Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8:03 o’clock, p.m.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: When we rose at 6 o’clock we were dealing with second reading of Bill Pr33. Are there other people to speak to this?

The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I have read rule 41 of the legislative assembly of Ontario standing orders for a discussion I had just a moment ago with the Clerk. It is unusual for a reasoned amendment to be put before the House on the matter of a private bill. It isn’t something that I can recall in the eight years I have been here and I think every member of the House can appreciate my colleague’s unwillingness to accept the ruling.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Nobody but the member.

Mr. Deans: I would suspect, Mr. Speaker, that, in fact, there are others who could accept the unwillingness to accept the ruling, recognizing that this is not a matter which any member of this House has dealt with in eight years. But the normal procedure, sir, if I can put it to you, is that a reasoned amendment can be made pursuant to any debate on second reading of any bill before the House.

In the case of a private bill, a slightly different procedure pertains in that a reasoned amendment or an amendment of any kind would normally have had to be made at the time the bill was reported, but since this procedure hasn’t been used previously, I think the Speaker, and any other member of the House who thinks seriously about it, would appreciate that it would be extremely difficult for any member to have come to that conclusion on the basis of the normal rules of procedure as they have been applied over the last two sessions of the Legislature.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): That isn’t an excuse for his behaviour.

Mr. Deans: I am asking --

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): We’re not debating that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: I am not suggesting --

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Those fellows are pretty self-righteous.

Mr. Deans: I want to ask for two things.

Mr. W. Hodgson: One learns that in Sunday school.

An hon. member: I saw it, I was here.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Wentworth -- order, please. The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Ferrier: If the member for Middlesex South keeps talking like that, he will get me on the front page of the paper at home again.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): The hon. member is out of order. The ruling of the Speaker is not debatable.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have risen on a point of order for clarification.

Mr. W. Hodgson: He can’t defend his colleague.

Ms. Ferrier: Sure we can.

Mr. Deans: I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you wouldn’t agree that in any other piece of legislation, arriving at the point of second reading, it would have been appropriate for a reasoned amendment to have been considered at that point in any other piece. Since the practice of dealing with private bills being reported has never taken into account reasoned amendments in my time in the House -- which is eight years -- it’s understandable that my colleague might well have been in error. But what he did was quite in keeping with any normal procedure of dealing with second readings and he has challenged you because he didn’t understand the ruling.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): The member should have explained it to him.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): That is not so.

Mr. Eaton: How many times does he have to be told by the Speaker?

Mr. Deans: I would ask --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If a member doesn’t understand it, he takes the word of the Speaker.

An hon. member: He knows that.

Mr. Deans: Except that wherever there is a doubt, a member has the right to challenge. I want to suggest to you that from my reading of the Instant Hansard, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) stated it within something less than two minutes. I can’t tell exactly the entire length of time but it was within less than two minutes; he stated it immediately after. Let me read it to you. Mr. Cassidy rose at what was reported to be 5:55 and he said:

“Mr. Cassidy: I beg to differ with the member for Beaches-Woodbine, Mr. Speaker. [At that point he wasn’t speaking to the Speaker but rather to the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mr. Wardel).] I’ll need your guidance on procedure in how to do it. I’ve never done it before but on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I have a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the City of Toronto and which appears on the order paper which is where it is meant to be. Do I simply read it in order to move it? Can I then proceed it to discuss it?

“Mr. Speaker: Yes, you may read it while I read it.

“Mr. Cassidy: Thank you. I would move, then, as a reasoned amendment that the bill be not now read a second time but be referred back to the private bills committee in order that the section of the bill relating to rent control, which was contained in the original application to the City of Toronto, can be restored.

“Mr. Speaker: I am advised that the motion is out of order because the matter referred to herein has already been dealt with by the House and therefore cannot be raised again at this time so I rule your reasoned amendment is out of order.

“Mr. Cassidy: [This is the first time he has addressed himself directly to the Speaker.] On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you could explain at what time the House dealt with the matter referred to in the reasoned amendment apart from first reading.

“Mr. Speaker: That’s right. I am just reminded that it was dealt with by the House when the committee report was adopted by the House which made the appropriate recommendation. It was adopted by the House; therefore the matter is closed in that respect. The motion is for second reading of --

“Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order -- [Again he is on a point of order.]

Mr. Roy: The member is not going to read all that, is he?

Mr. Deans: I am.

Mr. Roy: Is he going to read the whole thing?

Mr. W. Hodgson: The member for Wentworth should sit down while he is still ahead.

