Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the hon. Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), I would like to welcome to the Legislature 160 students from Sir Wilfrid Laurier Collegiate Institute, 80 of whom are in the east gallery, and 80 of whom are in the west gallery.

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have received the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, which I have had distributed.

Statements by the ministry.

The Minister of Health.

HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS IN ONTARIO MINES

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, concern has been expressed regarding the incidence of silicosis and lung cancer among uranium mine workers in Elliot Lake. The Ministry of Health has conducted two series of tests this year in that area. The first consisted of a comprehensive chest examination of approximately 1,000 workers, and the second constituted a survey of the working environment. The results of these studies show that grounds for concern still exist, and I wish to keep the members informed of the facts.

As background, it may be recalled that a distinct form of silicosis, caused by exposure at Elliott Lake uranium mines, was identified in 1966. A number of cases were found from 1962 onward, sometimes in individuals with only four years of exposure in the mines. The report published by the Ministry of Health in 1972 -- it was entitled “An Unusual Pneumoconiosis in the Ontario Uranium Mining Industry” -- indicated that in fact there were more than 80 such cases from Elliot Lake uranium mines.

This was followed, in 1973, by a preliminary report prepared by the Ministry of Health in co-operation with the Workmen’s Compensation Board of Ontario. The preliminary report was updated in September, 1974; members who were familiar with the Mueller report realize it discussed miners exposed prior to approximately 1964. This indicated that the risk of getting lung cancer was three times greater at the Elliot Lake uranium mines than for the general public.

Early this year, following discussions between the Minister of Health, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) and representatives of the United Steelworkers of America, the Ministry of Health undertook the medical study to which I referred earlier. A total of 973 uranium miners were given comprehensive chest examinations and where significant findings were made these were immediately reported to the Elliot Lake examining station and also to the individual’s own doctor, if he had one. A final comprehensive report on this medical study is expected shortly.

During the summer of this year, again at the request of the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Health undertook a survey of the working environment. Sampling for dust, radiation and diesel exhaust was carried out in the active areas of the two operating mines. The results of this survey, Mr. Speaker, are contained in the report that I will be tabling at this point for the House.

In brief, it indicates that the diesel exhaust and radiation hazards are controlled at acceptable levels, but that in most of the areas surveyed exposure to quartz dust exceeds the recommended threshold limit values.

It is clear from this report that prompt action is necessary to correct this condition. The report also contains a list of the measures recommended for controlling the quartz hazard, and also for improving the methods now used to monitor that condition.

As the House will be aware, the presentation of these recommendations fulfils the present responsibility held by the Ministry of Health in this matter, but I am assured by my cabinet colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, that aggressive and constructive steps will be taken immediately by his ministry to follow through with corrective action involving those directly affected in the Elliot Lake area.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The minister will never get anyone to believe it; certainly not the miners.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. member for Kitchener.

HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS IN ONTARIO MINES

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, following the statement, I am wondering if I can ask the Minister of Natural Resources whether he has any definite policies or plans to resolve the problems the Minister of Health has now enunciated as a result of his survey?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I might say that we have some very positive plans and steps that we will be taking. If the member will turn to page 3 of the report, he will notice that there are 12 recommendations. We intend to go over these in detail.

Members will note that my colleague, the Minister of Health, has mentioned a further report dealing with the health aspect of the 973 miners. That information is complete and is being brought together now in a comprehensive way. When that report is available, which I hope will be in a matter of the next few weeks, we will take these two reports, go to Elliot Lake, meet with the members of the union, members of the industry, members of the Ministry of Health and members of my ministry and go over each recommendation and take some positive steps as has been recommended.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary. The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: In view of the fact that the report suggests that prompt action is necessary in regard to the quartz, what prompt action is the minister going to take other than waiting for two or three weeks to have somebody go over the reports that he already has?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, we have to go over the recommendations in the report in detail. The member will notice that it stresses suppression by water -- that’s in relationship to the dust -- dust dilution and possibly personal protection devices against dust. Those are three possible routes we could go. In fact, we’re prepared to go all the way. If these can’t be resolved in the immediate future, we’re prepared to shut the mines down until the corrective measures can be enforced.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Has the minister got a report yet on the method recommended by the United States Bureau of Mines of putting a plastic coating on the walls of the shafts?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of that report.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scarborough West have a supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I’d like to ask a supplementary. Since presumably the quartz dust is one of the prime causes of silicosis and since silicosis is again documented by the Minister of Health in his statement, how much longer -- how many weeks and how many months -- is this minister willing to allow the quartz dust levels to be above the accepted threshold limit before he moves? And if he goes to the extremity of closing the mines down, what provisions will be made for the workers?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the matter of provision for the workers, of course, would come under the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and maybe we will have to have further discussions along those lines. I can only say to the hon. member that we are going to take positive action as quickly as we can get down to it, once we have the report of the health committee. We’re going to take decisive action as quickly as possible.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary if I may: Why does the minister need the report of the chest x-rays and those health surveys, when he has a report in front of him which says that there are occupational hazards from the present level of quartz dust emission? Why does he need a health survey before he takes action on this? That may be months away.

Mr. Reid: The minister already knows what the problem is.

Mr. Lewis: He knows what the problem is.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s fair to say that both reports go hand in hand. One deals with the mine itself and the other deals with the health conditions of the 973 miners who were tested. I might say at this point that this report will be given to the HAM commission for their very thorough review and, of course, comments.

Mr. Lewis: This is an utter stall.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s no stall at all.

ELLIOT LAKE WATER SUPPLY

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment, following up problems at Elliot Lake. Is the minister prepared now to continue the monitoring of underground water supplies for drinking purposes at the lake and will he table the results of the surveys that have been done in the area of the radium 226 in the surface water?

Hon. W. Newman (Minster of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, we have been doing some sampling of the bulk of the water supplies in the Elliot Lake area from Center and Dunlop lakes, both of which are completely under examination and are regularly sampled by our ministry. It has come to my attention that an alternate source of water has been supplied from Quirke Lake in part of the Denison Mines workings. We’re looking into this and taking some samples and we expect to have them back within two weeks.

FIRE INSURANCE RATE INCREASES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Following the report of proposed increases in fire insurance rates of some 35 per cent in Metro Toronto and other rate increases ranging from 11 per cent in southern Ontario to some 41 per cent in the north, will the minister require some justification from the fire insurance companies for these proposed increases?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, a representative of the Insurers Advisory Organization apparently met with the superintendent of insurance this morning. I was not present at that meeting.

The Insurers Advisory Organization is exactly that; it is an advisory organization to the industry. The fact that they have brought forward the report which was referred to in the Globe and Mail this morning, Mr. Speaker, is based on the increased losses over the years. Fire losses -- I’m talking about residential fire losses -- have increased since 1968, I’m advised, at the rate of 60 per cent. House costs and replacement costs increased since 1968 at an average of 11 per cent per annum.

The advisory organization is of the view that the industry itself, insofar as residential protection is concerned, has not been, in fact, charging enough. Now the superintendent’s office is taking a look at the figures which have been actuarially prepared and made available to him.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the public consider and not forget that the rates will have to be competitive, particularly with those of the fire mutual companies, which, as the hon. member knows, operate at no profit.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Hogwash.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The advisory committee’s report is merely for the benefit of its members. It does not have to be followed.

Mr. Bullbrook: Ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart). He knows it is hogwash; they are not competitive at all.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am not anticipating that all companies will certainly reflect the advice that their advisory committee has put forward, as referred to in the Globe and Mail.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, by way of supplementary, in response to my House leader’s question, prior to any elevation in the rate schedules, could the minister come before the House and make a statement of apologia? By apologia, I mean a statement substantiating the direct need, and not based on the Insurers Advisory Organization’s equivocation, and equating general insurance companies with fire mutual insurance companies.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t met with anybody from that advisory organization. I have not seen the figures. The superintendent is perusing them. They are made available. They are not anywhere near secret. They are available if anybody would like to look at them. I think they should be made available.

Mr. Bullbrook: Will the minister look at them?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Of course I will look at them. I’ll be more than glad to.

Mr. Bullbrook: Good.

Hon. Mr. Clement: And I’ll be prepared to discuss them, either in the House or privately with any member, perhaps in the company of the superintendent, who is far more knowledgeable in these matters than I.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: No, the member for Sudbury was up first.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister, when he is doing his survey of these recommended increases would he also keep in mind the discriminatory trend I see in recommending a 41 per cent increase for northern Ontario and only an 11 per cent increase for the southern part of the province?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I can’t come to that conclusion at this particular moment. I think we have to look at the percentage applied against the basic rate being charged in the past, because last spring when automobile insurance reflected what appeared to be a 21 per cent increase in northwestern Ontario as opposed to something like 10 or 12 per cent in the Toronto area, the same coverage in northern Ontario, or that particular region, was substantially less in dollars than the same coverage provided in the Metro area. So we don’t look only at the increase in percentage terms, but we have to look at the premium against which the percentage is being applied.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): It is always higher.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): It is still quite a bit.

Hon. Mr. Clement: So, the 41 per cent is 41 per cent of what! I think that we must not be unmindful of that before we come to any conclusion.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): That’s exactly the quagmire the minister is always in.

Mr. Lewis: He always is.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): By way of supplementary; wouldn’t the minister be better advised to give us the opinion of his department --

Mr. Bullbrook: Right.

Mr. Singer: -- as to the efficacy of these requested rate increases; rather than espouse quite loosely something told to him by a body called the Insurers Advisory Organization? Isn’t it the responsibility of the minister on behalf of all the people of Ontario to tell us whether or not his department can say that these requested rate increases are reasonable?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, may I make it perfectly clear that these are not requested rate increases.

Mr. Lewis: They never request; they just set.

Hon. Mr. Clement: These are the rates that the Insurers Advisory Organization says its members should charge in order to keep up --

Mr. Singer: What is the minister’s opinion?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I haven’t looked at them yet.

Mr. Singer: Why give us the nonsense about an advisory committee?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m prepared to look at them, but I want to make it clear these are not requested rate changes. We don’t sanction the rates. We don’t say: “No, we will allow that one, and we won’t allow the other.”

Mr. Singer: I didn’t say “requested”; I said “suggested.”

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, they are not requested rate increases. So I think we should look at the facts. Perhaps the hon. member would rather we move before we look at the facts.

Mr. Singer: No, I would say that the minister has a responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Instead of sounding like the handmaiden of the insurance industry, which the minister always sounds like in this House --

Mr. Singer: Hear, hear!

Mr. Lewis: That’s right, and he plays the role well -- why is he not willing to bring before a review board, established either within his ministry or a committee of the Legislature, those representatives of the insurance industry to set out their case and let the elected representatives, or a group within the ministry, decide whether or not they are valid rather than them shoving the rate increases down our throats?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I think that the superintendent should have made available to him these figures which are in the process of being made available this very day. All that I am saying is it doesn’t --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): He does nothing about it.

Mr. Lewis: He is their extension.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, he is not their extension. He is not.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Yes, he is. He has never raised a finger against them.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think that we should take a look at those figures. We should take a look at the statistics on which they are actuarially based and make them available to the members of the House.

Mr. Lewis: He continues to ignore them. Who protects the consumers of Ontario? Not the minister.

Mr. Cassidy: Change the name of the ministry to the Ministry of Corporate Protection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Lewis: What a bunch over there. No wonder they are losing everywhere.

Mr. Speaker: A new question now.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is just a corporate lackey.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Kitchener with a new question.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Ah, the Premier is here!

Mr. .Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I hope that grave disorder isn’t taking place.

Mr. Lewis: Certainly not.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps I could ask a question of the Premier.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the rejection of the Toronto 45-ft bylaw by the Ontario Municipal Board, can he explain to the House what the government’s position is on development control legislation for urban areas?

Mr. Roy: That’s a toughy, eh?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, I really must confess I don’t totally understand the question.

Mr. Roy: That’s what we thought.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the hon. member would like to become more definite about which development control bylaws in what municipalities and what role the province may have, I would be delighted to get an answer for him. But I find it rather difficult to comment in a general sense without any specifics. I’m sure the hon. member must have something specific in mind and perhaps he might rephrase his question.

Mr. Roy: The Premier doesn’t usually find it difficult.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Breithaupt: I would be happy to do that for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. In view of this decision, just what powers does a municipal council now have to control development quality within a municipality?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would think, Mr. Speaker, they have the normal powers that have existed for many years according to statute. I don’t think that changes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Since the Ontario Municipal Board decision was based on a vacuum in provincial policy under the Planning Act, and since the Ontario Municipal Board ends its decision by indicating that there should be some mechanism for development control, how will the province step in to provide the vehicle which municipalities like the city of Toronto can use if the 45-ft height bylaw is no use?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to get into a lengthy discussion that is somewhat technical and legal in nature.

Mr. Lewis: It is not technical; it is policy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I would say, with respect, that there have been municipalities that have had official plan development control bylaws that have been upheld.

I haven’t read the judgement of the Ontario Municipal Board or its rationale for the decision it made; nor was I involved in a reading of the transcript or any of the evidence. I think it would be quite improper for me to comment upon that particular case.

But it is fair to state, Mr. Speaker, that there are a number of municipalities with forms of development control bylaws or official plans that are certainly legal and are in force.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Kitchener have further questions?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the decision of the OMB calls into question, however, the use of height control bylaws -- in Ottawa as well as in Toronto -- as a means of giving municipalities the time to plan effectively without the development pressures that they have been experiencing, will the government bring in legislation in order to permit the use of this technique before it is thrown into disrepute, or made unworkable by interference?

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): Especially for Toronto Island.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Ottawa and the Islands is saying that he disagrees with the OMB decision --

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; the Premier knows my riding and he should use it correctly.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I really --

Mr. Renwick: Don’t explain it; drop the subject.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really didn’t realize the hon. member was that sensitive; but I will withdraw that phraseology if it makes him feel any better --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Makes me feel better, too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- although I always find it intriguing that some members opposite feel they can say almost anything, but if we have a little fun on this side of the House they become ultrasensitive.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Don’t drop it and put it back in again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That I don’t understand.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): It was funny about a year ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: However, a brief answer to the question, Mr. Speaker. We are quite prepared to take a look at it. I have no objection to that at all.

Mr. Lewis: Nobody has described the Premier as the member for Brampton and Sicily. If the member for Ottawa Centre called the Premier the member for Brampton and Sicily, would he mind?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Lewis: If I called the Premier the member for Brampton and Sicily, would he mind?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I can tell the member that there are some very fine people there.

Mr. Lewis: Exactly.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. No further questions? The member for Scarborough West.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Scarborough West with his questions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member doesn’t like the people, just say so.

Mr. Lewis: Always, always. Is the Premier sorry he had to cancel his trip? That’s what’s bothering him.

HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS IN ONTARIO MINES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Health: In the report which he tabled today on whose-ever behalf, on page 33 it indicates quite specifically that in the Rio Algom and Denison Mines areas the dust sampling results “indicate that there exist throughout the active areas of the mine and mill, exposures in excess of the threshold limit values for crystalline and silica.” Since silica causes silicosis, can the minister explain to us how he, as the Minister of Health in Ontario, is willing to allow the limits to be exceeded in those mines for the miners without a single specific initiative at this point?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows it was my duty to do the testing, to set the standards and to report if the standards were exceeded. I have done that publicly, I have advised my colleague that we found that the standards were being exceeded and he has assured me that measures will be taken to alleviate them.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Where has the Minister of Natural Resources been for the past 13 years?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I trust they’ll be done.

Mr. Lewis: All right. Supplementary, to the Minister of Natural Resources -- unless there is another supplementary.

Mr. Reid: I would like to ask, if I may, by way of supplementary to the Minister of Health, since the report says on page 4, “There are a number of uncertainties in the assessment of exposure to dust containing silica, and consideration should be given by those concerned to improving sampling techniques and instruments,” does he not feel that he should be concerned, and is he in fact concerned about this matter?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I would think that’s a clause that could be used to describe the great bulk of industrial test equipment, because in most cases one is measuring either very fine particles or very small quantities of material.

Mr. Reid: But he should be concerned about it.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am concerned; but it is not specifically a Ministry of Health problem. We do not design testing equipment, except in the absence of any in the field. I believe the member will find, if he reads the report, that we used at least four different types of equipment to try to get comparative samples -- to try to get the different ranges of sizes -- so that we had some means of determining if the tests results were accurate.

Incidentally, our results and those posted by the industry show a great degree of correlation; so that part at least, I think, is reassuring --

Mr. Lewis: Isn’t that interesting.

Mr. Martel: So what happened for the last 13 years?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- because the great bulk of the ongoing testing in any location in industry needs to be done by the manufacturer or the mines. However, we should have the right to question and spot-check at any point in time and, therefore, let the staff know whether the test results are honest or not.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: A question then of the Minister of Natural Resources: Since the report says at the outset that the “mining companies have for a period of 18 years carried out quarterly and semi-annual dust and radiation surveys,” and clearly either they have suppressed the information for 18 years or the minister has had complicity with them for 18 years, what is he willing to announce today by way of corrective measures in the uranium mines in Elliot Lake?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I think if one has followed the problems as they relate to the mining industry -- and I am pleased that just a few months ago the leader of the New Democratic Party suddenly became involved, because one would think from the way he is talking that he discovered silicosis --

Mr. Lewis: Not at all. I was told that for years the government has been deliberately suppressing information, and the minister is doing it today again.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Silicosis has been around for a long time. The mining industry, in cooperation with the various departments of government --

Mr. Lewis: Some co-operation.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- have done a job.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): They sure have -- on the miners.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We don’t have the problem in the gold mining industry that we used to have. We have a problem in Elliot Lake and this report points it out. This report is dated Nov. 29, and as I indicated earlier we will be acting on it as expeditiously as possible. I would point out to the hon. member that during the course of these last few years we have corrected the problem with diesel fumes, and the problem with radon is now behind us, so we will come to grips with the silica problem, too.

