They were being drafted. We kept being told they were in effect; that the loads would have to be covered. I think at that time the ministry was putting its whole case on the fact that no vehicle was allowed to drop part of its load on a highway and if they did they would be subject of a fine. Finally, the ministry told us last year that, ah hah, they did catch one load that was dropping things on the highway. It happened to be a farmer taking some corn into market down in the London area.

[3:45]

The big problem has been with the aggregate business hauling gravel into Toronto. We know that they have to do it. If one travels that road it is just unbelievable the number of gravel trucks, tandem trailers, pup trailers and trains coming in on 401 and going back empty; and believe me they move. They are not required by law to stay in one particular lane; and as a traveller of that highway, quite often I have been frustrated more than once with two trucks going abreast down the 401 trying to pass each other and neither achieving his objective.

I would like to just ask the minister if the regulations will be drafted in such a manner that the motoring public can finally have protection from the gravel trucks going down the 401, especially from the areas around Campbellville where the aggregate business is thriving at the foot of the Niagara Escarpment? If this is going to accomplish what the ministry has been pretending it has been enforcing for the last eight years, I will be more than pleased.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a few words on this bill. I would like to make reference to the safety certification

section which provides that by regulation the government will require these vehicles to meet certain specific safety standards as they prescribe them.

It has been brought to my attention by the truckers’ association, and I am sure the minister has been made aware of how some vehicles are expanded so that their load limitations can be exceeded. In my mind, and in the mind of the professionals who drive these trucks, the front axle weights allowable are being extended by attaching larger size tires to the front axles -- despite the fact the axle has not in itself been reinforced to take the added load. Neither has the braking system been expanded to restrain the added load capacity that vehicle can take.

The minister is certainly aware that by spreading the distance of rear axles, the load limitations of any particular vehicle can be expanded to a dangerous degree. In the opinion of certain trucking associations they are expanded to the degree that some of these trucks are absolutely unwieldy and their load limitations far exceed what the original vehicle was designed to do. The braking system particularly has not been expanded to accommodate the increase in load which the spacing of axle and the larger tires on the front axle can accommodate.

I would like the minister to respond to this hazard because I am sure he has been made aware of this. Of course the thrust of this legislation will come from regulation. Regulations will prescribe axle distances and tire size and load limitations on the highway, but I think there should also be some regulation as to braking power in order to restrain a vehicle which has been overloaded by these various devices which are used so that it stays within the regulations.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the comments made by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) because I am one of many in the public who happen to have had a cracked windshield as a result of an uncovered gravel truck.

I would like at this time to bring to the minister’s attention one of the approaches used by the state of Michigan in an attempt to resolve the issue. Simply having the truck covered may not necessarily solve the problem if the truck is overloaded in the first place. Furthermore you may have gravel that will fall from the dump body along the side of the covering, especially if the covering isn’t secured properly, and then you can still have gravel dropping.

In the state of Michigan they will not allow the vehicle to be loaded higher than six inches from the top of the body itself. You will say the gravel truck operator wants his vehicle to carry the maximum load. Well, he can extend the body another six inches, but have sort of a tide line like you have on beer glasses in our taverns so that the gravel will not be above that specific line. It would be fairly easy to check, or I think it would be easy to check.

I know in the motion of the vehicle some of the gravel may eventually collect at the back end of the body rather than stay evenly dispersed, but I think this suggestion could be followed in the regulations which permit the loading of the vehicle to within six inches of the top of the body. It apparently seems to be solving the problem satisfactorily in that jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments on this bill before the minister replies? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the hon. members for their contributions. The first member to speak, I believe was the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and the matters he spoke to related to Bill 3, I believe, so we can work on that when we get to the next bill.

The member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) was concerned regarding the inspections. The regulations which will follow this bill, of course, define the inspections, the different items which must be inspected, who will be qualified to do these inspections and the fact that the regulation will call for the inspections, of course, every six months. A vehicle, to be legal on the road must have on a sticker dated within a six-month period.

Another change in the bill requires the trailer to have the same sticker. Formerly, any mechanical fitness referred only to the motor vehicle. Now, one of the trains we see would actually have to have three stickers. It would have to have one on the truck -- or tractor shall we call it -- one on the main trader and one on the pup trailer. The regulations and this legislation will give us the necessary authority to require mechanical inspections of the complete unit.

The member for Durham East (Mr. Moffatt) was concerned about the fact that we were not covering all the recommendations of the report. Of course many of the recommendations do not need legislation to be implemented. Some will probably need additional legislation but in order to get the major recommendations of Mr. Rapoport into force as quickly as possible this fall session, we have dealt with the matters which were most important.