Mr. Deans: To continue.

Mr. W. Hodgson: You were away that day.

An hon. member: He is never away.

Mr. Deans: To continue:

“Mr. Cassidy: It seems to me [and he is again on his point of order] that the report of the committee then is followed by the relevant consideration of the various private bills.

“Mr. Speaker: No, no, the report was adopted by -- the bill was adopted by the House as it is printed and as it exists now. So --

“Mr. Cassidy: I would like to move the adjournment of the House for the supper hour, Mr. Speaker, and consult with our procedural authorities on that particular matter because it seems to me that this is” --

Mr. Deans: That was in order, by the way.

Clerk of the House: No, it wasn’t.

Mr. Deans: And a movement for adjournment is always in order; any movement for adjournment is in order; I’ll quote --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): The Speaker was on his feet.

Mr. Deans: To continue.

Mr. Speaker: I have made the ruling. If you wish to challenge the Speaker’s ruling, why, that’s up to you.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to talk about it for a bit first, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. At the time --

Mr. Speaker: Really, my ruling is not debatable. The hon. member knows that. If you wish to challenge it, you may --

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): The Speaker is right on, isn’t he?

Mr. Deans: Wait a minute. This is very short. It sounds a lot longer than it was. It’s very short.

Mr. Kennedy: It sure does.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Why doesn’t he stop apologizing for the member?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Why don’t they listen over there for a change?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: Those guys provoked us.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

An hon. member: Provoke the member for Port Arthur? We haven’t said a word.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, if I may, it is important to me. It may not be important to anyone else, but I can’t help that.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): The member was a naughty boy.

Mr. Deans: To continue:

“Mr. Speaker: If you wish to challenge it, you may do so by calling for a vote.

“Mr. Cassidy: I move that the House adjourn for supper.”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member is out of order. He is not in his own seat; he’s out of order.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker responded by saying:

“Mr. Speaker: No, we don’t need to move for that. “

“Mr. Cassidy: I would call the Speaker’s attention to the clock then, Mr. Speaker.”

Mr. Deans: At this point, he has done nothing that is either improper or even irregular.

Mr. Roy: The member for Wentworth should have been here and watched him.

Mr. Deans: I don’t need the help of my friend, the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Well, the member for Wentworth should have been here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: It continues:

“Mr. Speaker: I see the clock. I place the motion for second reading” --

Mr. Cassidy interjected. Mr. Speaker said, “No, your motion is out of order.” Mr. Cassidy then said, “In that case, I challenge the Speaker’s ruling.”

At that point, Mr. Speaker, I stop. Because up until that point the member for Ottawa Centre had not broken a rule.

Mr. W. Hodgson: He had.

Mr. Deans: He had asked for guidance.

Mr. W. Hodgson: He had. The member for Wentworth wasn’t here.

Mr. Deans: He had attempted to move a motion --

Mr. Ferrier: The member for York North better watch out, or he will lose his job.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr. Deans: He had attempted to move a motion which was out of order. He had asked for assistance, and he then challenged the Speaker’s ruling. At that point, sir, I must say to you that whatever went on beyond the moment of having said that is irrelevant.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. W. Hodgson: The member can twist it as he likes.

Mr. Deans: It is irrelevant because the challenge was made and the Speaker’s obligation at that point, if I may, was then to put the challenge to the floor.

Mr. Roy: He wouldn’t give him a chance to do that.

Mr. Deans: No, but Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Reid: The Speaker was on his feet all the time.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: Wait a minute. At that point Mr. Speaker said, “All right, those in favour.” And that’s where it should have ended. I appreciate the difficulty in dealing with an unusual situation -- and it was an unusual situation.

Mr. Kennedy: He’s a pretty unusual guy.

Mr. Deans: And I appreciate, as you do, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty in dealing in the heat of the moment with what a person firmly believed to be his right and the right of the House to consider.

Mr. W. Hodgson: He has never considered anyone.

Mr. Deans: I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is the responsibility of a member if he or she feels sufficiently strongly about a ruling to challenge that ruling.

Mr. Roy: Well, why didn’t he give the Speaker a chance?

Mr. Deans: And I put to you, Mr. Speaker, that once the challenge was made, whatever was said beyond that was of no consequence. In fact, the challenge is not debatable.

Mr. Roy: Oh, come on.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Sit down.

Mr. Eaton: The member thinks he can stand up and say anything he wants afterwards.

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

Mr. Deans: And I ask you then, sir, in light of what went on up to the point where the challenge was made, if you would consider two matters. One is the putting of the challenge.