Mr. Foulds: In the meantime, men die.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: How can the minister say the problem of radon is behind him when there is an incidence of lung cancer more than three times that of the general population? He doesn’t have that kind of information yet. How does he say it that way, publicly?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to incidences as they may occur from now on; he is referring to incidences that have occurred in the previous years.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

ECONOMIC SITUATION

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Premier, if I may: What did the provincial Treasurer (Mr. White) mean yesterday at the meeting of ministers of finance in Ottawa in saying the Premier was prepared to take all the necessary government intervention that might be required, given the projection of a rising unemployment rate and falling growth rate for 1975?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t speak for the Treasurer, in that I didn’t hear what he said but I think it was not --

Mr. Roy: It was his own policy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- too dissimilar to what I said here in response to a question from the hon. member along this line about two weeks ago, and that was that we were watching the economic situation very carefully -- what kind of effect the economy in the United States or what was happening there would have on us here -- and that as we assessed it we would, of course, consider what steps, if there were some, we might take as a government. I think that is basically probably what the Treasurer said yesterday, but I have no firsthand knowledge because I haven’t talked to him about it; nor, of course, did I hear what he said.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary, given a continuation of the acceleration of the inflationary cycle and an increase in unemployment rate, could the Premier specify what initiatives his government has in mind to resist those tendencies?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have taken some initiatives to try to resist the question of inflation -- initiatives, I must say, that have not been supported by the members across the House, which is not inconsistent --

Mr. Roy: Like what?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Like what? Does the member want a speech? These people have said they would eliminate ceilings on educational expenditure. They tell me that that isn’t a curb on inflation. These people are opposed to it.

Mr. Roy: We will change the priorities.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let’s understand and recognize that we have taken steps --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order, I specifically asked the Premier what initiatives he would respond to in the future. I don’t want a speech on what he did in the past. What will happen in the future?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the member for Sarnia that as far as this government is concerned the future is here -- it’s now. It depends on what we are doing as of today. That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, careful. Next he will be quoting Shakespeare.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s great for the member for Sarnia to say, “What are you going to do next week or next month?” I say, as far as inflation is concerned, that we have been doing something about it, are still doing something about it, which is more than can be said for some other jurisdictions, and we have done things that have not been supported by the people across the House.

Mr. Reid: The government has the responsibility and is not taking it.

Mr. Singer: That will go down in the annals of the Legislature: “The future is now.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: Once a session they coin a phrase.

Mr. Singer: And that’s it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River with a new question.

SAFETY AT STEEP ROCK

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Has he now received the report of the two experts that his ministry commissioned to study the fault in the face of the mining cliff at Steep Rock Iron Mines? If so, what does the report say?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to look at it in detail, but my staff inform me that there was a certain section of that wall that had to be removed, taken down, knocked down or blown down, having due respect for the safety of the workmen who would be working beneath that particular area. So, in view of that I indicated last Friday that there should be no mining in that particular area until this matter had been corrected.

Mr. Reid: Has the minister indicated that to the mines?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I made a public statement Friday night to that effect.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

THUNDER BAY STUDY

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. What participation has his ministry had in the feasibility studies going on in the Thunder Bay area for the heavy industrial complex there?

Hon. W. Newman: I can’t be specific, Mr. Speaker, but I know that our people are very much involved in any development that goes on in the area of Thunder Bay. We have a regional office there and our people are involved. If the member has a specific problem on a specific matter, we’d be glad to look into it.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I’m asking quite specifically about the guidelines set down by the Treasurer’s department for the heavy industrial complex in the Thunder Bay area. I want to know, under the section on environmental impact, what input, if any, this ministry has had to that study? Since the minister wants specific projects, I want to know, in connection with two that are presently being developed, what participation his ministry has had with regard to the Neptune Coal terminal and the Thunder Bay hydro generating station.

Hon. W. Newman: I believe there have been discussions with our people on that matter, but I can get more details on it for the hon. member.

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

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By the way, do you realize Ottawa East lives again? It’s back on the map.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): It’s very much alive in here.

Mr. Lewis: But they altered Scarborough West.

ROYALTIES ON RESOURCES

Mr. Roy: My question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker, is this: Has the government of Ontario stated its position vis-à-vis the dispute between the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the federal government as to royalties on resources? What is the Ontario government’s official position on that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I almost noticed a Freudian slip on the part of the hon. member for Ottawa East when he asked what our position was, because quite obviously he wants to know what the government’s position is so that he can take some contrary position, whether it be right or wrong; but that would be traditional --

Mr. Roy: The government is usually wrong, so if I take the opposite position I am sure it will be right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say to the hon. member for Ottawa East that it will be the first time if that’s the case.

Mr. Roy: Oh, don’t bet on it. Look at the popularity. Look at the polls.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): The Premier is on the skids. He’s on the skids.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): If the Premier is right, he’s the only one who knows it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would say that we have made our position relatively clear, and I am sure the debate that is going on between the federal government and the Province of Alberta is a matter of great concern to all of us. I would only observe to the member for Ottawa East that a lot of this debate could have been avoided if there had been some initiative and some national energy policy on the part of his friends in the federal government two years ago, before this matter became as crucial as it is today.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has again not stated his position and not answered the question. Can I tell --

Hon. Mr. Davis: We have.

Mr. Speaker: Your supplementary question?

Mr. Roy: My question, Mr. Speaker, is this: Can I say to the people from eastern Ontario, who are on the other side of the energy line, that this government’s position is one of supporting the government of Alberta and not the federal government, and that as long as this government is in power, they can probably expect to pay twice what they are now paying for oil?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously the hon. member for Ottawa East is once again demonstrating his complete lack of knowledge on the subject.

An hon. member: Right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are two aspects to the problem. One is the tax on royalties, whether it is oil, gas, mines or what have you. The other is the question of the export tax. And with great respect to the hon. member for Ottawa East, it is the funds from the export tax that the federal government is using to equalize oil prices across Canada. If the hon. member would look back through the records he would find that it was the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) and the Premier of this province, before the federal government came to this decision, who urged a single-price policy for all of Canada and for all Canadians.

Mr. Roy: The Premier still hasn’t stated his position.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: There is far too much desk-thumping today.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

OMA FEE SCHEDULE

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: Has the ministry been approached by the Ontario Medical Association seeking a raise for 1975, over and above the four per cent that was previously agreed to?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

There is too much noise in the Legislature; would members please try to control it -- paper rustling noise as well as too much talking? The Minister of Health will answer this question.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I would like to qualify my answer by making sure the member is not on the negotiating team.

Mr. Shulman: No.

Hon. Mr. Miller: He is not?

Mr. Lewis: What a pity.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes. Perhaps he could be on my negotiating team?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): It would disqualify his being a member.

Mr. Lewis: Go ahead and ask him.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The answer to the question is yes, we have been approached and it has been turned over to the Clawson committee; the Clawson committee is discussing the matter right now.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the ministry this time take some control over where the money goes when it decides to give it?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I think it is safe to say that would not be our case. We would still stay with the decision as to how much total money would be paid and leave it to the Ontario Medical Association to agree on distribution.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Speaker, a question of the hon. Premier: The Premier said earlier in this question period that the municipalities still enjoy their long-held powers to control their own destinies in the planning sense. Can the Premier say whether or not the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) was acting according to government policy when a sand pit wayside permit was issued to Dibley Construction in Rideau township against the wishes of Rideau township council?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I must confess I can’t comment on that at all. If the hon. member would like to ask that of the Minister of Transportation and Communications at the next opportunity I would suggest it would be a very appropriate question.

Mr. P. Taylor: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: If you can devise a supplementary that will fit that answer. A supplementary question is based on the answer that is given.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister without Portfolio): Ask the proper minister. Why not ask the proper minister?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Because he is never here.

Mr. P. Taylor: The answer was that the minister could be asked this question. I am asking if it is government policy, Mr. Speaker, for a ministry of this government to override the wishes, and the stated wishes by a vote of a township council, in the matter of a sand pit permit? Is that government policy or isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is government policy to accommodate the wishes of the municipalities as often as we can; and we do it very regularly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre with a question? No, no more supplementaries.

APPOINTMENT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS MINISTER

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Premier which I hope he will accept. In view of the pressures on the Treasurer carrying the responsibilities for municipal affairs, and in view of the fact that the Premier is unlikely to call on anybody from Ottawa from this side of the House to take on the job, can the Premier say when he expects to appoint a minister who will be responsible for municipal affairs within the ambit of the Treasury?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I must say to the hon. member that he has exercised far greater wisdom and judgement than I have seen demonstrated in some time when he acknowledged that I would not be calling upon somebody from that side of the House to fill this very important responsibility. Mr. Speaker, of course, at the appropriate time, a decision of that kind will be made.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Why is the Minister without Portfolio leaping over his desk in that fashion?

Mr. Cassidy: If I could just impress on the Premier, partisan considerations apart, there is a serious problem in lacking a municipal affairs minister at this time and the municipalities feel they would like action.

Mr. Speaker: Your question? The member for Grey-Bruce.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Sargent: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: In view of the very shoddy performance of the Premier and the Minister of Energy at the oil talks in the spring, when they allowed a five-cent tax per gallon on gasoline, for exploration costs in Ontario; in view of going there unprepared -- and as he admits, he goofed there -- will the Premier consider taking that five-cent tax off as his contribution to the cost of inflation here now in Ontario?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I do not totally understand the question. I think I know what the hon. member is trying to say. I would only make this observation to him, that we have not increased our tax on gasoline to the consumers of this province by anything that we have done, and if the hon. member is concerned about the consumers of this province or the other provinces of Canada --

Mr. Sargent: The Premier put on the five-cent tax.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the member should have prevailed upon his colleagues in Ottawa to have come to grips with the oil and gas situation well in advance of last March --

Mr. Roy: That’s right, slough it off!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- which they did not do, and which was one of the main reasons we ran into difficulty --

Mr. Sargent: The Premier knows he put the five-cent tax on gasoline.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and we’re having difficulties today, and the member and the general public should know it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

An hon. member: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, the member for Port Arthur. Were just about out of time. The member for Port Arthur has the floor for his question.

Mr. Lewis: Is this the new, aggressive Premier?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I am telling the facts.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur, please, with his question.

GRANT TO TARRAGON THEATRE

Mr. Foulds: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Colleges and Universities if his ministry, through the Ontario Arts Council, has made any approaches to Tarragon Theatre, in view of the financial difficulties that they are experiencing -- ironically due to their outstanding success in the past year in producing Canadian plays -- and whether any overtures have been made to them to supply interim financing so that the third part of the Donnelly trilogy can go forward this coming year?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of the details of this situation. I’ll find out and report to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

APPOINTMENTS TO COUNCIL OF REGENTS

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Another question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities: In view of the ministry’s policy that member of the boards of governors of the colleges serve not more than eight years, is the minister planning to monitor appointments recommended or made at the end of this year, to ensure that that policy is being maintained?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I think I should remind the hon. member that policy of no reappointment after an eight-year period became effective in September, 1972. I understand that there were a number of appointments made in 1971 and in early 1972, to which this didn’t apply. I believe that in the original appointment of the Council of Regents they drew straws for their lengths of terms, from one to three years, so there would be a sort of a change without a total change all at one time. Subsequently, the eight-year maximum was adopted as a matter of policy. There are at present five members whose terms expire, I think, December, 1975, who will have served about 8½ or 9½ years.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. Deacon: A supplementary: Does that mean that after 1975 there will be no more who are serving more than a total of eight years?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Right, assuming that the members whose terms expire in 1975 are not reappointed. Technically, as I understand it, they could be appointed for one more term at that time and still come within the eight-year maximum which was adopted in either 1971 or 1972.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

SECURITY AT NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS

Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker. In view of the recent publicity in the US indicating a danger to nuclear plants, in which they suggest a group of fanatics may hold a city for ransom; and in view of the extra guards that have been put on all the American nuclear establishments, has he taken any precaution in connection with Pickering?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not recently; but as long ago as a year ago I think, Hydro reviewed the security arrangements, and I think upgraded them substantially.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary: Is the minister satisfied with the present arrangements?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m satisfied that they’re satisfied, yes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Has he received the letter from, I believe, the chairman of the board of governors of Lakehead University stating that they may have to lay off a large number of their staff because of financial constraints? Has he come up with any programme to assist colleges and universities facing these kinds of problems?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t received a letter from the chairman of the board in the Lakehead.

Mr. Stokes: We all have.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Perhaps the hon. members have a better connection with the mails than I have.

Mr. Stokes: I have already sent the Premier a copy of it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: At any rate, I will not be surprised if some of the colleges have to reduce some aspects of their staff operations because of the constraints that they face. On the other hand there have been, in the college field particularly, changes in staff up and down since their inception; because their course operations are a lot more geared to local demands -- and local demands fluctuate. Of course, in the Manpower programme which we supply and which is paid for by the government of Canada, for which the government of Canada decides the number of students, this fluctuation has taken place in the past and will no doubt in the future.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may: Because of the uniqueness of the situation -- Lakehead University being one of the two universities or colleges in northern Ontario -- will the minister not give some special consideration; because it could perhaps mean, to look at it in its bleakest light, the end of the university there?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I misunderstood the hon. member. I thought he was talking about Confederation College. Lakehead University now receives special consideration, along with Laurentian, and there are provisions in our budget proposals next year to continue this.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I might: Could the minister give us the assurance that Lakehead University will not close; because the faculty is receiving a number of anxious requests from students in the area?

Mr. Bullbrook: They can mortgage their buildings. A new approach.

Mr. Foulds: Secondly, could the minister not work out in his BIU a weighting factor similar to that in the secondary and elementary school panels, which would take into account on a yearly budgeting system the sparsity factory, the ethnic and the socioeconomic makeup of the students in the university as well as the extension courses?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, I would be amazed if Lakehead University were closed.

Mr. Foulds: What would the minister do if it did?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can’t stop them. To be technical in my answer, I can’t stop them if they decided that they wanted to close. But I think that is unthinkable.

Mr. Foulds: Would he move heaven and earth to keep them open?

Hon. Mr. Auld: In answer to the second question, we do now have certain additional factors to deal with unusual problems. I have asked the Council on University Affairs, which is now meeting with the universities, to look at the present BIU formula, because everybody agrees it’s unsatisfactory. The problem is that nobody has been able to agree on how it should be changed; because if we are talking about the same number of dollars and we increase the factor for some institutions then there will be a decrease to others.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

TORONTO BASEBALL FRANCHISE

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister without Portfolio for the Carleton riding: I’m not sure what responsibilities he has right now, but can the minister say, in view of his trip to the United States last week, what priority this government is giving to bringing a major league baseball team into the Toronto area, or possibly into Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’m honoured that the member should ask me a question. I wish he had asked at the beginning of the question period because I could have spoken for an hour in reply to him.

Mr. Ferrier: We are all ears.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would say, however, that this government is only providing support to Metro Toronto in its efforts to attract major league baseball and will continue to do so until it is successful.

Mr. Roy: Is that what he is doing?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources has the answer to a question.

MINERAL PRODUCTION STATISTICS

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, last week the leader of the New Democratic Party asked me a question about taxes paid and reported by the mining companies for the years 1971, 1972 and 1973.

In response to his request I am tabling the data for 1971. Those for 1972 have not been received from the Ontario Statistical Centre as yet. I indicated in the House on Nov. 25 that the figures were not available in the same format as before.

The Provincial Auditor publishes the annual figures on tax revenues in Ontario, including those under the Mining Tax Act. I am pleased to enclose copies of the recently published figures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, and for the two prior years, showing the total mining tax revenue for each year. It was $46,309,367 for the fiscal year 1973.

Mr. Lewis: The minister has to be kidding.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Then $16,344,101 in the fiscal year 1972; and $13,322,701 for the fiscal year 1971.

Mr. Lewis: That’s less than one per cent of the gross production.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: During the year 1971, several of the large mining companies in Ontario accumulated large inventories of refined metal that they were unable to sell owing to the recession of the 1970-1972 period. The alternative would have been to cut production, which would have undoubtedly resulted in major labour layoffs. Beginning in the spring of 1971, one major company began accumulating its unsold refined metal in inventory for a period of about 18 months, reaching a peak position when there was seven to eight months’ supply on hand. It took them almost two years to reduce their refined metal inventory to an acceptable level of about three months’ supply.

It should be noted (1) that the taxation year under the Ontario Mining Tax Act is the year in which the product is paid for in the market, and not the year of production; (2) that the taxation year is the mine’s normal accounting year, usually the calendar year, and the tax is paid during the following year; and (3) that the Ontario government figures on tax revenues are for the provincial fiscal year ending March 31.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the mining tax that where there are no sales, of course there are no profits; if there are no profits on the mine, there is no tax, and small profits mean small tax.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: We are two minutes over the question period now.

Mr. Lewis: But that should have been a ministerial statement.

Mr. Speaker: Well, the question period was just on the verge of expiring when the minister started his answer. I’ll allow you one supplementary, if it won’t take too much time.

Mr. Lewis: In light of the figures which the minister has just given, how does the government, of which he is a part, justify taking taxes from the mining sector in 1972 and 1973 which represent less than one per cent of production?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will look over my statement, he will understand why I went to such length to detail the reasons. I’m sure once he’s done that, he’ll know why.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is tabling it, is he?

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could rise on a point of order before the orders of the day.