He was concerned about the covering of the truck, who was going to pay for it and the cost that would be involved. I can only say that obviously there’s going to be a very nominal additional cost to the operator of the unit. He suggests it’s going to take 12 minutes to cover a truck. I think he’s grossly exaggerating.

I’m sure within a very short time some very ingenious individual or private entrepreneur will come up with a mechanical system whereby all the truck driver will have to do is press a switch or pull a string and a tarp will roll out or roll back on top of the truck.

Mr. Bain: It will freeze in winter up north.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It will be very simple to do. We have a very simple system right now on many of the trucks which haul asphalt. It’s required to cover the asphalt trucks for a different purpose; it’s not so it won’t fall off or blow off, but it’s to maintain the heat. It’s strictly a tarp rolled up and they roll them back and forward; I’m sure it doesn’t take two minutes, let alone 12. I’m not saying there won’t be a minor increase in the cost and, of course, this will have to be built into the rates.

The hon. member spoke about the overloading aspect. This is something we are looking into. Our legal officers are having some problems regarding the joint responsibility for overloading. I’m sure we will be able to come up with a system. It’s very fine for the majority of the loads that would be hauled, because they are hauling from a pit or a plant where there are scales.

Mr. Moffatt: Would the minister permit a question?

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the Speaker will I will.

Mr. Speaker: Normally debate on second reading is on the principle of the bill. If there is a short question for clarification, it would be in order. I understand it’s going to committee of the whole, which means there will be many questions back and forth.

Mr. Moffatt: Just a brief question; I don’t intend to be argumentative. I simply would ask the minister if he is talking particularly about gravel trucks which are now in existence or new ones which are coming into the industry. I think there is some problem, Mr. Minister, with --

Hon. Mr. Snow: With all due respect.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions can be asked in the next stage if it goes to committee.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, where were we? Overloading.

When a truck is hauling from a pit or quarry or a plant where there are scales, then I think it would be relatively easy to determine whether the truck is overloaded or not, of course, and make both parties responsible. But in many cases these types of trucks do not haul from a site where there are scales.

They may be hauling snow off a street -- and, of course, it’s very unlikely that hauling snow or ice could overload a truck but it could, depending on the licence they were carrying; it’s not that heavy. But many times they’re hauling excavated material. We see them here on the streets of Toronto every day hauling material out of these excavations. There are certainly no scales available there to check the load.

When they are hauling rubble from the demolition of buildings; when they’re hauling farm products, and many things such as that, I think the truck driver is in a better position to judge his load. He is used to his own vehicle and able to judge whether he has a sufficient load on or not. Those are technical problems; we’re trying to come up with answers to that and that will probably be dealt with at a later date.

A couple of the members mentioned Bill 111, suggesting that the Ministry of Labour might consider amending Bill 111 -- I believe this is what they were saying -- to bring the independent truckers into the collective bargaining. I just say that at our last out-of-town cabinet meeting at Sault Ste. Marie we had two trucking associations appear before us. They spoke to both myself and the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) and were very concerned in the other direction. These were independent truckers’ organizations from Sudbury and other areas of northern Ontario. As I understand it, they wanted the legislation clarified so that they would be exempt, not brought in.

The matter of brokers is another one that was recommended and which we’re looking at. We have not got the total answer for that one immediately, but we don’t feel that the number of brokers involved in this is really significant, although there are no doubt some.

The hon. member for Durham East also was complaining about the Quebec border. I don’t know whether he expects me to put a barrier up there or not. But one of these two Acts -- incorporating the mechanical fitness requirement we will have means that if a truck does come across the border to work in Ontario, it will have to have mechanical fitness certificates before it would be able to operate in this province. So that would be some deterrent.

When we get to the other bill, the truck operator would have to have the necessary public commercial vehicle licence; and of course under that bill he would have to show Ontario Highway Transport Board the need for the service. So what more do you want me to do than what has been done in these two bills?

[4:00]

The member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) mentioned, again in Bill 111, the suggestions of payment. I am very interested in that recommendation of Mr. Rapoport’s that everybody be paid in 30 days. I think every businessman in Ontario would love to have some legislation that would say his creditors must pay him in 30 days. It’s a noble objective, but I would say unattainable.

Again, that member was inquiring as to the regulations on inspections and, of course, I have already said that they will be semi-annual and what the regulations will cover. The regulations regarding the tarping will define the covering of the loads and will define the types of road that they must be covered on.

Under certain circumstances they will not have to tarp their trucks, and this is mainly where they are working on construction sites and where they are having very short hauls on gravel roads, and we are mainly thinking of a truck working on a bush road or something in northern Ontario.