I point out, by the way, that there was only a brief exchange beyond that point to the point where the challenge was again put to the Speaker. Since the page of transcript shows that it was beyond 6 o’clock by the record of Hansard -- which is the record of the Legislature -- I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the matter of expulsion of the member for Ottawa Centre might be reconsidered.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to that point of order? I’ll be brief, Mr. Speaker. I happened to be in the House when the whole matter took effect, and while I might have some sympathy for the member for Ottawa Centre it has appeared to me over the years --

Mr. Deans: That’s not in question.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Order. Keep quiet.

Mr. Deans: What happened over the years.

Mr. Reid: The member has taken 15 minutes. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I’ve listened to the House leader for the NDP. I would hope he would do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say.

I was present in the House when the whole matter took effect. One of the more important points, I think, that the House leader of the NDP left out was the fact that the Speaker was on his feet and that he called the member to order constantly.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He was out of order.

Mr. Deans: Not so, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. W. Hodgson: The member wasn’t here.

Mr. Deans: That’s not what appeared in Hansard.

Mr. Roy: That may be. That is what happened. Just sit down and listen.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There are many interjections which just can’t get caught in Hansard. Does the hon. member for Rainy River have a further point?

Mr. Reid: Yes.

Mr. Deans: He’s made a big enough ass of himself.

Mr. Roy: Talking about an ass; what about the member for Wentworth?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I’ll reply to these in a moment.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be brief.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: It bothers me sometimes, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP constantly take advantage or use the rules to their own advantage when it suits them. I would call your attention, sir, to page 2 of the legislative assembly of Ontario standing orders, section 9: “The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order subject to an appeal to the House which shall not be subject to debate.”

As I recall, and I must admit I don’t have Instant Hansard before me, the Speaker -- yourself, sir -- attempted to do that on numerous occasions and the member for Ottawa Centre refused to heed the Speaker’s order.

As well, I would call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to section 17 (a) (b) and (d), in which the roles of the House are very clearly laid out as to the procedures to be followed.

As I say, while I have some sympathy for the member for Ottawa Centre, I think he deliberately challenged the Speaker; the Speaker was on his feet trying to call the member to order. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you uphold your ruling. Although I can understand why the member wants to speak to the particular bill, he deliberately violated the rules of the House. I would ask you, under section 17, whether or not you deem this a serious offence.

I would just call one other matter to your attention, sir. The Sergeant at Arms approached the bench or seat of the member for Ottawa Centre. He stood in front of the bench. He asked the member -- I thought he did, I couldn’t hear him -- but I believe he asked him to leave the chamber willingly. He was forced to walk around behind the benches, which in my short time -- eight years here -- has not been done before.

At least one of my colleagues has been called to order, sir, on one or two occasions and has always left willingly, at least. I would ask you to rule as to whether you feel that should be for the sitting which will be tonight or a longer period. But I feel, sir, that he did violate the rules of the House.

Mr. Henderson: Why not life?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of order very briefly? I agree that section 2 was certainly not adhered to by the hon. member who was named. I don’t know the timing of the filing of this particular reasoned resolution. It really doesn’t matter. The fact of the matter is that your ruling is not debatable.

The second thing in the points that have been raised is Mr. Speaker does not have to see the clock at any given time if he so chooses not to.

The third thing, of course, the deportment of the hon. member warranted your action.

Mr. Deans: Further to my point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. So that we can get on to the business of the House, there were several points raised --

Mr. Deans: I have one final comment to make.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Speaker is on his feet.

Mr. Deans: I have one final one, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One final one?

Mr. Deans: One final one.

Mr. Speaker: You can really only speak once to the House. I’ll allow the member if it’s very, very brief.

Mr. Deans: It is germane. Regardless of what the members of this House may think they heard or saw, the record --

Mr. Turner: Oh, no. Nonsense; the member wasn’t here.

Mr. Deans: -- as it appears in Hansard is the record of the House, Mr. Speaker. I put to you that the record doesn’t justify the action.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Oh, come on.

Mr. Roy: He should have been here.

An hon. member: He wasn’t here. He doesn’t know.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does he mean Hansard should say the Speaker was on his feet?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I find these situations very distasteful, and I’m sure that most members do as well. May I just deal with the various points that were raised?

First of all, I think the hon. member for Wentworth wondered whether a reasoned amendment can be debated any time. A reasoned amendment can be debated if it’s in order, but I had to rule that this reasoned amendment was out of order for the reasons which I think everybody understands. The matter had been dealt with by the House. I have a longer statement if you wish me to make it.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, it might be worthwhile if you did make that longer statement as something useful for the future deliberations of the House.