We all have in front of us -- and they are being read as carefully as if they were a bill to increase our pay -- the maps in relation to the changes in ridings. I would like to bring to your attention, sir, that northern Ontario, which is two-thirds of the land mass of the Province of Ontario, is once again shown as being slightly smaller than the ridings of Ottawa. I would like to bring to the members’ attention that in fact two-thirds of the land mass of the province lies in northern Ontario, and I think that should be printed on these maps.

Mr. Singer: Very good.

Mr. Speaker: It must be a point of order.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is a point of view, at least.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would prefer to read this one.

Hon. Mr. Auld presented the financial report of Wilfrid Laurier University for the year ended April 30, 1974.

Mr. McNeil from the standing resources development committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows:

Your committee recommends that it be allowed to sit concurrently with the House today, following the question period, to consider Bill 134, the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this report be adopted?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, if I may make a comment on this matter generally, would the government House leader give consideration to encouraging the standing committees to perhaps arrange their time so that we would know whether the usual caucus morning, which is Tuesday morning, could be kept for that purpose rather than going ahead with standing committee meetings? With the committees meeting otherwise on Wednesdays, perhaps some consideration could be given to this point so that the one period of time, which I believe all three political parties use on Tuesday mornings, could be kept for that purpose?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I wasn’t aware that this was creating a conflict, Mr. Speaker, but I will certainly investigate the suggestion made by the hon. member.

Report agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: In the absence of the Treasurer, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour, that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974, and that the same be read a first time.

Mr. Deans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is not in his seat.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Just have it seconded by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development; he will second anything.

Mr. Deans: He does have to be in his seat.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

COUNTY OF OXFORD ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Hon. Mr. White, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, by way of explanation on section 1, the county council is empowered to appoint an acting warden, either on a specific occasion when the warden is absent or on a more permanent basis, the Act from time to time is required by reason of the absence of the warden.

In the second section, the section is repealed: “empower the Treasurer of Ontario to establish a police force for the whole or part of the county on the request of the county council.”

In section 3, the effect of the amendment is to permit the county to become a member of any union of Ontario municipalities, to permit its employees to become members of any municipal association for improving technical skills, and to pay tuition fees for its employees enrolled in college or university courses that will assist them in the discharge of their duties.

Section 4 of the amendment removes any limitation on the county council to make annual grants to any person, association, or area municipality engaged in works that in the opinion of the council are for the general advantage of the inhabitants of the county.

In section 5, the amendment will give greater flexibility to the county in setting the fees to be charged to persons using its waste disposal sites.

In section 6, subsection 1, the trustees of the police villages named are deemed a commission established for their existing hydro-electric systems and are deemed to be local boards of the townships of Blandford and Blenheim.

Subsection 2 is complementary to subsection 1.

Mr. Deans: I wonder if I might inquire of the House leader when he anticipates the Workmen’s Compensation Board appearing before the resources development committee?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It’s difficult to schedule it, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, because of the committee sittings right now. But as soon as that is clarified I’ll be very glad to call the Compensation Board on an agreed date.

Mr. Deans: We are running out of time.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask, by way of clarification, has the House leader got a target date for adjournment which he might reveal to the House? And are we likely to have the Workmen’s Compensation Board before the adjournment of this session?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: In answer to the first question, I suppose that following a discussion with my cabinet colleagues tomorrow morning I would be able to answer that definitively.

In the case of the second one, I am not certain. It would depend upon the answer to the first one, and I shall endeavour to schedule it to the benefit of all concerned.

Mr. Lewis: I am sure; thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are not sitting tomorrow, so when will he tell us?

Mr. Lewis: We are not sitting tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No.

Mr. Lewis: Why are we sitting today?

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY ACT

Mr. Drea, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Clement, moves second reading of Bill 165, An Act to regulate the Business of selling and dealing in Travel Services.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to make a few comments regarding Bill 165, An Act to regulate the Business of selling and dealing in Travel Services.

I was most pleased that the minister, and now his parliamentary assistant, have seen fit to bring this legislation before the House. I recall during the estimates of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) I made a number of comments on the travel industry and about the press releases made by the minister’s parliamentary assistant and the fact that I felt certain this type of legislation was necessary.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that there have been many travellers in the past who have found themselves stranded overseas; or even those who have been unable to get off the ground. I would say now that our party will support this bill, since we have been suggesting legislation such as this for some time. We want to protect consumers from fly-by-night operators.

I noticed since this legislation was introduced a few days ago, the London Free Press did make a comment or two, as well as other papers. It was noted in a London Free Press editorial, and I quote:

“Travellers who, in the past, have been abandoned overseas by unscrupulous tour operators, will gain no solace from the Ontario government’s plan to create a fund as a hedge against future round trips turning into a one-way journey. But future travellers can applaud the government’s belated attempts to put some integrity back into the travel business.”

Now according to statements by the minister and his parliamentary assistant appearing in the press -- which I’ve collected very carefully -- I presume much consultation has gone into this legislation, particularly with the travel agents and the travel industry in general. I feel this is the way legislation should be drawn up, and I hope that it will be a solution to strengthen the industry and to be more responsible to the consumer.

In the five points outlined in this legislation, we first of all find provincial licensing of all travel agents, their employees and travel wholesalers. We also have the requirement for an agent or wholesaler to post a $5,000 bond. There will be protection for the consumers’ deposits. There will be an industry-financed compensation fund and then we come to the control of advertising.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that all these five aspects of control are worthy of our support, but I still wonder why Bill 55 -- which has not received royal assent but will in due course -- does not cover the control of advertising in this industry.

The minister said the reason for legislation of the type set up in Bill 55 was to save the time and expense of controlling each industry individually; so I just hope this reference in Bill 165 isn’t the start of many other industry controls.

However, I did note in the minister’s opening remarks in regard to advertising, that there probably might be some “tantalizing extras” in the advertising, so maybe that’s one of the reasons we need this extra section in this legislation.

There are really just two areas that concern me most. In the first area, I am wondering what control is in this legislation for the traveller stranded overseas, and what assistance there will be for such cases. Will he be able to catch the next flight home, or will he only receive relief from the compensation fund after he finally finds his own way home?

There is the other section which causes some concern. I would like to know what will really take place with this compensation fund. Will it put small agents out of business because of the cost; or will it turn the Ontario travel business from a reasonable service into a very expensive service for the people of Ontario?

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is similar to most bills that come before the House. Really, the guts of the document are in the regulations which allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make the important decisions. But I hope that the final steps will prove to be of assistance to the travellers, and of course weed out the fly-by-night operators.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Thank you, Mr. Speaker; there are several points.

The member for Perth mentioned that this is the way legislation should be drawn up. Well, for my single self, I think this is the way that legislation shouldn’t be drawn up.

How come that all the substantive, all the meaty matter in the legislation is relinquished to the last section on regulations? The real purport, the strength, the weight of the legislation, is found there in the most skimpy form imaginable.

Anything to do with fees, anything to do with bonding, anything to do with trust funds protecting deposits, anything to do with the so-called compensation fund, is all set forth in about two-and-a-half words. For the balance, the government goes through the ostrich exercise, the perpetual dance in the sun of incorporating all these clauses that appear ad nauseam in licensing bill after licensing bill.

The government can say that the first 15 clauses are to be as they are in the governing tribunal regulations, touching all forms of licensed agencies in the province, and save itself a good deal of printed matter in the course of the legislation.

To get to some of the main points, I look at the minister’s statement at pages 3 and 4 of the statement. He first of all mentions the Air Transport Committee of the federal Canadian Transport Commission, and says it’s been quite meaningless giving consumer protection, but fairly adequate in protecting the airlines themselves, for instance.

Then he also mentions the Air Traffic Conference of America, which confers agency status upon these firms. At page 3 he says the requirement by airlines that agents pay within a maximum of 20 days puts a further financial strain on the agents, which is much more helpful to airlines than to consumers. My difficulty in that particular head is that if the minister is going to safeguard customers’ deposits in this particular way under the Act -- whatever the particular way is, one can’t glean it from reading the legislation -- and if the agents themselves have to turn over the funds to international airline companies within a certain period of time and long before the flights take place, what real, actual, immediate, definite control has the minister over those funds in hard common sense? Do they not escape through the net of his legislation into hands which, constitutionally and by de facto existence, do not fall within his jurisdiction to control?

Has he given that due consideration? Is the reason he didn’t embody a proper trust clause in his legislation that he is still trying to work out that particular kind of machinery as to who will be protected and how? Or is there some other problem?

As far as the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal is concerned, is it the minister’s intention to see placed on that tribunal adequate representation from this particular industry? Are they to be governed by those whose interests and whose range of intelligence are foreign to the specific type of business involved here? Has the minister plans for the future in that particular regard? If so, precisely what are they?

As to the compensation fund, as I say it’s a fairly threadbare section. If the minister has any prevision that he can vouchsafe to us, what is the range of that fund? How much does he expect the contribution to be? He has indicated in the ministerial statement, but not within the terms of regulation 26(e), that the bonding will be $5,000 and that he feels that’s adequate. I thought he might be able to make a more determined position on that.

Then when we come to the compensation fund sector, it’s completely up in the air, totally amorphous.

I have had telephone calls from agents in this regard. They are a little worried about putting themselves out of business, or the government putting them out of business by the kind of levies it makes for this fund. They’re most interested on this occasion, on second reading of this bill, to learn what precisely -- if the minister has any prevision -- he has in mind in this particular regard. Or is it to go through the House to its final determination without any definition at all?

In my opinion, that would be a kind of irresponsibility, a failure to meet a fundamental requirement of the industry. He is going to set up the fund and make it industry financed, but at the same time, he gives no indication as the legislation becomes law as to precisely what the minister has in mind in this particular matter.

For the rest, we can handle the matter in its details and steps within the terms of a committee. That is what we are prepared to do.

Just one other thing: Are the big carriers of all kinds, railroads, etc., located with head offices or even any branch offices in the Province of Ontario, specifically required to register within the terms of the legislation; and do all the clauses in section 11 apply? Is the minister going to seek to make them apply as to equity capital, shifts in equity capital holdings of 10 per cent which would require review of their position, and transfers of shares within that corporation? Are those to be constantly fed into the tribunal and to the registrar in order to police this thing? What are the minister’s plans in that regard; and does he anticipate the complexity of the machinery that will in my opinion be necessary in order to make that effective?

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take part? The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, I think this is a well intentioned bill, but I am always concerned about the attempts of our bureaucracy to regulate any operation, whether it be this or be a matter of law, or whether it be the investment business. The fact is that so often when we try to do it here we end up with a huge book of regulations that are designed by those, who really want, I am sure, to have the thing operate right, but just frustrate the legitimate operator and are very little impediment to the smart operator who wants to get around it, and so often is able to do so. They force people to operate at considerably greater cost than would be the case if industry itself had a major share of the responsibility. I still prefer the procedure whereby, whether it be the law society or the engineers association, the province gives that body responsibility to do the job, with public representation to ensure that if there are complaints there are people outside the actual business itself who can be responsible for ensuring those complaints are dealt with properly.

I see that most of the things we normally would expect to be insisted upon are going to be insisted upon in this in the way of audits and statements and insurance, but I don’t think the limits are anything like the limits we could expect if we said to the industry, to begin with: “This is what we want. We want this sort of coverage. You work it out and you control it.” In this way we, in effect, are trying to build up our own compensation fund. I am afraid that in the end the public will find that something will happen that is of a catastrophic nature, well beyond the amounts that are provided for in the fund and therefore will have to be covered at the expense of the general public.

At the same time, if such a thing does happen we will have even more regulations and more frustration for the legitimate operator. It is for that reason that I support the object of the bill, but I think that once again this ministry is moving in the wrong direction in the way of providing efficient, effective low-cost control of a legitimate business.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any further discussion on second reading? The hon. member for Peel South.

Mr. Lawlor: Be careful not to tread on the toes of the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): There is no risk of that. It is such an excellent bill there will be no criticism. I have nothing but good to say about it.

As members know, Mr. Speaker, I did have a resolution on the order paper calling for some such similar regulation to protect the travelling public. I know that the parliamentary assistant to the minister has worked very hard over the course of the last few months to develop this bill. I think they’ve come out with a pretty good piece of legislation.

The explanation note at the front of the published bill shows the main thrust of it. I know that people in our area, some of whom suffered financial loss and extreme disappointment last year when Cardinal travel agency went bankrupt -- and it wasn’t the first one, we read periodically of bankruptcies and people stranded and all this type of thing -- people in our area will be very pleased to know and to see that one of the provisions is liability for the return of deposits paid by customers.

The bill can only be a step in the right direction. I’m pleased that it’s come forward. The only concern I would have, and I think it should be made clear, is whether or not this is a guarantee to save everybody from all the problems and things that could go wrong. I don’t know that we should stress that it’s going to do things that it won’t do. I guess the world’s imperfect, so perhaps this legislation is imperfect.

Presumably the provision for bringing in regulations as needed is adequate. The parliamentary assistant might comment on that. The fact that a change could be made as needed, as situations arise that we don’t perceive at the moment.

With those few comments, I’m pleased, at last, to see this. I hope anyone who has had unhappy experiences in travel -- I was going to use the term “travel agencies”, but that’s an unfair designation because there are others involved, other than agents -- however everyone who is involved in this industry, where problems are created, will be pleased that there is now going to be some sense of security so they can go forward making arrangements with confidence.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any further discussion on second reading? The hon. member for Scarborough Centre, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before going into replies to the very welcome questions that have been posed, particularly by my friend the member for Perth, I would like, just for a moment, to go into some of the chronological background of this bill.

There have been suggestions that this government, and particularly my minister, have been belated in their attempts to come to grips with the problems. Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of record that in 1970 at the federal-provincial conference on tourism, the federal government, which had been considering legislation to protect the consumer in this field, finally announced it was incapable of doing so because it did not have the staff within the then Ministry of Transport.

At that particular time the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario committed themselves to one final attempt to have the federal government assume its much more rightful position in this area compared with that of the provinces. Mr. Speaker, that failed.

Consequently, both the Province of Quebec and the Province of Ontario have moved forward, side by side. I am very pleased to announce that today my friend Mr. Simard, the Minister of Tourism, Fish and Game in Quebec -- the legislation in that province is in his ministry -- has gone through the plenary commission and Bill 19 in that province, which is an Act to regulate the travel industry, probably will get third reading later this week or early next week.

I may say that we have had a great many consultations with the Province of Quebec through their Minister of Tourism, Fish and Game. I think in very few areas has there been the type of interprovincial co-operation there has been regarding this particular industry. I say again, it has always been our opinion that the federal government, because of its jurisdiction over the common carriers, its jurisdiction over landing rights into this country, its jurisdiction over charters, its participation in IATA and the fact that only it could meaningfully negotiate with the American operators has meant it had primary jurisdiction. Until this bill is passed travel agencies in this province and in other provinces have been regulated by ATB and the Air Transport Committee. If we were in difficulties in this country with a particular American operation, it would seem to be much more logical that the federal Ministry of Transport, or the Ministry of External Affairs, or indeed, the Prime Minister of Canada’s office, should more logically deal with the United States.

It has been a particular concern of ours that we were not to be accused of intruding into a so-called federal jurisdiction, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties -- not only for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in this province but for the Ministry of Tourism, Fish and Game in Quebec -- has been the fact that constantly we have been, by innuendo, cautioned even to the extent of harassment by the federal government, that they regarded this as their jurisdiction even though they were prepared to do nothing.

I think we have accepted our constitutional obligations honourably and responsibly in a great many areas in that we have had to go a very circuitous route to avoid intruding upon federal jurisdiction. That has taken time and that has taken effort and, quite frankly -- and I don’t say this particularly within our own province -- some ingenuity, as has been demonstrated by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Tourism, Fish and Game in Quebec, Mr. Robert Prevost. This has required a great deal of time.

Again, coming back to the belated answer to the question, I would like to say that in this area we have no apologies. We have been very careful to produce the kind of consumer travel protection package that would allow the little travel agent to continue in the business, but at the same time would have tight enough regulations that those who chose to operate in a dishonest or a fly-by-night manner would not be able to hide behind the inability of the smaller but very reputable travel agent to cope with rather expensive or very detailed regulations.

Quite frankly, had we been prepared to sacrifice the smaller agent in this province we could have introduced this legislation much sooner. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you that as long as I am involved in legislation, I do not believe in punishing people just because they are little. I think when people have built up a reputation over the years -- and mind you, Mr. Speaker, it might be just a man, or a man and his wife, or a man and his wife and one or two children in an operation -- I think when they have dealt honestly and fairly with the public, when they have used their talents for the betterment of the community, I think it ill behoves the government to say that we have now come to the regulatory stage and it is very easy to regulate only the big, and therefore these others will be penalized because they’re little.

I can assure the House -- and I will come to it in a detailed answer to the member for Lakeshore -- that we have been most conversant with the economic problems of the small agent. We have, I am hopeful, achieved a package of protection for the traveller that will allow the small agent, not only to continue in business but will be of such little economic dislocation to him that he can indeed now offer to his customers this package of protection at a business cost of approximately $9 a week in the first two years, and hopefully after that perhaps as low as $4 or $5.

I have met with many of the smaller agents in this province and they say quite frankly they never thought the government would have the degree of consideration that we have had for them. So we have worked very hard to ensure that the small operator will not be punished by virtue of the fact that he is small. I think that people should be rewarded for their honesty and their business ingenuity. I think they should be punished for their lack of those two qualities, not for the size of their operation.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to disagree a moment with my friend the member for Perth. I think he mentioned there are five parts. I suppose that stems from one press release.

Basically, the package of protection is in four parts. We are going to register every travel person in this province. Naturally that means we are going to register the travel agent. We are going to register the travel wholesaler, or the tour operator. But we are also going to register every travel agency employee. We are obviously not going after the secretary and we are not going after the phone operator. We are talking about the people who are actually in a position to merchandise tickets or travel or accommodation or what have you.