Any truck hauling a load here, even though the pit may be on a gravel-surfaced road, it’s unlikely that the truck would be able to travel from the pit to the point of delivery without at some time travelling on a surface-treated or asphalt or concrete roadway, which would of course mean that the load would be covered even though it was travelling on the gravel road.

I think I covered the overloading aspect in replying to other comments. I know how concerned the member for Yorkview -- having heard him discuss matters for the past eight years in this House -- is for safety, and I have to agree with many of the comments he made about the axle weights and so on, and also the member for Sudbury about the beefed-up trucks. This is a matter that has been of concern to me and I assure you this is under consideration at the present time.

I am very concerned about the fact that a person who buys a strong, heavy, rugged truck is penalized in his earning capacity because it is a heavier unit, with heavier brakes, heavier axles -- it is a safer truck, but he is penalized because the truck weighs more and it won’t haul as much payload legally as someone who buys a light duty truck and puts big tires on it and so on. This is a matter that we are looking into.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) mentioned a regulation that might only allow a truck to be filled up to a certain height within the body. I think in most cases this is the case, but sometimes you will see them filled to the state where they are overflowing and, of course, this will be covered in the regulations. I don’t know whether we will be prepared to regulate a 6-in, draught line, as he was referring to, but we’ll certainly look into that when drafting the legislation. I think that answers the comments of the members.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading? Committee of the whole House?

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the members wish it to go to committee, fine. I will say I have to take the next bill to committee. I have a minor amendment in it.

Mr. Speaker: It is ordered, then, to committee of the whole House.

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

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

An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence in allowing the members to discuss both bills. I would hope that the minister would answer the question I pose regarding the reasons for licensing on a regional basis rather than a province-wide basis.

In general we agree with the principle of Bill 3 in repealing the right of the minister to license for transportation without a certificate issued by the board in

section 1. But it seems to contradict itself, in that

section 6 seems to give back what

section 1 removes. I’d like the minister to clarify this. If

section 6 is to be transitional, how long is it to last? What are the reasons for it?

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, much of what I was going to say on this bill has been said by my friends to my right, of all places, in regard to the Rapoport committee and others.

I have a number of questions. Probably I should indicate my primary concern which is the same as that of the last speaker. That is the fact that by the bill we are going to have the truckers regulated by the five regions in Ontario. I’ve read the Rapoport report and his reasons for recommending it, but I don’t feel, quite frankly, that they are valid.

I see a number of very serious problems if we proceed to have a register, as the report suggests, of those who are available with trucks. For instance, what happens in the city of Toronto when the demand for such vehicles comes to a sudden end? Does this mean then that those trucks are not able to go into

section 4, or region 4, or even so far as northwestern Ontario, if they wish to do so? I want to make it clear that I think the truckers in the region, the local truckers, should have first chance at any available contracts, whether it’s road building or whatever it is. I think the local contractor should get first choice. But I really fail to understand how compartmentalizing into five regions is really going to solve the problem of a possible oversupply of dump trucks in the Province of Ontario. I would think that surely, in some cases, in some region there may be a demand for more trucks. As I understand the Act, it’s going to be impossible for trucks from ether regions to move in.

The other side of the coin, of course, is that if you are in a region and you’re on the register in that particular region and your workload comes to an end -- there is no further work -- what do you do then? Are you idle for eight months or six months or whatever it is? Just what are the constraints actually going to be? In fact, are you not circumventing and constraining the trucking industry too much by regionalizing it in this way?

The Ontario Highway Transport Board requires a hearing of necessity and convenience. Surely they have the power themselves by way of these hearings to regulate the number of people who actually enter the dump truck -- particularly the dump truck -- field. Surely the responsibility should lie with the Highway Transport Board, rather than some kind of regional setup which is going to work, I think --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Who do you think is going to issue the licences?

Mr. Reid: All right, but why not leave it with them to do it on a numbers basis rather than a regional basis, which is what I understand you are going to do?

If you’ve got, let’s say, 200 in region 1, the Highway Transport Board feels that’s all for region 1.

People in region 2 cannot go into region 1. Am I mistaken on that?

Mr. Renwick: Only if you get a certificate.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is not automatic.

Mr. Reid: Am I mistaken on that? I think my friend who spoke before me, and I, would like that cleared up. May I ask a question? If one is given a licence under necessity and convenience, for region 1, is one allowed to operate in region 2, 3, 4, or 5 if there is a demand for the services?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, not automatically.