I would suggest to my friend from Perth that this doesn’t just mean people who are in an office. We are going to take a long look outside at people who have other occupations and who are talking about a flight here or travel there or what have you and never quite get around to telling the people to whom they are talking about it that they are indeed hustling tickets for an agency or for a tour operator. They are going to have to be licensed. Obviously, the travel agent is going to have to be licensed, as is the tour operator.

As for the bonding, frankly, Mr. Speaker, the bonding is not in terms of financial protection to the consumer. Rather it is a means of determining -- and I think a very fair means of determining -- the solvency of the operator.

Quite frankly, it would have been very easy for this government to say: “We want a $100,000 bond from you and you can continue on in the travel business.” I have been assured that at $100,000 the bonding industry of this country was prepared to bond about seven companies in Toronto. They wouldn’t touch a single small operator, because there were no assets to back up a total forfeiture bond of that kind. So the $5,000 bond, which incidentally will cost, in terms of a premium -- for the information of the member for Lakeshore -- between $75 and $80 a year, is really a solvency device.

In the first instance, it would have imposed an awesome economic burden upon the small operator to produce an audited financial statement within a brief period of time. That would have put them out of business. Rather we have gone this route; that, yes, if the person does receive a bond and somehow becomes a business miscreant, well then there is $5,000 there. But the $5,000 is very incidental.

I think, too, that this ministry at this time does not want to be in the position of looking into people’s books, looking into their operations, having to have them justify their background and so on and so forth. We would prefer it to be a rather business-like procedure where they apply to a bonding company. The bonding company does the investigations in a very impersonal manner. If one has the bond, he is qualified to be registered. If he does not have the bond, he still has some procedures to come to government with; but if his bond has been refused because of his past track record, his bankruptcies, his insolvencies, his general lack of business ethics, then I suggest we are not going to register him.

The question has been raised here about the second point of the package, which I call the standardization of advertising. I think the member for Perth has raised what to a layman would appear to be a contradiction between Bill 55 and the sections in this Act.

Quite frankly -- and I think at the end he touched upon it himself -- this is so specialized a field of advertising that we felt it would be very unfair to the operators themselves to leave it within the general confines of Bill 55; in the same manner as there have been some suggestions that we really don’t need Bill 165 at all and that the whole problem could have been treated within the confines of section 2 of Bill 55.

I really think that this is a specialized field. Indeed the travel agent very often must rely upon the honesty of others at another level and beyond our jurisdictions to punish. For example if a hotel or accommodation or a particular type of tour outside of Ontario, or indeed outside of Canada, turns out to be not what the person expected, I think that there has to be a specialized way that we can treat this matter within the general confines of the travel industry, rather than treating it as an overall advertising problem.

I will be quite frank, though, that we are going far beyond what most people think of in terms of advertising. We are not just talking about media advertisements. We are talking about brochures; we are talking about handbills; we are talking about the things that are put on company bulletin boards and underneath windshield wipers. We intend to have a licence number on all of those. We want to find out who is offering the flight, where it is going from, and what is going to happen on it. The only way we can find out is to know who the person is who is offering it. And it’s going to have to be a lot more than a post office box at Malton. It is going to have to be a physical location in this province; and we want to see the licence.

If it turns out that the person who is working next to you really is a travel employee, or indeed a travel agent, and has been hustling this as a good thing for the social club or the rest of the community, we have steps to put an end to that. So at least if you want to take a trip, it will be on the basis of what you decide to do, not on the basis of what a shill has been hustling you for on the side.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): The hon. member sounds as though he is enjoying this kind of Gauleiter role.

Mr. Drea: I am sorry?

Mr. Bullbrook: It might be necessary in the legislation, but I must say the member is enjoying it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: I always love putting a crook away.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): The member should take his hands out of his pocket.

Mr. Bullbrook: Sometimes even without instructions, eh?

Mr. Drea: No, no.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; I wonder if we could return to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Drea: Now, Mr. Speaker, always with a trial. I like to make sure the wealth is distributed among the needy class who have graduated from the various law schools.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): The law schools?

Mr. Drea: Well the member didn’t, so don’t bother.

Mr. Roy: I didn’t what?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the third part is the protection of the deposits. Again, I want to address myself to some of the concerns of my friend the member for Perth.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance we are talking about the protection of the deposit. We are not talking about protecting the integrity of the flight, or of the trip. Short of entering into the travel business -- and I know of really no way that we would want to -- if a person makes a deposit on a trip and does not get their trip, what we are saying to them is: “You will get your money back and you will have the opportunity to try somewhere else to get the trip.” We intend to protect those deposits, because we intend to have them treated in trust.

I am going to be quite candid with the House, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to involve them in an absolute trust at the beginning. Again, this would be a tremendous economic hardship, particularly upon the smaller operator. And it’s not the smaller operator, really, who has created the difficulty over the years.

Nonetheless, the travel agent or the travel employee or the tour wholesaler are going to have to account for the money. If the trip or the tour or what-have-you does not come off, and they cannot repay and we have to repay out of the compensation fund because of their default, for any reason; then Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that person has seen his last day in the travel business. I know of no other way.

Frankly, I suppose, we’ll be accused of being too harsh. But they are using other people’s deposits, which incidentally are compelled to be paid by law and compelled by laws which are outside the control of this jurisdiction. The fact that you have to put a deposit, and a great many additional deposits upon a trip, is not a business practice, Mr. Speaker. This is required by the people who have control of the artificial ticketing standards and prices at the international level.

It is all very well to say that this has become an accepted business practice, Mr. Speaker, but it is enshrined by the fundamental failure of those at the international level through IATA, or at the national level in this country through the air transport people, to have a little bit of concern for the consumer.

Until Ontario and Quebec decided to do something about the consumer, any regulatory piece of legislation or regulation or ruling or what-have-you, even a policy, in this country and with IATA, has been to protect the airline. Customers, as far as IATA and national governments are concerned, are at the very end of the pole. The thing that counts is the profit and loss statement of the national airline or of the charter operator.

I don’t even like to think these things about other governments. They might not be of our party, but I don’t even like to think them of government. Yet, Mr. Speaker, you find out when you go there and say look, something has to be done, they start telling you that you have to think about Air Canada.

I think, and this ministry thinks, that Air Canada can think about itself. When one gets to the point where British airlines -- not the big ones but some of their smaller ones -- default on their charters over here and the federal government and the Air Transport Board are starting to tell us that we have to understand the economic problems of England, I have to tell them how about understanding the economic problems of the people who are stuck out at Malton. Then there is just dead silence.

Let’s have no mistake about it. This is a 100 per cent consumer bill.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to come to the compensation fund. We are going to require a funding at different levels. We are going to require travel agents to pay into a compensation fund. We are going to require tour operators or travel wholesalers or what have you to pay in at a different level.

Quite frankly, in the case of the people at the travel wholesale level, if anything happens to them, the impact of the loss is much greater. It passes on right down through the retail travel industry. The default by a travel agent, no matter how many branches he has, is rather minuscule compared to any economic problem that affects the tour wholesaler. The compensation fund will work very simply. We intend to build it up over a period of two years to roughly around $1 million.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Is there any guarantee by the province until then?

Mr. Drea: No, none whatsoever. If I understand the member correctly, there is not a single penny of public or provincial, or whatever one wants to call it, money or guarantee going into this. This is entirely, as the minister’s statement said, industry financed. Frankly, I think we would be very remiss if we were to guarantee the integrity of that. We would be into the mess the British government got into with the Court Line debacle, which so far has cost them over $19 million and still really hasn’t resolved the situation where people’s deposits were used by a bankrupt company. They never got their holiday or they were stranded in Europe.

Mr. Renwick: But the government is not going to guarantee each traveller that he will get the service he bargained for or get his money back.

Mr. Drea: We are going to guarantee each traveller that he will get his money back. There is enough money in there for that. I don’t think it would be possible to guarantee the traveller that he would get the exact type of service he purchased.

Mr. Renwick: I am thinking of the interim period until the fund is built up to $1 million.

Mr. Drea: With the proper precautions on registering and the initial amount of bonding, which is a financial investigation by professional people with the knowledge that these deposits are marked for trust, I think we will have enough at all times.

There may be, quite frankly, some difficulties. I say this with some candour to the member for Riverdale. Nobody really knows what’s going on out there. They know, in general, what’s going on out there, but there are a great many peculiar things that have arisen in the past few months that are going on. I don’t really think we will know until we actually start to register the extent of that, but I am very confident with the compensation fund and with some other help that we can do this.

I will say this to the member in regard to the compensation fund, that it may very well be that within a brief period of time those funds may provide us with far more in terms of available seats, of available flights and of available tours, for use in the case of major defalcation, than the amount of money would indicate.

Mr. Speaker, I come now to rather detailed submissions. I hope that I have taken care of the rather broad questions that were asked by my friend, the member for Perth. I think that I have treated them.

I would like to come now to the hon. member for Lakeshore, who was concerned about the protection of funds. I think I have outlined how they will be protected. Again, he asks how we are going to protect funds that have gone to airlines which are outside of our jurisdiction. We are going to register airlines, bus companies and railways; not when they act as a common carrier, because that is outside of our jurisdiction, but when the offer something that they cannot do themselves. When Air Canada offers to get you a hotel room, then Air Canada is a travel agent, by our definition, because they’re not getting you a hotel room out of the goodness of their soul, but are receiving a benefit from it. At that point they become a travel agent.

I recognize the difficulty, and it has been pointed out to me that this could become an administrative nightmare. We think we have resolved the situation with the common carriers. We will treat them in terms of their contribution to the overall protection, much the same as the Highway Transportation Board treats Canadian National and other carriers when they do not qualify under the terms of the Highway Transportation Board’s general insurance provisions. In return, because they are self-insured and large enough to do so, they post a rather substantial punitive bond with the board that can be used in the event they default on any of the obligations they have entered into.

Certainly any American carrier that is in here, Mr. Speaker, and advertises that it will get a hotel room or something else is going to have to register. I assure the hon. member for Lakeshore that if any of the American or the foreign carriers don’t register I have every intention of carrying out the words that have been attributed to me in the travel press. It may very well be that my friend the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter) may have to upgrade the standards of his hostels, but these people are not above the laws of this province and they are going to have to obey them.

I think that when one takes a look at the fact that if these funds do go to the airlines -- and we’re talking about foreign airlines now -- and they are still earmarked with that trust and that guarantee and that protection package, it won’t be a question of just money down the drain and people thumbing their noses, because we will have sureties and protection from those airline companies and from other common carriers.

It may be of interest that one of the major -- well I shouldn’t say major, because it certainly wasn’t in hundreds of thousands of dollars, as some ones were last spring -- one of the substantial business failures this year was with a travel agency that had people going on bus tours. Now if members even ride the subway they will notice that Gray Coach, for instance, offers package tours -- so much to go to Florida with so many hotels and so on. In that capacity they are acting as a travel agent. When they are Gray Coach and taking a member or I out along the lakeshore highway they are a common carrier. We don’t intend to interfere with them in that, but they are going to have to conform to our overall legislation in other areas of their activities.

Secondly, the member asked about our plans for the future. Well quite frankly, one of the difficulties in meeting with the travel industry in this province -- and I’m sure the hon. member for Lakeshore is aware of this -- is that there really is no travel industry. There are people who speak for a sizable group within it in terms of volume, but numerically they are small. There are a lot of small agents who have been trying to organize themselves so that they can speak. There are a number of tour operators, but there is no industry association that really represents every one across this province and can speak for them.

Frankly, it is my hope that on the basis of this bill and the rationalization of the industry that will come about from it, an industry-wide association can be formed, and that within a reasonable period of time that association may assume many of the day-today responsibilities that at the moment will be performed by government -- but mind you, Mr. Speaker, they would still be under the direct supervision of government.

Again, I think there was a question as to whether we would have a travel agent or someone familiar with the travel business as a member of the tribunal, which might hear applications for registrations and deregistrations and appeals. If the member were familiar with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations Act, he would know that that is already mandatory; so there will be somebody from the travel industry. I think that will alleviate his fears that people might be judged by others who were perhaps not conversant or didn’t have the opportunity to be conversant with the industry.

Finally, I say to my friend from York Centre that I like bureaucracy even less than he does. We would have eminently preferred to go with as much self-regulation as we could, but I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that to have self-regulation, you must have a bona fide, almost 100 per cent effective trade association; as I said in my reply to the member for Lakeshore, that just isn’t there at the moment.

However, I want to assure the member for York Centre that if an association can be formed, and the people in the travel industry can demonstrate to this government that they really represent the interests of the travel industry in the province -- and I don’t say that in a derogatory way, for 90 per cent of the travel industry people in this province are the type of people you would want to invite into your own home.

But we have questions about the large operator or the small operator, the one who specializes in packaging tours, the one who specializes in international things. There are a great many intangibles that have to be solved before there can be an industry-wide association, Mr. Speaker, but I say to you, that if the industry will put its mind to forming a truly industry-wide association -- and I am sure it can -- within a very reasonable period of time, perhaps a year and hopefully within two years, we would be prepared to sit down with them and seriously discuss self-regulation under the umbrella of government supervision of this package of protection.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would be very remiss if I didn’t point out to the House that Bill 165 is not the product of the minister or myself, or of the people who usually get credit for this. Our ministry is blessed with an admirable group of civil servants. Much of this bill results from the experience of our director of business practices over the years with the regulation of industry. We had a special solicitor, my friend Mr. Clark; and quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the production of this bill, the scheduling of it, and the way it has come about, would have been impossible without his help and without the legislative skill of our senior solicitor in the ministry, Mr. Ciemiega.

We have listened and we have talked to as many people in the travel industry as we could seek out. I make no bones about the fact that from time to time we negotiated in the press, because I think the public has the right to know, particularly when it is their dollars that are going down the drain and it is their dollars that are going to be protected.

We have received excellent co-operation from the industry. We haven’t always agreed, Mr. Speaker, but I am quite confident that with the four- or five-point package of protection we are offering now, and with the rationalization of the industry that will come about from it in this province and in the Province of Quebec, we will have achieved something for the travelling public within a relatively brief period of time. Again, I underline it is the first time in a long time that there has been any regard for the consumer. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Lawlor: To committee.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: Before I entertain the next order of business, I might take a moment to inform the House that, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour has assented:

Bill 112, An Act to confirm Tax Sales.

Bill 128, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Bill 132, An Act to amend the Ontario Universities Capital Aid Corp. Act.

Bill 136, An Act to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act, 1974.

Bill 143, An Act to amend the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act.

Bill 148, An Act to amend the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act.

Bill 149, An Act to amend the General Welfare Assistance Act.

Bill 150, An Act to amend the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act.

Bill 151, An Act to amend the Family Benefits Act.

Bill. 155, An Act to incorporate the Algonquin Forestry Authority.

Bill 157, An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

Bill 158, An Act to establish the Ontario Energy Corp.

Bill 160, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act.

Bill 162, An Act to amend the Coroners Act, 1972.

Bill 163, An Act to amend the Industrial Safety Act, 1971.

Bill 166, An Act to amend the Fire Departments Act.

Bill 167, An Act to amend the Police Act.

Bill 168, An Act to amend the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974 No. 2.

Bill 169, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

Clerk of the House: House in committee of the whole.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY ACT

House in committee on Bill 165, An Act to regulate the Business of selling and dealing in Travel Services.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments?

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chairman, I want to return for a moment to the tribunal. The parliamentary assistant has been good enough to mention -- and it does come back to me now -- that there is some provision for various industries covering the people in automobiles and the whole diversified field.

I don’t remember the section that much. If you’re going to appoint somebody as a representative of the travel industry, do you have to add to the committee or have you wide powers in this regard as to what the number or limitations upon the number in that committee may be or are?

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): It is my understanding that we can add any number by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to a panel that would be specifically hearing travel industry appeals.

Mr. Lawlor: During estimates I would like to go into how that whole thing works. I don’t think we should take time today.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any comment before section 4?

Mr. Lawlor: I have one on section 4, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Will the member for Lakeshore proceed then?

On section 4:

Mr. Lawlor: Yes. There are just several small points on section 4. On 4(1)(d), the applicant would not be entitled to registration or renewal in certain circumstances which are outlined here. One of them is where “the applicant is carrying on activities that are, or will be, if the applicant is registered, in contravention of this Act.” I would trust that with the “will be” there would be plenty of information fed into the industry so that they will not by omission or ignorance fall prey to or outside of a new regulation. Have you any machinery to provide for that possibility or provide against that?

Mr. Drea: Could the member rephrase that again? I was trying to follow what he was getting at and I’m rather afraid I lost the trend.

Mr. Lawlor: It says the applicant is not entitled to registration or renewal under a number of conditions, the (d) part of which is; “The applicant is carrying on activities that are, or will be, if the applicant is registered, in contravention...” I’m worried about that future situation arising, where the applicant is ignorant of or suffers some omission to be informed of this new regulation, which will put him out of a job.

Mr. Drea: May I remind the member for Lakeshore that of course if the registration is turned down the applicant immediately has the right to go to the tribunal. First of all, the registrar may turn it down, but he can appeal to the commercial affairs tribunal and there he can state his case. I would also point out that in this particular area -- and this section is consistent with our other regulatory legislation concerning industries -- if they continue to carry on activities that are in contravention of the Act -- because they are taking deposits here, they are supposedly holding deposits in trust, they are making arrangements at relatively long-term future dates -- we don’t want to get ourselves into the position that they’ve had in some other jurisdictions, most notably England, where, again by registration, a person was told to cease and desist and it didn’t pertain to any future business that had already booked. They ran into some quite considerable difficulties, because these places or these operations stayed open on the basis that they had accounts that would not be satisfied for two, three, four, five months ahead. That has been one aspect of it.

First of all, in terms of the conditions under which people will be registered or deregistered, of course these regulations will be published. We will work with the industry before we develop the final form of the regulations. These regulations will be published, and again, I would share some concern were there not the appeal procedure in this province. Then, of course, as members know, after the appeal procedure there is always the appeal to the courts on the grounds of natural justice.

Mr. Lawlor: Working with the industry is really the answer to the question. The appeal wouldn’t help if they’ve infringed, and when a clear infringement has taken place the courts and the tribunals are all bound by whatever that regulation would call for.

Turning to subsection 2, it reads:

“A travel agent or applicant for registration as a travel agent is entitled to have any place of business he specifies named in the registration. [That’s fine.] except such branch offices as are in contravention of the regulations.”

What can that possibly mean?

Mr. Drea: This is to avoid the post office box in Malton. We want people to have a physical office. It is envisaged that some one will have one physical place of doing business and then argue, on the basis of convenience, that he will set up a post office box or some other place of business that is specifically denied by the regulations. So what we are saying is, he can have any place of business he wants specified in his registration, but we are not going to allow him to put in his registration a place that is in contravention of the regulations.

The reason, again, is that he’s going to have to post this licence. We want this licence posted in the place. We are not asking for a great big, huge wall-to-wall job or something. But we feel we have a duty to inform the public, and once the registration procedures come in, while we are saying that no one can be in the travel business without being registered, we also want the customers to see, before they part with their money, that they are registered.

In the long run it is not just a police method for us and it’s not a harassment of the businessman. Does the person have a licence? Is the person who has that licence on the wall really supposed to be in these premises? Is he really operating under the terms of his registration? All of these things are going to have some impact upon his contributions to the compensation fund and upon the way that he will keep his funds in trust.

We have had a few cases such as this. Right now in one bankruptcy the RCMP, after seven months, are still trying to figure out who really owned the company. But we’ve had some of these where the person was transferring deposits from one branch office to another, coming all the way down. By the time it got to the end of the line of branch offices, that deposit had vanished, and all the way back up the line through the branch offices to the head office, nobody could explain where the money went.

If we are going to try and plug the loopholes at both ends, to protect the deposit at the start and to protect the ability of the trip to go through, or for you to get your money back at the end, then I suggest to you the prime thing is keeping a handle on these people.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, one final point. The next subsection says:

“An applicant is entitled to registration or renewal of registration as a travel salesman by the registrar except where ... ”

The first one is, “he is a corporation.” That’s the one I want to light upon.

The subsection itself gives the right of registration and renewal as of right; that’s what I take it the weight of it is. That unless other things supervene then they are ipso facto entitled to be registered. In other words, the benefit is conferred upon the one making the application and the government has seen fit to recognize this as having priority over government supervision saying that he wouldn’t be registrable.

Mr. Drea: This is not a travel agent, you know. This is not a travel agent licence. This is a travel agency employee, or travel salesman.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, the beginning of the section has to do with --

Mr. Drea: No, subsection 2 is a travel agent. Subsection 3 is: “An applicant is entitled to registration or renewal of registration as a travel salesman.”

Mr. Lawlor: Yes --

Mr. Drea: That is an employee of a travel agent or a tour wholesaler.

Mr. Lawlor: Is the point then that a travel salesman can’t be a corporation?

Mr. Drea: That’s right.

Mr. Lawlor: Under any circumstances?

Mr. Drea: Because if you were a corporation we would expect you to take out a licence, and there are some reasons for this. We would want you to take out a licence either as a travel agent or as a tour wholesaler, because as a travel salesman, an employee, you would be making no contribution to that compensation fund.

We didn’t want some corporations to avoid their contributions and their responsibilities to that compensation fund by saying, “We as a corporation are really just an association of travel salesmen. We are employed by this overall travel agent. Therefore, we don’t have to make any contributions whatsoever.”

Mr. Lawlor: All right, let me get this crystal clear now. Under no circumstances can a travel salesman incorporate himself?

Mr. Drea: Not and be licensed as a travel salesman. If he incorporates himself, he’s a travel agent.

Mr. Lawlor: No, but he is working for an agency as an incorporated entity.

Mr. Drea: The answer is no.

Mr. Lawlor: Okay. If that is the way you want it, that’s the way it is.

Section 11 is my next section, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 4 to 10 inclusive agreed to.

On section 11:

Mr. Lawlor: I’d like a simple explanation of section 11(4). The subsection reads:

“Where a registrant that is a corporation is aware that a transfer which comes within the provisions of subsection 2 has taken place [That’s this 10 per cent business] it shall notify the registrar in writing within 30 days after such knowledge came to the attention of its officers or directors and not within 30 days of the entry of the transfer.”

Why one 30 days and not the other?

Mr. Drea: I am informed that that first 30 days is within 30 days from the date of the transaction so that we can be informed immediately, rather than the second 30 days, which is from the time of the entry of the transfer.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Does the member mean on the minute book?

Mr. Drea: Yes. We want to find out as quickly as possible which transfer is coming, because we want to take a look at the new people.

Mr. Lawlor: Is the member saying that the entry of the transfer is a fairly technical concept and, therefore, that may be delayed, even though the directorate of the corporation know darn well that the transfer has either taken place or very soon will take place? They may not make the entry, in other words, until six months afterwards, and then they’d have an extra 30 days. Is that the kind of thing the member is saying?

Mr. Drea: That’s right.

Mr. Lawlor: Okay.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments, questions or amendments to any other section?

Mr. Lawlor: Section 18.

Section 11 to 17 inclusive agreed to.

On section 18:

Mr. Lawlor: Just a small point. I still would, I think, like to peruse it. In section 18 it says: “Where the registrar receives a written complaint ... ” Why must it be in writing? A lot of the complaints that come to the ministry come through by telephone. I don’t understand. Why insist upon a written complaint?

Mr. Drea: This is kind of a sore spot with me, too. First of all, I think we should recognize that probably in the first instance the complaint does come by telephone. We begin to process it and we want some authorization to proceed. After all, the complaint may become the basis of deregistration; it may become the basis of an appeal tribunal hearing.

While a complaint may be brought to the attention of the registrar or the appropriate authority within the ministry, verbally or in any other way, nonetheless, at the time of investigating the validity of the complaint and launching what could be the deregistration of the agent, the salesman or the tour wholesaler, I think at that time we have to have some evidence that the registrar can submit in support of his position that this particular person should be deregistered. I don’t think that limits at all the ability of the registrar to receive verbal complaints, either by phone or in person. Nonetheless, I think that we would be -- albeit on some of the more interesting sections of Bill 55 -- in some difficulty at a tribunal hearing where there was absolutely nothing in writing.

When we try to establish a pattern of operations, I think the member himself could see that if we didn’t have any verification in writing, it might lead to a great number of people being brought in just to say that, indeed, what had been transmitted to the hearing had actually happened.

But I agree with the member; it should be by phone. But when you are proceeding against somebody, I think that certainly, on the basis of his ability to know what is the exact complaint, he must be given something in writing. This is what I am talking about in having evidence.

I think that in defending a client -- I shouldn’t say defending; I don’t think anybody is ever really defended before that tribunal. However, in trying to ensure that his rights were upheld, I think one would have a very difficult time and would be protesting quite vehemently about the registrar and our side holding back all of the evidence, if there was no opportunity to look at what is the detailed substance of the evidence and its merits.

Mr. Lawlor: Does it mean, though, that apart from filing an affidavit or a ministerial order, that the registrar on his own hook may not, having been triggered by a telephone call, make investigations?

Mr. Drea: I think that for practical considerations, unless a person is very far removed and the cost of a phone call is prohibitive, that the complaints the registrar receives in the first instance are generally by phone. I would want to see that continue because I think this is to facilitate the customer in seeking redress for what he feels to be a justified complaint in an industry that will be regulated by this government.

Mr. Lawlor: I take it that if a phone call came through and something seemed to be wrong, the registrar may say: “Well, I would like you to file your complaint in writing.” But if the matter has some urgency, I would think that within the ambit of your legislation under the inspection sections or some other place he, on his own, without getting any more, and with nothing in writing, could proceed to make an initial investigation.

Mr. Drea: I can assure the member for Lakeshore that if he or she didn’t, they would be unemployed. But at some point -- and I think there is some validity for that section -- if the complaint appears to be justified, there has to be some written documentation, because otherwise it would turn the hearing of that complaint before the tribunal into a bit of a travesty.

Mr. Lawlor: Perfectly right. At some future stage, if the individual has made an initial survey of the situation and the complainant is continuing to say no, then I would think at that stage he would be obliged to put it in writing for further investigation. All right, where in the legislation would you put your finger as giving the registrar the powers of investigation without any writing?

Mr. Drea: How about 17?

Mr. Lawlor: The inspection clause? Yes, you do by the back door what you are not prepared to do by the front. Okay, I won’t push it any further.

Mr. Drea: It’s good, though, isn’t it?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, all right.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments or questions? The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’d like to ask one question that might concern my colleague from Lakeshore. Clauses such as clause 2 under section 18: “The direction under subsection 1 shall indicate the nature of the complaint involved.” I have often wondered why you aren’t more specific. Why don’t you say, “shall indicate the nature and details of the complaint involved”?

I will tell you the reason why. You have specificity in your complaint in writing; I suggest you should have specificity in giving details to the person complained against. Generality of the nature of a complaint is something that the law has abjured for many years.

I am interested in the comments of the member for Lakeshore. I would like to see the nature and details of the complaints involved because, by way of example, if someone complains about a specific instance, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the registrar to send a carte blanche letter saying: “Someone has complained about your trust account.” I think there should be some specific details so that the man can make a response with respect to the details.

Mr. Drea: I would be very glad to bring that to the attention of our legal people. As I said before, the general sections in here are totally consistent with the regulatory sections in other Acts. It would be my feeling -- and I can understand your concern from your example and some of the examples that the member for Lakeshore has pointed out -- that there should be an accurate description, but frankly I think that the nature of the complaint would seem to take care of the matter. I certainly haven’t got the legal expertise of my friend from Sarnia, but I will be very glad to bring your concern in that type of section to their attention.

Mr. Bullbrook: I just want to amplify in one respect, if I may, not for the sake of prolongation of this debate, but it’s part of what we have discussed in this House on many occasions. As you go down in the bill, it talks about finding out whether there are any offences committed against the Criminal Code of Canada, and really it’s essential or inherent in our system of justice that when you are going to investigate a person, you do it pursuant to a warrant issued on reasonable and probable grounds. That’s why the warrant is normally issued, and a person is not put in a position of having to defend a criminal charge on the basis of an administrative right to enter without warrant.

This is what causes concern when you talk about general matters such as the nature of a complaint. This is why I like to see, for example, that people undertaking investigatory rights, duties and responsibilities are themselves not only restricted to the nature of the complaint itself, but also to the specific details of the complaint itself.

Do I bore the parliamentary assistant?

Mr. Drea: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: All right. You’ve heard --

Mr. Drea: Do you have some problem?

Mr. Bullbrook: Pardon me?

Mr. Drea: You know, I was listening to you very attentively --

Mr. Bullbrook: You’ve heard this debate take place on other statutes of this kind.

Mr. Drea: Yes, I have.

Mr. Bullbrook: All right. We’ve never been able to get the government to come full circle and recognize that there should be some protection to the individual that normally would lie in law.

Mr. Drea: Yes. I assure you I’m not bored. I don’t understand why that remark was called for.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m sorry. I thought you looked a little bored.

Mr. Drea: No, as I have said --

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, what about considering an amendment then?

Mr. Drea: I’m not going to consider an amendment, but I will say that I can understand your concern about taking what appears to be a relatively small complaint, casting a wide net on one small aspect of a business and seeing what it will come up with. I can understand your concern about that. I have already said that I will bring the attention of the ministerial legal staff, indeed that of the government, to the point that you have raised, if I understand you correctly, that “nature” is a bit too general and that it should be a more specific word such as “details.”

One of the difficulties with consumer legislation in particular, of course -- and I’m sure you, as a solicitor, are aware of this -- is that people quite often are unable to give details, although they know they’ve been had. One of the reasons I think they don’t come for redress is that quite often, unless they have almost immediate access to a solicitor, they don’t have the exact details.

Again, you’re into another difficulty, which is the attitude of business -- I’ve run into this a bit; I can understand it to a degree, but in a lot of ways I can’t -- that if someone complains about you they have virtually entered into a situation that is more properly controlled by the Libel and Slander Act. Just because you question someone’s business methods -- indeed, you’re wrong as long as it’s not malicious; I bear that in mind -- I don’t think you should necessarily face the threat that someone is going to call you up and say, “Well, by virtue of the fact that you have entered a complaint with the government, I am going to sue you.”

In the experience of the hon. member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) and myself within the last two years, people have been threatened with lawsuits because they wrote to us here as members of this Legislature. I frankly don’t understand the attitude of business, that if someone questions your methods, it automatically puts it into a libel and slander type of action. There is some concern in the government’s mind with respect to this question of details, but I can assure the hon. member for Sarnia that without being terribly involved in the legal process, I share some of the concerns about casting a very wide net on the flimsiest of things to see what we can get.

Mind you, at the same time, I think it should be remembered that this ministry, above others, has to be in a position where it will accept consumer complaints and try to get them redressed on the flimsiest of complaints, if indeed that complaint, after our specialized investigation, turns out to be true. I don’t think we want to get into a situation in the travel industry where the customer is going to have to go out at his own expense and hire all kinds of expertise to convince the government and our registrar that indeed there is something there that seems worthwhile investigating.

While I haven’t been able to give him the exact type of answer he wanted. I hope I have dealt with it to the limit of my capacity here.

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, I appreciate the response of the parliamentary assistant. I want to say that his comments in connection with the person making the complaint having to detail the complaint has nothing to do with my comments. I am not suggesting that the person making the complaint has to detail it.

I want to say I am somewhat of a disciple of Ramsey Clark, and I don’t apologize for that. He has always said this is the type of legislation that makes slothful people out of police officers and those who have an investigatory responsibility. That great man has often said, the less help you give to the police in their investigation the better the police are for it.

I recognize that the police are not involved in this, though they well could be because of some of the breadth of your statute here. The next section, for example, states, “The minister may ... appoint a person ...” --There is no identification of the person at all, no matter who he may be. Then you clothe them subsequently with all the powers under the Public Inquiries Act. It is worthy of some comment too.

Mr. Bullbrook moves that the words “and details” be added to subsection 2 of section 18 after the word “nature.”

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion to the amendment?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good illustration of one of the situations that can come up when we are trying to discipline organizations from outside the actual industry itself. It shows the difficulty of trying to help complainants with a registrar going in from the outside in a way that often can be done very quickly -- or usually can be done very quickly -- from the inside.

My experience anyway is that it is very important to have investigations done and information made available and public so that action can be taken by the complainant. But it should be done in such a way that there is no public exposure or indication of guilt prior to there being evidence of guilt.

It is a matter of making available information. As my colleague says, details should be given whenever some case is actually presented. You can’t go in and just say something very general, as is now provided for in this Act. I, therefore, would hope that the member would agree to this change and this amendment that my colleague has suggested.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, just for a moment so I understand it, are you saying this information is going to a third party? Did I understand you on that?

Mr. Bullbrook: The person complained of.

Mr. Deacon: The person complained of knows the details of the complaint.

Mr. Drea: Oh, I see, yes.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Bullbrook’s amendment will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay”.

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the amendment lost and the section carried.

Section 18 agreed to.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, we would never have stood on the thing, but my gosh!

Mr. Deacon: You would have a hard time standing against that.

Mr. Lawlor: I mean after all you are only adding the words “and details,” you don’t stand on details.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore. On what section?

Mr. Lawlor: Section 20.

Mr. Bullbrook: Before you go to 20, may I speak on 19?

Mr. Lawlor: On 19? Sure.

On section 19:

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, I had mentioned it previously. I am somewhat concerned about the ambiguity of the words “appoint a person” -- do you follow me? -- and the powers that the person has. I don’t think I have to detail to you the powers of a person acting under part 2 of the Public Inquiries Act. They have powers of subpoena, broad powers of investigation, and almost unfettered powers, as a matter of fact. I would like to know who that person might be. I don’t know whether you would want to specify the person again, but one would hope for example that it was a person carrying out a normal ministerial duty.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 19 carry?

Mr. Drea: No, I would like to reply to the member, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, you have seen the minister’s power under section 19 before. It is standard throughout our regulatory legislation in this ministry. It would only be used where the industry as a whole or some particular facet of it involving a number of companies or a number of people are to be investigated.

I really don’t think that it confers awesome powers upon the investigator. I think it would be much more in line with the member’s suggestions, some of his backgrounding, as to why “details” should have been added into subsection 2 of section 18. I would agree with him that the person would be a rather senior person. I would suggest to you, that it would be just as redundant to say: “The minister may, by order, appoint a senior person.” I think it’s implicit, with the mention of the Public Inquiries Act in there, that it wouldn’t exactly be the office boy who was dispatched out to conduct this investigation. As I say, it’s standard. I think that it would be a senior person.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want you to know, if I may interrupt just for a moment, that I don’t worry about office boys; I worry about the police. Surely, I’ve made this clear to you.

Mr. Drea: Well, we’re not sending out the police.

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t want you to be able to send out the police in the guise of an investigation on behalf of the department. This cannot be a fishing trip for police. We give them too much power.