Mr. Reid: One has got to go back to the board and have another hearing of necessity and convenience? How long is that going to take? Can this be done on a daily or on a weekly basis? What is going to happen? Are we going to make this whole procedure so rigid? I quite frankly don’t have any solutions to this. Obviously, it’s a tough proposition but should we be running back and forth to the transport board to get a new hearing and, supposedly, a new charge? I assume there would be a new charge, a new licence fee, for wanting to operate in another region.

The Ontario Haulers Association has spoken to me concerning this and regionalization is their largest concern. Like I other speakers before me, I’m most concerned that the Rapoport report which covers -- it is a fairly lengthy report; including the bibliographies it is 204 pages and encompasses something like at least 50 recommendations. After this report and the work that has gone into it -- it came before us last June and there has been a great deal of work done, It’s a thick report with many recommendations yet we seem to be dealing with very few of them and perhaps, in some cases, not the most important.

We haven’t touched upon rates. The Rapoport report suggests there should be a minimum rate; a floor rate; the lowest rate or the minimum rate paid by MTC on any contracts in which they require haulers. This, to me, seems a logical programme for the ministry and the minister to follow.

I have many people involved in the trucking industry in my area. Mostly they own one truck; some have two or three, but mostly they’re small haulers as are most of the haulers in the Province of Ontario. When the crunch comes, when they’re not working or when there is very little work around, it becomes very cannibalistic and very suicidal. They go around cutting each other’s throats to get any available work. Surely, there must be some kind of minimum which will at least guarantee them a wage and some kind of capital return so they can pay off the cost of the vehicle. That’s one point.

My friend spoke about the recommendations in regard to the border crossings. The minister said, “Perhaps we’ll solve some of those problems with a safety inspection.” I don’t know whether that will do it.

We seem to be getting away from really solving the questions which were raised in this report. I find it strange that the minister would come in with such a weak bill and not touch on many of the problems raised in the report.

We’ve also talked of the responsibility for overloading, whether there should be shared blame between the shipper and the carrier. It’s something the minister hasn’t dealt with. The minister indicates that the bonding provisions perhaps aren’t that bad. There aren’t so many that they are going to cause a problem and so forth but he hasn’t really addressed himself in this bill to many of these problems.

[4:15]

I would like to draw the minister’s attention directly to page 2 of the bill,

section 2, subsections (

c) and (d). It seems to me those two paragraphs are somewhat contradictory. The minister is indicating there will be a regionalization of the problem and actually restricts the trucking industry by regions and by the maximum number of vehicles which may be operated. In (

d) it goes on to say the board:

“shall not limit the rights conferred by the licence to the operation of public commercial vehicles to the transportation of materials of specific consigners or consignees.”

So in one way the minister is I restraining the number and area and in another way he is saying these operators can haul anything that they please. It seems to me somewhat contradictory.

We come to Bill 111 on which we had quite a full discussion in the last session of the Legislature and on which the minister again has touched. It is my feeling that most of the truckers prefer to be classed, or consider themselves, as independent operators or entrepreneurs. They do not feel themselves to be captive of a company where they may have a long-term contract. They do not wish to be put in the position where they may be forced to join a union in those areas where this could be so under Bill 111.

It seems to me that the majority of them prefer to be in the position of independent entrepreneurs and do not wish to have the provisions of Bill 111 place them in a position where they might have to join a union.

There are other matters that we will raise in committee. The minister has indicated that he has a minor amendment. I would have thought that he would have indicated what that amendment was when he moved the bill for second reading. Perhaps he can tell the House before we get to the committee stage what it is.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, this bill has come about as a result of long years of frustration by people in the aggregate hauling business. I think the whole problem was created when the government for some unexplained reason decided to deregulate entry into this business. I think it was in 1968. Up until that point in time, the right of entry was controlled by the transport board. Then they deregulated the right of entry and every second person has entered the business. I don’t know why so many people have a desire to own and drive trucks, but since that time we know what has happened.

People have entered and there has been great financial hardship. Bankruptcies by the hundreds have been recorded even in the past year. And now the government, at long last, has come in with this bill to regulate the right of entry into the industry.

I would say that eventually it will get control of the matter but what I am wondering about, and my question to the minister is, about the surplus number of trucks presently in the industry. At what point in time are they going to be phased out and how does he plan to assimilate them in or reduce their numbers without causing further financial hardship? Given the price of a truck these days, very many people are deeply in debt. If they do not have the right of entry, just what provisions are there to soften the blow as far as they are concerned when they find that they cannot continue entry in the industry?

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, subsection 7 of

section 2 specifies that an operating licence will be given subject to various qualifications, and the right to set maximum numbers is apparently based upon last year’s particular number of vehicles.