Mr. Drea: That’s a rather impassioned plea. With all due respect, isn’t it about time that the consumer got somebody out there on his side? You don’t like the police investigating it, you don’t like this investigating it, you don’t like that investigating it. Well, under section 19, if there’s a bunch of them fooling around they are going to meet somebody who is investigating it.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I say to you that you really respond in nature and kind to what I worry about. My interjection previously about the seeming joy you take in these almost unilateral, authoritarian abilities that you vest your ministry with is what concerns me. I don’t hold myself out as any Alan Borovoy, any great civil libertarian, but I must say that I express some concern with giving powers to people, especially the police, who, thank God, under our criminal justice system are fettered once in a while and not sufficiently.

Obviously, we’ve seen in a recent terrible trial in the city of London where they were able to, for example, tap the lawyer’s phone and listen to some 140 phone calls between a client and his lawyer and then convict the man on the basis of that type of wiretap. I realize that’s a digression, but anybody concerned in reading the newspapers about matters of that nature would want to be concerned with this type of thing. This is why, if I’m impassioned and you respond in kind, we recognize a polarization. Thank God, I say to myself, for the polarization.

Mr. Drea: I’m going to say something else on polarization.

Mr. Bullbrook: If you want to give them that type of power I’m not going to waste the time of the House and try to amend it again. But I want to tell you if you want to give them that type of power you give it to them, but were I on that side of the House they wouldn’t even come close to getting it. Were I an Attorney General I’d see that the protection of the individual in most circumstances is more important than the right of the consumer.

Mr. Drea: Maybe that’s the reason why you won’t be on this side of the House. But let’s not have any impressions given under this -- I know you wouldn’t, but I just don’t want any impressions given that for some peculiar reason under section 19 we’re going to enter into some clandestine arrangements with what is commonly known --

Mr. Bullbrook: What is this “clandestine”?

Mr. Drea: Just a moment -- you’ve had your say, and you spilled it out. You were into wiretapping and everything else.

Mr. Bullbrook: But I didn’t talk about clandestine arrangements.

Mr. Drea: Just let me set the record clear. I told you it would be a senior ministerial person who would be investigating. Let’s make it very clear that we’re not going to enter into a clandestine type of contract with a policeman -- either a municipal policeman or some other type of policeman.

Mr. Bullbrook: Your Act doesn’t say that.

Mr. Drea: It may very well be that we require the services of some very specialized people in the provincial police, but certainly we wouldn’t appoint them under section 19.

Mr. Bullbrook: It is the very thing I was talking about.

Mr. Drea: Oh, I see. Well, just let me set the record straight. I don’t know why the digression into wiretapping. I just want to make it abundantly clear that, notwithstanding the fact that it is now against the law, this ministry is not about to embark on that nor does it have section 19 in here for any purpose connected with any aspect of wiretapping or that type of evidence.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to tell you why I spoke on wiretapping, because it is analogous. I want to tell you what has happened, in my opinion, with respect to the laws in the Dominion of Canada, including the Invasion of Privacy Act, including sections of the Criminal Code, including the common law interpretation of an individual’s rights, and including evidentiary law that permits illegal taking of evidence but the use of it against an accused. It’s this very type of section that I find abhorrent. We give people too many powers.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 19 carry?

Section 19 agreed to.

Mr. Lawlor: Section 20.

Mr. Chairman: Section 20, the hon. member for Lakeshore.

On section 20:

Mr. Lawlor: I have just something I’ve been wanting to say for sometime. To the extent that the parliamentary assistant has suzerainty over these matters and can influence policy and does consort with and know the members of the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal, etc., this is a plea in mercy. It has to do with section 20, where somebody files an affidavit saying that somebody is being accused or had a previous criminal offence and, therefore, ought not to be in this particular form of business or similarly ought not to be a real estate salesman or ought not to be a used car salesman or ought not to be apparently anything because of a particular affront or a particular mistake or a particular offence that he had in his past.

I think, firstly, of what you said further back in the Act with respect to section 4, subsection 4, touching upon theft as being the primary ingredient. This is the first time in legislation, and I should have commented on it at the time, that I’ve seen a kind of zeroing into the kind of area which might have some redounding effect upon the very kind of business in which the person is at this time presently involved, and theft would be. Whether he assaults people, whether he is up against certain peculiar sexual practices or whether or not he is prone to murder has very little to do with maintaining funds for people who are travelling overseas or anywhere in the country.

If you zero in on that particular thing, my first point is that this clause in section 20 ought to be kind of narrowed down and confined to what you say within the Criminal Code touching theft as is in 4(4) and the Immigration Act sections. In the alternative, a great deal of suavity and a great deal of mercy should be exercised in this tribunal with respect to the cheap blandishment in our society about people in prisons and coming out of prison and all the spurious talk we hear of rehabilitation. Having come out and sought to establish themselves in a particular mode of life where they are able to hold up their heads and operate gainfully in the community, they ought not be driven like caged animals back into the prison. The whole rehabilitative process is subverted very often by legislation like this and by the operation of tribunals. If the tribunal is harsh, tough and full of the instinct of the law-abiding as an end in itself, then that fellow would be back in prison because he has nowhere else to go. I just thought I’d make a plea this afternoon in this particular head.

Mr. Drea: I think it is not only a very good plea but a very valid one. However, I would point out to you in section 20(1)(b), I think we have confined it, though perhaps not to your expectations, when we say there “committed an offence under the Criminal Code or under the law of any jurisdiction that is relevant to his fitness for registration ... ” I don’t think, in terms of the way we register -- and, again, this is standard -- salesmen of used cars or new cars or as itinerant salesmen and a number of other things, that we have taken the hard and the fast and the hard nosed.

I agree with you, that sometimes we can tend to overprotect. Just because somebody has strong-armed somebody in the back of a bar or done an armed robbery or something like this, whether in the distant past or relatively recently, I think we can try to overprotect society by saying, “Well, let him out and we’ll let him back in society, but by denying him certain occupational and employment benefits we will get him into the remotest place possible, and that will protect us.

First of all, I think we would have to very seriously consider people who were convicted of immigration offences, for obvious reasons. A travel agent or a travel salesman has some expertise in it. He also gets some concessions that the ordinary citizen does not. Again, in terms of fraud -- and I’m not talking about a bit of embezzlement or something like this -- in terms of masterminding a rather considerable fraud or deliberately contravening a number of other sections of the Criminal Code in the field of white-collar crime as an originator, not as a pawn, I think these things have to be looked into very seriously, because there is the handling of money. A great deal of this money is in the form of cash rather than the large type of cheque.

I would certainly think, on the basis of the record of the registrars we have within the business practices division, within the basis of the experience and the compassion of the director himself, that I can assure you your plea hasn’t fallen upon deaf ears. However, if there is a time when it appears that either we are being too harsh or that the standards are being enforced perhaps a bit too highly in regard to registration, I certainly think that it is not only our duty to hear you out on it, but it is your duty, if you have some knowledge of that, to bring it forward. I know the director of our business practices division does read Hansard. I would certainly hope he reads this portion of it because I am sure that he will probably correspond with you and say that to the best of his ability this has always been his practice.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, my next section is 26.

Sections 20 to 25 inclusive agreed to.

On section 26:

Mr. Lawlor: The first question I have to ask on 26 is with respect to the bonding arrangements. The parliamentary assistant indicated that for a sum of $9 a week approximately a coverage would be forthcoming which was around -- let’s call it $500 a year. Does that include the $75 or $80 bonding fee or is that on top?

Mr. Drea: Yes, it does. Since you’ve raised the question of bonding, perhaps I could clarify it. The travel salesman or the travel employee will not be bonded. After all, the person who employs him not only has to post the $5,000 bond as a condition of registration but is contributing to the overall bonding, the compensation fund. The travel agent will be bonded for that $5,000 and the travel wholesaler will be bonded.

When we last met with the bonding industry, the figure was somewhere between $75 and $80. Even in the light of inflation -- and those talks were not too long ago -- I wouldn’t think they would be much more than $80 a year, give or take, but that was certainly included within it. I don’t want to leave you with the impression that the individual travel salesman would be bonded. He won’t.

Mr. Lawlor: Taking the agents or wholesales again, the figure of $9 a week, I think, is the applicable figure.

Mr. Drea: I didn’t say that for wholesalers. I said that for agents.

Mr. Lawlor: Again, do the nine bucks include the cost of the bond?

Mr. Drea: Yes. Do you want me to tell you what it includes? Maybe we can straighten it out this way. It would include his licence fee to the province, the cost of obtaining his bond and his contributions to the compensation fund.

Mr. Lawlor: I see the member has got a pretty shrewd notion sitting there right now what precisely that cost per hour to the compensation fund is going to be.

Mr. Drea: Per hour?

Mr. Lawlor: I am kidding the member. Per year, yes.

Mr. Drea: Yes, for both reasons -- because we didn’t want to put the small operator out of business.

Mr. Lawlor: I’d just like to do it backwards by figuring it out the other way. As far as the bonding is concerned, my experience is that is that bonding is not altogether that easy. To try and get a bond in any number of instances is a fairly demanding test. There are only a very few people in the field.

I take it then, that this department, as an aid to the industry, having consulted within the bonding field, could, if it came to that, for instance, direct a particular salesman or a particular agency to bonding companies, saying, “I am quite certain that other things being equal, they will be prepared to supply you with this bond.”

Mr. Drea: We have agreements. There are, I believe, 123 bonding companies operating in this province. We have agreements from them. Provided there is a bit of standardization, which means a standard application form -- which we already use with other regulatory authorities, they won’t need more than about three or four days’ worth of lead time to commence bonding.

There might be some dislocation at the start, because everybody would go to some of the better known companies, but certainly everyone could be accommodated within a very reasonable period of time. The criteria for the issuance of the bond will be the person’s business performance and business honesty.

Mr. Lawlor: And not a whole host of assets?

Mr. Drea: And not a whole host of assets; because we met with them and, quite frankly, they didn’t want us to bond too high. They said once it goes over $5,000 they want to look at those assets they can seize, because this is a total forfeiture bond. It is not the type that is in construction where as each day goes by and more work is done, the risk is lessened. So we have struck a figure that will ensure that the bonding company does a thorough solvency investigation, but at the same time, it is within the means of the travel agents to buy.

Now, if we went for a $1,000 bond, the financial investigation means very little because the risk isn’t as high. Oddly enough, and as a layman, I would’ve thought $5,000 was relatively low. But for $5,000 on a total forfeiture, they tell us they do a rather stringent check. They can tell us whether a person is solvent, how many times, if any, he has been into bankruptcy or receivership -- this type of thing. They can give you a pretty good record on it, and they will issue on the basis of business integrity and business record.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, the next section is (f).

Mr. Chairman: Is section 26 carried?

Mr. Lawlor: No, subsection (f).

Mr. Chairman: Oh, 26 (f).

Mr. Lawlor: It has to do with the trust funds. The parliamentary assistant indicated, when he was in reply, that he hesitantly felt that it would not be an absolute trust. Would he explain that nice term? I am not quite sure what a conditional trust is. Maybe he can tell me why it fails, and in what respect it fails, to be absolute, at least to start.

Mr. Drea: Perhaps I used the wrong word in front of “trust.” I was thinking in terms of trust accounts as in the Law Society.

Mr. Lawlor: But that is pretty absolute.

Mr. Drea: Yes it is.

Mr. Lawlor: You can’t pay your bills out of that account.

Mr. Drea: You are right, aren’t you? That is absolute. Eventually, I would hope that we could come to something perhaps not quite as stringent as that, because that is within a very restricted field. The payouts in the lawyer’s trust account or in the real estate trust account are a little bit different from the payouts that have to be made in conjunction with the travel agent.

What we are saying is that at the moment we want the money to be treated as in trust. We are not asking right off the bat that they send us an audited statement of their trust accounts and we are not saying we are going to put auditors in and we are going to be spot checking and all this and that. We want them to start out realizing that this money is now to be treated as in trust and that it shouldn’t be used to pay for advertising brochures or to pay for some of the business overhead. It may very well be that because of the peculiar nature of this business they might have to take my deposit today to help pay for your ticket, because of the peculiar billing operations by the airlines, over which none of us has any control -- at least not until we get into it, as you mentioned before. So we want the money treated as though it was in trust. We are going to phase in the stringency of the trust.

The reason we can do that, on a practical basis, is, trust funds are only as good as the funds backing them up. It may be very interesting for someone to abscond with trust funds and be very easily charged, but it is small comfort to a person that the trust funds have been absconded with unless he can receive some payment. In this case, we have the compensation funds to repay the deposit. We are interested in treating the deposit in trust for the sake of prosecution, because I think people are fed up with all kinds of people running these capers and nothing ever happening, and secondly, we want to gradually get the industry into adopting conventional business methods.

There is no other industry I know of where trust funds are used to pay the light bill -- where deposits are used to pay the light bill, the promotion bill, last year’s radio sales bill, to take people out to dinner; and somehow everybody hopes that tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow there will be more deposits coming in. At the same time -- and I think the member would be somewhat conversant with this -- it is very difficult for the small travel agent to go into bank capitalization at this time, because he has precious few assets, other than his own ability to work hard and his own experience, to secure that kind of a loan with. We didn’t want to get them into the position where, for the sake of not being able to get a bank loan to cover their deposits, they would lose their own business and become mere employees -- albeit perhaps even at a senior level but none the less mere employees -- of the larger chains.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I just make a comment? I would like to clarify something on the record; I know it was inadvertently misstated.

The parliamentary assistant said he knows of no industry that uses trust funds for the payment of the light bill and secretarial staff. The banking industry in Canada has for years used this. It’s one of fundamental foundations, the use of trust funds from lawyers, and they have robbed the public for many, many years. They continue to do so, notwithstanding the three per cent paid to the law foundation, because they turn around and take the millions of dollars placed in trust accounts with the chartered banks and charge John Q. Public a prime rate of 11 per cent, and he’s lucky if he can get it at 13.5 today.

Mr. Drea: In all fairness --

Mr. Bullbrook: I am just telling you that.

Mr. Drea: Well, all right. You have now informed me. I didn’t use “trust funds;” I corrected it and I said “deposits.” If you are going to put on a performance, at least get my words right.

Mr. Lawlor: Gentlemen, let none of us put on a performance.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: I notice throughout the legislation that you haven’t thought it wise to write a grandfather clause into the overall legislation at all --

Mr. Drea: We will, in terms of regulations.

Mr. Lawlor: -- yes -- protecting those already in the industry, in any event.

Mr. Drea: I would like to protect any and all in the industry on the basis of their experience, but there are some people out there who don’t deserve to be protected. They are going to have to qualify as to why they should get the normal, conventional benefit of doubt on the basis of experience.

I think that one of the ways it will be done is through the bonding procedure. If the bonding company can produce evidence that this person is not only totally insolvent but has been involved in the following number of financial debacles over a period of time and they will not bond him, I think at that particular point you lose your status under the grandfather arrangement.

Mr. Lawlor: I have only one final question, and it has to do with what you mentioned a moment ago; this arrangement with the airlines and other carriers, which I don’t quite understand. An agent receives money that he is to keep on deposit, and for the protection of the public he would keep it on deposit in trust. Nevertheless, in face of that, as I understand it, he is under obligation with the carriers, say Sabena Airlines, to remit substantial sums of money to them out of that trust account within a very limited period of time, thereby, I suspect, largely stripping his trust account of those moneys. I would take it that your regulations are going to have to be drawn in such a way as to make the trust conditional in the sense that he is no longer responsible for moneys remitted.

Mr. Drea: That’s absolutely right. The travel agent is no longer in a trust position once he has purchased a service for you from either a tour operator or an airline.

Mr. Lawlor: Right.

Mr. Drea: In other words, if a $50 deposit is applied to American Airlines and he can show a receipt, he’s not in a trust position; it’s American Airlines’ difficulty. Now, you raised what would have been a very difficult point, if we hadn’t gone into this: What do we do with American Airlines, say, if they want to operate out of Toronto in getting you a hotel room? Well, they’d better come down here and register. They know it. Oh, do they know it. They’ve gone to their friends in Ottawa -- I’m not talking about American, but about the airlines from the United States and the other foreign airlines -- oh, have they gone to Ottawa. They’ve gone to IATA in Montreal, saying that neither Quebec nor ourselves can do this to them. They know exactly. They also realize that for the first time in the airline business there are two governments that are interested in what happens to the consumer on those airlines, on those trains and on both interprovincial and international bus operations.

Mr. Chairman: Any more comments section 26?

Section 26 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other section of the bill that anyone wishes to comment on?

Sections 27 to 29 inclusive agreed to.

Bill 165 reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House reports one bill without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 165, An Act to regulate the Business of selling and dealing in Travel Services.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the third time I tell you I don’t approve either in general or in particular the budgetary policies of the government. I want you to understand that. I wouldn’t want you to labour under any misapprehension about my feelings about the budgetary policies.

Mr. Speaker: I’m getting the message.

Mr. Deans: Good. In fact, I wouldn’t want anyone to labour under any misapprehensions about my feelings about the budgetary policies or most other policies of the government. I don’t have a great deal of faith in their capacities, and I think they know that.

Today I want to talk about a few other things that have been worrying me. We’ve covered two or three matters in the last on couple of days, and I’ve got perhaps another eight or nine small matters to raise with you before I get into the meat of the discussion.

I have given a lot of thought to the budget of the government and I’ve come to the conclusion that we simply have to raise these matters now because there’s always the possibility that we won’t have another opportunity. It wouldn’t be fair to the government if I didn’t give them the benefit of my views about some of the policies that they have or have not brought into being in the Province of Ontario.

I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker, and with other people in the House some thoughts I have about the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I know it is going to go before a standing committee, but I know not when. Because I don’t know when it is going before the standing committee, I think this is probably necessary, given the pressures of the Christmas season and the fact that we may well not be here much longer this year and that it may well be that the standing committee won’t have the opportunity to deal with matters related to compensation of the injured workers of the Province of Ontario before Christmas. It might, therefore, be appropriate that I raise a few of the concerns now.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Very appropriate.

Mr. Deans: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I sat on the standing committee about two years ago that devoted many long hours to a discussion of the operations of the Workmen’s Compensation Board in the Province of Ontario. I sat with a number of colleagues and we listened to and took part in discussions about the way the board operated and about its sensitivity or lack of it for the people who must, because of their injury, come within its jurisdiction. We tended at that time to be of the opinion that some changes were necessary to the board if it was going to fill its mandate and adequately meet the needs of the workers of the province.

That resulted in the appointment of a commission which reviewed the board and its operations and which came forth with a report. That report made recommendations, not unlike the recommendations which the standing committee had come to and not unlike the conclusions the standing committee had reached. The government implemented the recommendations, appointing a new chairman in the process.

We then thought that matters which had up until that time been of some concern to us would be taken care of. We thought that the workers would receive a more sensitive treatment; we thought that there would be an administrative change through the board which would result in faster payment; we thought that there would likely be an attitudinal change at the board which would be reflected in a new and more positive approach toward rehabilitation. In fact, we held optimistically the view that the board would, for the first time in a number of years, respond in the way that we felt that the Compensation Board should have responded previously.

Mr. Stokes: Well said.

Mr. Deans: My colleague from Thunder Bay knows it well, as do my other colleagues who are here. All of them know --

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): All two of them.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): All two of them.

Mr. Deans: -- that the numbers of complaints that we have had, in the last short period of time have certainly doubled, and probably quadrupled; that more people are going longer periods of time without money; and that it is extremely difficult to track down at the board any of the case histories that one requires.

Mr. Deacon: It is not a difficult chore. They can’t find them.

Mr. Deans: I think the member for York Centre makes a good point. The move from Harbour St. up to Bay and Bloor has proved to be, to say the least, a little unsatisfactory.

Mr. Deacon: It is more costly than before.

Mr. Deans: It is a pretty difficult process to trace anything up at Bay and Bloor, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. When one calls the board one finds that they don’t really seem to know where anything is or how to go about finding it.

I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker, just by way of an example. I had a constituent call me. The constituent had been without money for some considerable period of time. He had been on compensation. His name is Mr. Kovaks. Mr. Kovaks and his wife, living in the riding of Wentworth, were concerned that they were having some minor difficulties paying their bills without money and that the creditors were beginning to exert a little pressure because they didn’t seem to have any regular cheques coming in. They were asking whether maybe the couple could find a way to meet their obligations financially.

They had been on compensation for a long period and Mr. Kovaks had been at the board at a hearing -- no, not a hearing; a review, a medical review, I think you would call it -- and he left the board feeling that things were going to be fine. He had been told that when he got back to Hamilton they would notify him of any change in his status and that if there was to be any adjustment in his payment he would be told.

Six weeks went by. Mr. Kovaks got no money. Mr. Kovaks had been receiving his cheques regularly up until that point but for six straight weeks he got no money.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): His file was out of the office; they couldn’t pay him.

Mr. Deans: His file was out of the office, as my colleague from Sandwich-Riverside says, and they couldn’t pay him because his file wasn’t available. They didn’t seem to understand that Mr. Kovaks still had rent to pay; that Mr. Kovaks still had food to buy; that Mr. Kovaks still had bills that were coming in because he had entered into agreements with people in good faith. Although he repeatedly called the board and then he repeatedly called me, and we, from my office, repeatedly called the board, it seemed virtually impossible to get through the maze of red tape and inconsequential nonsense that seems to pervade the entire operation.

I became frustrated. Mr. Kovaks was supposed to go to welfare because he couldn’t get his compensation payment. Then we found out what had happened. Mr. Kovaks’ file was in the pension department. They had decided that they were going to take him off his regular payment and put him on a pension. But they hadn’t told him.

You see, it takes a long time, apparently, to move from regular compensation payments into an arrangement whereby one gets the pension.

Mr. Burr: It’s on a different floor, probably.

Mr. Deans: During that period of time, Mr. Kovaks and every other Mr. Kovaks across the Province of Ontario is expected to make ends meet, and to meet his obligations without any income of any kind.

He wasn’t fit to return to work, as certified by his doctor’s statement. Yet the board, without any notification, without any prior discussion, without any effort being made by them to ensure that Mr. Kovaks understood the delay and the reason for it, simply stopped his payment. Some six weeks later we discover he’s on pension.

His pension, of course, is drastically reduced from his normal payment and Mr. Kovaks is now in a position that he has to receive additional social benefit from another agency, which is a practice which I think is wrong in the Province of Ontario. Mr. Kovaks has to receive assistance from welfare just simply to enable him to meet his financial obligations.

I would like to be able to tell the House that that’s an isolated case. I would like to be able to say that having once resolved that, we had resolved the problems of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. But I’m going to tell the House, and I think any member of this House could tell the members likewise, that Mr. Kovaks is an example of any number of hundreds of people who are finding it extremely difficult either to get answers as to why they’re not getting money, or to get money from the board.

I want to suggest to the House that the reasons that are given by the board are totally unacceptable. It’s not good enough to say to somebody: “I’m sorry that we didn’t send out your cheque; your file is lost.” It’s not good enough to say: “I’m sorry we didn’t send out your cheque but we can’t get hold of your doctor’s report.” It’s not good enough to say: “We can’t send out your cheque because we’re reviewing your claim.”

The purpose of the Compensation Board is to provide compensation payments for people when they are unable to work due to an industrial accident, and those payments should be continued all of the time that the person is disabled. If there is any need to change either the amount of the payment, the time that the payment will be made, or the method of payment -- for example, from full compensation to partial, or from partial to pension or whatever -- then there is an obligation on the board to continue to make the payment that the recipient expects until the recipient has been notified and given an adequate period of time to make adjustment. I don’t think anyone is going to quarrel with that.

What I’m saying is, that when the file is lost in that labyrinth of offices at Bay and Bloor --

Mr. Deacon: Yonge and Bloor.

Mr. Deans: Yonge and Bloor, pardon me -- surely to heaven the responsibility is to continue payment until the file is found. If the board finds upon looking at a claim that the claimant’s doctor hasn’t filed a report, that is not sufficient reason to cut the claimant off.

There has to be an understanding that we are dealing with human beings -- human beings who have to eat and pay their bills. If the doctor, because of any number of reasons -- vacation, illness or whatever -- is unable to send out the report on the injury in time to meet the deadline of the board, then let the board take that matter up with the doctor. But for heaven’s sake don’t deprive the person in receipt of benefit of the very money he needs in order to continue to live.

The same is true in the case of the worker injured and making an initial claim. There is a horrendous delay from the time that the worker makes his initial claim and informs his employer that he is injured and goes home, to the time that he gets his first cheque. The reason is, of course, that the injured worker has to go to the doctor; perhaps to the hospital. From that point out, the doctor has to get the forms; the forms have to be filled in. The employer has to fill out the forms. The worker has to fill out the forms. They have to get into the board. Somehow they are going to get lost, found again -- and then they’ve got to be processed.

Now, what happens in the case of the worker who is in the hospital? He can’t go chasing around after his doctor asking him to sign the forms and send them in. He can’t go down to his employer and ask his employer to please send the forms in right away because he hasn’t got any money.

Yet the board sits and waits -- and it waits. And if the employer doesn’t send in the report properly, it waits some more. If the doctor doesn’t get his report in on time, it waits again. Who suffers? Not the employer; he doesn’t suffer. Not the board; nobody up there ever suffers. Who suffers? The poor guy who has been injured doing his job. That is who suffers.

Why is it that when a claim is registered there isn’t an automatic process which follows the claim through until the first cheque is sent out? Why is it that there isn’t a process whereby, if there is a delay of even two or three days in receiving the report of the physician or the report of the employer, or for that matter the report of the worker, an automatic reminder goes out to that person? It should say to the employer, physician or worker: “You haven’t yet sent in your claim form.”

This delay affects but one of the three parties involved. And this reminder would help reduce the kind of economic hardship that these undue delays have been causing in the past.

It is not uncommon these days for people to wait 12 and 14 weeks to get their cheque. It’s not uncommon for the board to have to send someone out to investigate a claim, and during this period of investigation -- which can take anything up to six or eight weeks -- the worker must sit at home or lie in bed, perhaps, awaiting the outcome.

Now, we all know that there are very few people in the Province of Ontario -- including many of us here -- who could go for a couple of months without income. How can we possibly expect that a person earning a nominal sum in a factory, in a commercial enterprise or in some other place of work would be able to get by for six or eight or 10 weeks --

Mr. Stokes: Completely unrealistic.

Mr. Deans: -- without receiving any compensation from the Workmen’s Compensation Board?

If the physician doesn’t send in his report, then he has to have his ear tugged -- I thought of something else to do to him but that will do instead. If the employer doesn’t send in his report, then all that can be said is, “Mr. Employer, we are going to pay the man. Send your report in quickly if you don’t think it’s justified.” If the worker doesn’t send in his report, then obviously he has to accept some responsibility for himself; but nevertheless he should be reminded of his obligation to himself and to the board.

I don’t want to start another great harangue about the Workmen’s Compensation Board. We have gone through it a number of times. I know, since the board appears before the standing committee, that there will be any number of cases brought to its attention, including some by me. In that standing committee I want to go through with the board a few of the delays that have taken place. I want to talk about the rehabilitation aspect of the board’s operation to find out what one does with a worker who was accustomed to doing manual labour and, because of an injury, is no longer able to pursue his previous occupation. I want to talk about the upgrading required for educational purposes in order that employers and employees can get together and find other suitable employment. I’m going to do all those things when we get to the committee.

But today I want to stress, and to impress upon all of the government members assembled here today and all of the other members -- all 10 of us or whatever it is -- that there is a desperate need for a review of the procedures of review at the board. It has to be done now -- this week or tomorrow morning -- because we are coming into the Christmas period. That’s why I’m so pleased to talk about it immediately prior to Christmas.

I’m going to tell you that because of the comings and goings of physicians around Christmas, and because of the financial and other problems that the period in itself brings on people, there will be any number of times that every member of this House will be called between now and Jan. 1 by people who didn’t receive their cheque when they expected to get it.

I urge the Workmen’s Compensation Board to set up a system so that when there is a delay, no matter who caused it, they are able to identify it and plug into it so they can ensure that no person who is legitimately in receipt of compensation is denied the payment that he should be getting. If we can do that, then we will have gone a long way to resolving the board’s problems. No matter how well it operates administratively or if the people at the Workmen’s Compensation Board are so happy that they are dancing and singing up and down the halls as a result of the administrative changes, if it doesn’t result in a renewed atmosphere in terms of guaranteeing injured people what is rightfully theirs, then it has failed.

If there isn’t a new system that guarantees that people get what they rightfully should be getting, then the Workmen’s Compensation Board, for all of the changes that we have made, hasn’t done what it was set up to do and it is no better than the board was previously. Perhaps it is a little less authoritarian or a little more humane on the outside, but if it doesn’t meet its primary purpose, then there is no point in us even concerning ourselves about the cosmetic changes that have taken place.

In regard to the Workmen’s Compensation Board there is one other point I want to make. We have seen a number of people in and around this building of late, many of them injured some considerable time ago and suffering from all manner of disabilities. They have been forced to come down here to the Parliament Buildings, as have many other people over the past four years, to bring to --

Mr. Stokes: Some in wheelchairs.

Mr. Deans: My colleague says some come in wheelchairs, but some come with crutches; some have only one hand; some have an arm off --

Mr. Stokes: Braces.

Mr. Deans: -- and some are walking with braces. They have been forced to this building to ask for justice; to ask that the people of Ontario recognize that their opportunities for gainful employment have been severely restricted, to say the least, and that the opportunities for them to go out into the workplace and to find some kind of job to do that will remunerate them have been extremely cut down.

I have got to think it is morally wrong for them to be forced now to come to the legislative building to picket outside, although they were allowed inside latterly, in an effort to try to bring to the attention of the members of the Legislature, and particularly to the attention of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth), the injustices of the system, the inadequacies of the payment, the hard and cruel-hearted way in which they are dealt with as human beings in this society. People shouldn’t have to do those kinds of things.

I know, Mr. Speaker, you will recall with me that of late we have had a lot of people gathering at the Legislature trying to bring to the legislators’ attention the problems they’ve had. We’ve had the teachers and we’ve had the elderly. I can remember the elderly coming in the month of February about a year ago and standing outside in the freezing cold. They couldn’t get in and were standing outside in the freezing cold to talk about the need for some kind of justice. Having worked all their lives in the Province of Ontario and having contributed significantly to its economic programmes and to the viability of the province, they were forced to come and stand outside just to bring to the attention of members of the Legislature the impoverished way in which they were forced to live in this affluent society. I have got to think that it’s a new era in politics, and one that I don’t particularly like, when we force people to come down to this legislative building in the dead of winter to make representation.

Mr. Stokes: At any time.

Mr. Deans: At any time, as my colleague says, but it always hits you harder when you look out when the snow is on the ground and they are shivering, Mr. Speaker. It’s a sad commentary on the way in which we do business when people are forced to come here by busload or by whatever means of conveyance they have simply to bring to the attention of this Legislature the way in which they are being mistreated by the society they helped create and by the society to which they contributed so significantly.

I have got to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the workers who were downstairs -- and some might argue that they weren’t all as legitimate as one might have expected they should be, though the fact of the matter is that by far the majority were -- represented a far, far greater group of people outside than maybe most of us realize. It’s time for us to put a stop to their having to come here; it’s time for us to respond to the needs that we recognize as being legitimate; it’s time for us to make the kinds of changes that have to be made and that we all understand have to be made; and it’s time for us to ensure that in affluent Ontario people aren’t required to beg for what should be rightfully their share of a very affluent economy in a growing and prosperous society.

I want to change from that topic, although there is much more that could be said about it. I can think of a number of other things about the Compensation Board that I have often felt should be said, but I think I will wait for another day and do it before the standing committee.

I want then to change to another topic that is related to some extent. Not so many weeks ago we had some changes in the drug programme. As I recall, it was called a drug index. For those people, the elderly and those who receive social assistance, the variety of drugs available to them was drastically reduced by a committee. It was taken out of the hands of the private physician as to what he should be prescribing for his patient.

I am not going to argue with whoever made the decision and the validity of the decision in a hypothetical sense. I want to talk about the practical application, particularly as it applies to many elderly people in the Province of Ontario. To begin with, as I recall the way in which it was done, they did away with something called “multiple drugs.” There is another word in there some place.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Combination.

Mr. Deans: Combination drugs, thanks. What that meant was that a doctor who wanted to prescribe any of the ingredients contained in a combination drug had to do so separately, provided it was on the drug list. For many elderly who might have been receiving four distinctly different but related drugs in one package, that meant they then had to receive four separate drugs which might have to be taken in an entirely different way from the way in which they had been accustomed to taking them.

It required them to be sufficiently alert all of the time to remember to take all three or all four of the drugs. It required them to change a lifestyle and a pattern of life. It caused a considerable degree of upset -- emotional and to some extent physical, because they are very related when you get to be the age of 75 or older or perhaps even not that age; it is maybe true of all of us that it’s hard to make adjustment.

I wondered about it at the time. It seemed awfully cruel, awfully hard-hearted. The saving was minimal, if there was any at all. If there was any saving, the saving was minimal. The doctors weren’t prepared for the change. The patients weren’t able to adjust. The druggists weren’t able to make any substitutions.

Therefore, we had patients who had previously been receiving drugs on a regular basis, for what their doctors perceived to be particular physical or other illnesses which were legitimate and necessary for their day-to-day operations, who were then deprived of carrying on in the way in which they had been accustomed to dealing.

If there was a saving, I haven’t seen it. But I can assure the members it caused a lot of hardship, a lot of grief, a lot of upset. People were disturbed by the fact that this change had occurred and they didn’t understand it. The doctors were not sufficiently well advised as to how to circumvent the regulations set out by this government. It took a number of us some considerable time to find out that, of course, it was possible to have the drug which was to be prescribed put on the list or made available, provided they went about in the proper fashion, contacting the appropriate person in the Ministry of Health and making sure they had authority to prescribe what was needed.

Well, it doesn’t make sense to me. I have come to the conclusion that the people best suited to prescribe drugs are the physicians and the druggists. It would serve us well as politicians if we stayed out of it. There isn’t any need for us to meddle in the method used in prescribing or in the drugs that are being prescribed.

It may be that we could go to generic names. It may be that we could make drugs available at a reduced cost if we introduced a different kind of programme; I think that’s possible. But it certainly isn’t a responsibility of legislature to start telling doctors what drugs they should be prescribing for what particular illnesses or for whatever infirmities there happen to be.

That was the responsibility taken by the government. That responsibility caused a great deal of upset and that responsibility for the upset rests solely with the government.

I suggest that you don’t deal with people that way either, that you don’t suddenly change their entire life without having a reasonable explanation or a reason for doing it. If it was going to save the taxpayers hundreds of thousands, or whatever numbers of dollars, then that might have been justification -- we would have had to weigh it up. But someone surely owed us an explanation as to why it was occurring and that wasn’t forthcoming.

If it was going to be beneficial to the patient because the drugs that were being made available were better in quality or more available in quantity than the drugs that had been previously available, then we should have been told.

If the change was going to do away with patients taking drugs which they didn’t need and which were harmful to them, then we should have been told; as should they.

But those things were never claimed. This was done for some administrative reason -- a reason which, to this day, I don’t understand. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it’s further evidence of a callous attitude and of a lack of understanding of the needs and the aspirations and the concerns of a number of people in society, who frankly maybe aren’t in a position to speak for themselves.