What I would like to ask the minister is, in the event that a significant increase in the number of vehicles required becomes evident during this year or next year, how will those new licences be granted? Will they be granted on the basis of application or by lot or by some other less well advised method? I think that there are certain people in the industry who are rather concerned that there may be a gravitation of licences to one or two individuals in each region. I don’t think that would be conducive to the kind of industry that we would like to see.

As for the certificate of mechanical fitness which is being replaced by a safety standards certificate, I assume that --

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is not in the bill.

Mr. Moffatt: Are we on Bill 3, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Reid: The last page of the bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Moffatt:

Part 3 changes that wording. I just wonder why the wording is changed and what sort of standards are going to pertain. Will they be the existing standards or will it be rewritten? That whole

section appears to me to be rather loose and vague, and I would ask him to explain that in his remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Do any hon. members wish to speak on this bill?

Mr. Young: Again, I think that by and large what needs to be said has been said. I would want to call to the minister’s attention and simply reiterate the problem that we are facing in this whole matter.

He mentioned that in Sault Ste. Marie certain truckers there had not wished bargaining rights and, of course, we do hear a great deal from other truckers who want them. I suppose fundamentally the people who don’t want the bargaining rights are the people who own large fleets of trucks.

Mr. Good: No, that’s wrong. I am going to say something on this.

Mr. Young: Individuals, by and large, are finding themselves at a disadvantage because the broker situation comes in there. Very often the broker owns a fleet of trucks; he gets the contract and he does the work -- the clean work with his own trucks -- and then he hires the others as he needs them at a much lower price than his own figuring would indicate. This is one of the irritations. But I suppose this is the fundamental problem. You have some groups of truckers with very large fleets under their command, and in some cases individuals who have one truck -- and you get a division there.

In connection with this matter of regional licensing, I do want to refer to a map on page 18 of the Rapoport report. I think this is the one that has been accepted. The regions are outlined here and they are large enough to make the matter practical, if it can be practical. But there are certain problems. For example, trucking into the central area -- into the Toronto, Hamilton and Metropolitan regions -- certainly must come in large measure from the southwestern area. It may be that the minister will simply say that people hauling from the southwestern into the central area would get licenses in both. I don’t know, this is an answer we are looking for.

I do want to put on record part of the submission to the minister, from the Ontario Haulers Association, which has some strong opinions about this. They say on page 2 of their submission:

“If licences are issued only on a regional basis, the result is that within each region at some times during the year there will be a surplus of licensed haulers available, and at other times the supply will be inadequate to meet the demand. Rather than license an excess for each region, creating a situation where for many parts of the year there will be an inadequate work to supply haulers who, on the strength of their licence, invest in the purchase of a truck, a province-wide licence issued out of a particular region, so that the persons within a region have a priority in awarding of work within that region, would be a much fairer system.

“Where the work in a particular region exceeds the number of haulers available, the haulers could then be supplied from another region which has an excess at that time. It is true that such a system would require some co-ordination by an agency to obtain information as to whether drivers are required and where drivers are available in each region, so that drivers from other regions could be directed to the area where the need occurs.”

That is the opinion of the Ontario Haulers Association, which may not be the opinion of all the truckers in Ontario, but I did want to put that on record at their request. Again, we are looking for an answer from the minister why he feels that this regionalization must take place.

Mr. Good: I would like to speak to one aspect, and that is dealing with the Rapoport report. It brought forth a great many recommendations which should, if carried through to their finality, bring some order out of the chaos that has resulted in the dump truck industry across the province.

I would like to deal basically with the opinion of the Ontario Trucking Association last July, which appeared to be that the provisions of Bill 111, proposing amendments to the Labour Relations Act, and especially

section 3 dealing with dependent contractors, would in fact wipe out the whole effect of the task force report. They held that the inclusion as dependent contractors of about one-third of their association would immediately destroy the effectiveness of their association and of the independent operators.

The argument was put forth that an individual owning a dump truck going to a job was no different from a carpenter who owned his hammer and tools and went to his job. The independent truckers, in my area particularly and those to whom I’ve spoken, certainly didn’t agree with that proposition. This was the proposition put forth by the then Minister of Labour, who happens to be in the House at the present time and who I felt was being led down the garden path by his senior civil servants and some of the other high labour officials, including Mr. Archer who is sifting in the gallery.

The individuals who are doing work mainly for one firm during the year would be considered dependent contractors and employees of that particular institution to whom they were contracted for a year. People owning those dump trucks -- the ones who spoke to me -- didn’t want to have any part of being classified as dependent truckers. They fe