Many of the people who were in that position, by the way, couldn’t mass out on the front lawn and couldn’t come down in the winter. In fact, with the kind of pensions they get, they couldn’t afford the bus fare anyway.

So I want to suggest that if the government ever decides to do this sort of thing in the future, it’s going to require a lot more thought and a lot more preparation. I think the preparation could well start here in the Legislature with a little information about the reasons they feel it necessary to take these kinds of steps that cause people a considerable amount of upset and hardship.

Another matter has been on my mind that I want to talk to you about, Mr. Speaker -- you’ll notice I’m covering a few things today. I want to cover another half a dozen things before 6 o’clock, and this evening I hope to deal with the whole matter of the cost of living. I want to raise a purely parochial matter, as I do from time to time -- infrequently mind you Mr. Speaker, but from time to time.

Mr. Stokes: Feel free.

Mr. Deans: I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there’s an area in the city of Hamilton that has been getting shafted by the government.

An hon. member: Shafted?

Mr. Deans: Shafted, yes. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Hamilton, Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall you taught there.

Mr. Stokes: Taught what?

Mr. Deans: What did you teach by the way Mr. Speaker? I don’t remember. What did you teach?

Mr. Stokes: Investments? How to make a million?

Mr. Speaker: You’ve heard of Saltfleet School?

Mr. Deans: You taught in Saltfleet. Oh good. I’m going to talk about Saltfleet shortly. But I want to talk about the beach strip in Hamilton for a moment or two, because there are some problems there.

Mr. Stokes: That sounds indecent, the beach strip.

Mr. Deans: No, it’s a different kind of strip.

Mr. Stokes: Oh I see.

Mr. Deans: That other is over on Jarvis St. or something.

I want at the outset to make it clear that I don’t want to alarm anybody by it. The fact of the matter is that for a great many people, living on the beach strip has provided them with excellent accommodation within their means. Unfortunately though, as a result of annexations over the years and as a result of the nature of the soil, the high water levels on either side of the strip and the need for transportation corridors, the beach strip hasn’t been able to be serviced. So for a lot of people the prospect of living there throughout the remainder of their lives and of acquiring a reasonable price for their property, if and when they decide to move, has become somewhat of an unreality.

As a result of some discussions that have taken place about the possibility of the twinning of the Skyway bridge, followed by discussions of the possibility of the tunnelling under of the Burlington Canal, followed by discussions of the possibility of the acquiring of the land for park purposes with federal, provincial and municipal participation, there’s been a great deal of uncertainty around the beach about its future. A lot of people have been worrying.

I’m going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it has resulted in some severe economic problems for people who owned substantial homes on the beach and who still own substantial homes on the beach. Prior to all of this discussion taking place, and as a result of last year’s high water and the flooding that occurred, and as a result of stories emanating from a variety of different places about problems with sewage and also problems with dust from the industrial area, a great many people have found that it has become increasingly difficult to realize the actual value of their property upon any attempt to sell it. They have offered it for sale only to find that there are no longer many purchasers eager to move there, with all of the uncertainty.

I think there is one thing that you, Mr. Speaker, and I could share -- just between the two of us, as nobody else is interested except my colleague here, and my other colleagues -- and it is that I think it is fair to say the beach strip, as a residential area, won’t last much longer; that it is going to be developed as a park; that it is going to be developed as a major thoroughfare connecting the Queen Elizabeth Way south of the strip with the Queen Elizabeth Way at Burlington.

Therefore a lot of people have fears when they look at purchase of properties there. They don’t see any real investment potential in it. They are worried about how they would get a return from their investment. One of the things that people are finding is that even when they can get a purchaser, even when they can find someone interested in purchasing, it is extremely difficult to find anyone who will put up the money for the mortgage. Mortgaging the properties has become extremely tough. It seems it is a bit unattractive for the mortgagors.

It is going to get worse. I think the members would agree with me that as things firm up it will get worse rather than better, and I think that what these people require is a clear statement of policy.

I think they need a statement first of all from the provincial government, saying exactly what it is the government intends to do by way of a highway, whether it be bridge or tunnel. I think they then need, in addition to that, a statement from the provincial government saying what it is it intends to do by way of the acquisition of property and which property it will acquire. In addition, I think they need, by way of a statement from the provincial government, some kind of timetable in terms of the actual acquisition itself. Then they need, by way of a statement from the federal government and the provincial government, a clear indication of the financial commitment that the government has toward the plan which has been developed for acquiring the remaining property for park purposes.

They need those in order that people can look ahead and say to themselves or to their children that over the course of the next period of time they will be moving, or they won’t be moving because their property is not one of those that is going to be needed.

Then I think we have an obligation to make the money available now for those who want to sell -- because they can’t sell on their own; there is no private market, or very little private market. Let me give the House an example of what I am talking about.

Mr. Stokes: It sounds like Armstrong.

Mr. Deans: I know a man who lives on the beach. He has a small house that would yield him a nominal return. He entered the lottery in the city of Hamilton for the HOME houses. If his house was anywhere else but on the beach he would simply have put it up for sale and he would have sold it. He would then have moved, with whatever little he got, into the HOME house, and likely would have lived there with his family for some considerable period of time.

Unfortunately, his house is on the beach. He can’t find a private purchaser, because of the uncertainty created by statements of government at all levels and because of the lack of servicing. So there he sits. He can move to a nice new home that will serve him for the rest of his life, and perhaps his family beyond, but he can’t sell the house he has got.

We created the situation that makes that house undesirable for another purchaser. I think we have got an obligation there. I think that since we made the situation the way it is, we have an obligation to ensure that if his property falls within any of the areas to be developed in the future, we will make him an offer, a fair offer, an offer at market value, in order that he can then move. He is going to have to move anyway. If he can’t move this year he will have to move next year or the year after.

It is not as if we are buying from him unnecessarily; we are buying because we have created a situation which makes it impossible for him to sell on the private market. The only people who will purchase from him at this point is a government at some level. I think that it’s time to stop fooling around with those people’s lives. I think it’s time to be fair and to say to them once and for all exactly what the programme of the government is going to be and to offer to them the opportunity to sell to the government the land which we will ultimately have to acquire in any event. That should be available to them now so that they can plan their lives and remove the uncertainty.

I want to suggest that there’s so much that can be said about it. There’s no doubt there are people who don’t want to move, and that’s their prerogative. But for those who do, given the nature of the development which will ultimately take place; given that it’s going to be government-sponsored in any event; and given that we’re going to have to lay out the money, then it makes some sense that for those who are interested in moving, whether their land is designated in zone 1 or zone 2 or zone 3 and for those who would like to move because of the opportunity they have now for them to move to someplace else where they can settle for the remainder of their lives, God willing, that they should be given that chance.

I’m asking the government to do that today because I think it’s important. I think that’s the kind of move which would be made by a government which shows an understanding of the problems which people face. That’s what I would expect of government and that’s what I hope to see occurring. I don’t know why I expect the government to do these things, because anything else they have ever done hasn’t shown much understanding of the problems of the people that they supposedly govern.

I’ve got to think, for example, in the case which follows closely on the heels of that one, that the whole development in the Saltfleet area, which I don’t intend to talk about in financial terms but which we spoke about the other night, showed there was a certain lack of sensitivity on the part of Ontario Housing Corp., over the period of time when they were involved, towards the legitimate concerns and needs of the many people who lived in the area and who hoped to be integrated into the new community. It showed a tremendous lack of concern and a lack of information.

It would have been so simple when one is talking about a $20,000 or $30,000-unit development, with some 80,000 people perhaps over 10 years, to have put a community development officer into the area, who would have been there to explain to the people in their living rooms or wherever what it was they were doing, how they could integrate into it, when they could expect water and sewers and what the cost might be. In other words, it would have been simple to make sure that the people who already lived in the area, who were affected directly by what was going on, who hadn’t asked for it, who were perfectly happy to live there but who had this inflicted on them, were kept apprised what it was that the government intended and could be knowledgeable about the things that are going to affect their lives.

As I say, I don’t know why I expect anything different on the beach strip. Any time I’ve ever been involved with the government I’ve found that, in fact, the last consideration was the human element, concern for the welfare of the people involved and making a genuine effort to provide adequate amounts of information. Maybe we could do that on the beach strip. Maybe we could put a community officer in there now, a community development officer, give him a mandate, tell him what it is the government intends and how it will be involved financially and allow him to wander at large among that community, which is a fairly closely knit community, and keep them up to date in all new undertakings.

Anyhow, we’ll find out. I make it as a suggestion. I think that perhaps the government could do worse than to pay some attention to it. As I say, I don’t want to alarm anyone. I don’t want to raise anything unnecessarily. But I do think that in that area the handwriting is on the wall. Its future is very much a public future in the public domain for part-time and other uses. I think the people there deserve to be given the opportunity to take part in it and deserve the opportunity to be able to settle themselves down wherever they want to settle for the future.

There is another matter that has been brought to my attention, one that I hope will be resolved by the new Ontario Energy Corp., although I read the bill and listened to the debate and I’m not sure it will. There is a tremendous disparity in rates across the province for hydro power. As a result, two neighbours, one on either side of the street, pay different rates just because they fall on opposite sides of the boundary line.

Mr. Stokes: Different utilities.

Mr. Deans: Different utilities. I had this matter brought to my attention in a letter I’ll read into the record because I think it is a grossly unfair situation. Some time ago I received a letter from a gentleman who lives in Stoney Creek, and he sent me a copy of a letter he sent to the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough). He wrote:

“Dear Sir:

“On Sept. 9, I received my statement from Hydro reading, “Net amount, $29.42; gross amount, $30.89.” Bad enough that this in itself is misleading, in that it suggests that the gross amount of $30.89 is the amount of the electricity burned, but if the bill is paid by Sept. 23, a period of two weeks, that the payment is the net $29.42.

“In effect, the net amount of $29.42 is the amount of electricity actually burned and the gross, $30.89, is the penalty for not paying the bill prior to the 23rd.

“To compound the matter Hydro has the audacity to have printed on the reverse side the following notation: “Failure to receive this bill does not entitle the customer to receive discount after the due date,” knowing full well that this is a penalty. To make matters even worse, the interest charged ($30.89 to net $29.42) is five per cent.”

Mr. Stokes: Misrepresentation, isn’t it?

Mr. Deans: He wrote: “Gentlemen, five per cent for two weeks is, in my mind, high-class -- “

I’m going to change the word, if I may interject; the word used is offensive to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman).

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deans: No, it has a rather unusual connotation, so I’ll say high-class robbery.

“If a private organization charged such exorbitant rates as these, I’m certain the practice would have been stopped, but a monopoly like the Hydro can do as it pleases. I’m not alone when I say I’m a little more than a little upset with government overlooking or not knowing of this misrepresentation. The phrase used during the Watergate era, that there are two laws, one for the rich and one for the poor, seems to be factual. I’d be most interested in hearing your comments.”

It is signed, and a copy was sent to me. The gentleman asked me if I would look into it. Well, I did. I wrote a letter to the minister in charge and asked that he answer the letter of the gentleman involved. I must confess that to this date -- and that was dated Nov. 5 -- I don’t know what was said.

Before I move from that subject, I want to say that he’s right, that the amount used by any customer of Hydro is actually the net amount.

Mr. Stokes: The so-called discount.

Mr. Deans: The so-called discount price. The other amount, set out on every bill, is a penalty for not paying it when they think it should be paid; and it should read that way. One would get the impression, from the way in which it is put out in the bill, that Hydro were doing you a favour; that you used $30 worth and they are giving it to you for $29 if you pay in two weeks.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Right.

Mr. Deans: In fact, what happens is you use $29; and if you don’t pay in two weeks they are charging you $30.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): A penalty.

Mr. Deans: I think that should be widely known. I also think it should be stopped. If Hydro want to claim for late payment, then they should put on the bill that there is a penalty for late payment of the amount owing. But the penalty shouldn’t take effect until one month goes by. That’s the customary way to do business. In business transactions a person usually is given a month or 30 days to pay his bill.

Mr. Stokes: That’s a case for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Deans: Where does Hydro get off deciding that it will impose a five per cent penalty in two weeks on a bill which hasn’t yet been paid? Where does it get off using this kind of misleading information with regard to the way in which its bills are computed?

I want to suggest that that gentleman has a legitimate complaint. If your bill comes in on the 10th of the month and you customarily pay all of your bills at the end of the month, and you were to send Hydro the net amount for the actual used hydro, then that should be sufficient for their purposes, Mr. Speaker. I want to suggest that the Minister of Energy should take a very serious look at that because it is wrong. We wouldn’t permit it in any private corporation, nor should we, and we shouldn’t permit it in Ontario Hydro.

Let me turn to another matter, because this is the one I intended to raise with you. It’s a series of letters. Let me just find the first one. I don’t have a copy of it with me, but I received a letter in October, 1973, in which a gentleman in Saltfleet was complaining about a double standard because of a duplication of service in that Ontario Hydro provided service for one part that was provided elsewhere by someone else.

What he was saying in his letter was that Saltfleet, which then existed, had billings based on the average consumption of 25 kilowatt hours for two months. For the first 500 kw-hr, at 3.85 cents, it would cost $19.25; the next 1,000, at 1.6 cents, would be $16; for the next 1,000, at 1.32 cents, it would be $13.32. The total cost for that amount of hydro consumed -- that would be 2,500 kw-hr in a two-month period -- would be $48.57.

If you lived on the other side of the street in Stoney Creek, the first 100 kw-hr were at 4.5 cents, for $4.50; the next 400 at 2.2 cents, for $8.80; the next 1,000 at one cent, for $10; and the next 1,000 at 1.2 cents, for $12, bringing a total for 2,500 kw-hr billed in two months of $35.30, the difference being $13.27 for the same amount of hydro consumed in the same house across the street. The Saltfleet billing was at that time -- and to the best of my knowledge still is -- 38 per cent higher than the billing in Hamilton.

Mr. Carey wrote to me and he wrote to the Premier. He wrote to the Premier on Sept. 24. The Premier answered:

“Dear Mr. Carey:

“This will acknowledge your most recent letter of Sept. 24 regarding the hydro rates which apply in Saltfleet township.

“This situation is covered in Bill 155, An Act to establish the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. The Act states, and I quote:

“‘Where, on Dec. 31, 1973, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario or a public utilities commission or a hydro-electric commission is supplying electrical power and energy in any area within the regional area, such commission shall continue, until a date to be determined by the minister, to distribute and sell power within such area and such commission shall be deemed to be a local board of the area municipality in which it has jurisdiction.’”

“Thus the question which you have put in your letter directly reflects a major concern of the government. At the present time a committee is actively engaged in setting out the ground rules for the rationalization of electrical distribution throughout the province. When it has completed its deliberations, the recommendations will be used in separate studies for each of the regional municipal governments presently constituted.

“There is a need, for example, to decide in discussion with local officials whether electrical distribution should be handled at the upper tier or the lower tier of each individual regional government. The assets of the utility, or utilities, which are bowing out of the local scene must then be transferred to whichever body is assigned the responsibility for electrical distribution and the necessary money raised to pay for these facilities. It will then be necessary to set retail rates at a level to recover all costs.

“Given the complex nature of these problems and the high degree of local participation required in coming to an acceptable decision, it will be some time before the minister can determine a date for any change in supply authority. However, I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the Hon. Darcy McKeough, the Minister of Energy, and to Mr. Bill Hogg, who is the chairman of the committee, for their information and consideration. I am sorry I cannot offer more specific information. I can assure you it will be given careful examination.

“William G. Davis.”

That was Oct. 9, 1973. I wrote to Mr. Carey on Nov. 26, 1973, pointing out that I had received the same kinds of complaints from a number of other people in the general area, and I said that I had been raising them and would continue to do so.

I received a letter from Mr. Carey on Nov. 4, 1974, and he writes to me, referring to his letter of October, 1973, and points out this: “This has resulted in out-of-pocket cost to me of approximately $80 this year. I feel I have done my part.” He’s talking about voting for me, which I appreciate.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Did he say $80?

Mr. Deans: Yes, $80 for the year more than he would have had to pay if he lived on the other side of the street.

He says that he wants to see this changed. That was on Nov. 4, 1974. The letter from the Premier was on Oct. 9, 1973, and Mr. Carey and all other people in the area are being forced to carry on paying the exorbitant difference between what it costs to provide power in the town of Stoney Creek and what it costs to provide the same amount of power in the township of Saltfleet.

I want to suggest that if regional government is to be acceptable to people, then they have to be able to see some benefit from it. This then harks back to the question that I have been asking over and over and over again -- and this is an integral part of the problem -- what is it costing people and what benefits are they deriving from the regionalization?

If there are benefits, or if there are benefits to be had, surely this is one of the areas in which the benefit could flow much more quickly and be much more visible than in some of the other areas. Surely if we are in a position to provide transitional grants for all other things, then in that interim period when people are expected to pay their taxes at the same level, when people are expected to carry their share of the load equally with all other people in the community, maybe we could make some arrangement whereby for the same services provided the same cost would be charged.

I think that what’s happened here is happening to every single resident in that area. In that year, from the time that Mr. Carey has brought it to the attention of the Premier, who brought it to the attention of the Minister of Energy, during which period I have brought it to their attention again, some positive action could have been forthcoming to relieve those people of this 38 per cent difference between the cost of obtaining the same number of units of hydro power in one part of the regional municipality over and against the cost of obtaining that same amount of hydro power in another area.

Mr. Speaker, I note that it’s almost 6 o’clock. I have got to point 4 and I have only another six points to raise. I would move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: I presume you will be carrying on this evening?

Mr. Deans: I will be carrying on this evening.

Mr. Speaker: I will just recognize the clock.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.