Mr. Speaker: All right, I shall. The private bills committee amended the bill -- Pr33, I think the number is -- by striking out a certain provision. The bill, as amended, was reported to the House and the motion for the adoption of the report could have been debated at that time, but it was not, and the report was adopted. A motion to reinsert the provision which was taken out is, therefore, out of order as the matter has already been dealt with by the House, and I refer the House to standing order No. 41 which has been referred to.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Speaker is making a statement and the member for Wentworth turns his back to him. He has about as much respect as his colleague.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: I can hear him.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The only thing now before the House is the amended bill, as we tried to point out, and that is what the House must deal with.

On the other matter which was mentioned, we don’t adjourn the House for the dinner hour. I was trying to recognize the clock, but things got a little heated there and I wasn’t able to call the recess until the commotion settled down.

Now what else have I got here? I was asked to rule on whether I considered it a serious matter or -- what’s the word? -- misdemeanour? I don’t like that word.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Disobedience.

Mr. Speaker: No, I think in the heat of the moment --

Mr. Eaton: A clear disregard for the rules.

Mr. Speaker: -- I’ll consider it was not a serious matter, so that the member is just out of the House for the rest of tonight. I think I’ve dealt with everything, so we’ll get on with second reading of Bill Pr33. Do any other members wish to speak on Bill Pr33?

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I’d like a point of clarification on your ruling, sir. Am I to understand that if a bill, whether a private bill or a public bill, goes to a standing committee, and it may or may not be amended, but when the report comes back and is accepted by the House amendments subsequently cannot be made to the bill if they were raised during the committee stage? Is that what your ruling was?

Mr. Speaker: We are talking about a specific amendment here, and it has just been pointed out to me that amendments can be made, for instance, if it is a public bill coming back into the committee of the whole House, which occasionally happens. Amendments can be made to that, but something cannot be put back in which has been deliberately and consciously taken out by the committee. So a new amendment could be brought in. In this case, as I recall the incident, this matter of, I believe it was rent control or whatever it was, was deliberately removed from the bill; that was accepted by the committee and reported here; the report was received and adopted by the House, and so at this session it cannot be put back in.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 137, An Act to amend the Election Finances Reform Act, 1975.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have only a brief comment, which the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) requested I make on his behalf since he is otherwise engaged this evening. He wanted us to remember that particular points which are now developed in Bill 137 were suggested by him at the time of the second reading of the earlier bill and also in committee, as something which would be a useful and necessary thing for the commission to have some control over.

It appears that the timing of these donations is going to be most important, since a person is obviously not a candidate until the writ is issued and the individual becomes formally registered that way. Therefore, this seems to be a useful amendment necessary for the better handling of the Election Finances Reform Act and we will support it.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? The member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Ferrier: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this bill comes forward as a recommendation from the all-party committee that has been set up and that the two members who have been appointed to it from our party were in concurrence with this. This party also is in concurrence and we support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): This was recommended unanimously by the commission and by members representing each of the three parties. The commission, in turn, conferred last Thursday or Friday with the Camp commission. Once again, the members of the Camp commission, who also represent all three parties, were unanimous in wanting to see this passed. The bill is identical word for word, as I understand it, with the amendment suggested by Mr. Wishart and his colleagues.

I would like to point out to the members here in the House today and to others who have occasion to note what happened here this evening that the effect of this will be that candidates, including some number of people here in this chamber at the moment, will be precluded from collecting moneys from the time of royal assent of this bill until the writ of the election, except through their party associations.

This is a message that should go forward from the several caucuses to both sitting members and new candidates. I will assure that this is done for the Conservative Party and perhaps the gentlemen opposite would make sure that this message goes forward to their candidates also. I think everybody is agreed that this is a further tightening up of controls.

I don’t want to diminish the stature of the member for Downsview. He objected to almost everything that took place in that committee. If members tell me that he objected to this previous provision, I am quite prepared to believe it. On the other hand, it must be said that the House leader, the Chairman of Management Board, has been one of the most passionate in insisting that the most stringent controls possible be applied to the length and breadth of this problem so that Ontario once again will be in the forefront of reform.

Mr. Roy: The Chairman of Management Board passionate about anything? I don’t believe it.

Hon. Mr. White: While members opposite might choose to congratulate their colleague from Downsview, I must give the credit to my friend here, the House leader.

Mr. Deans: Why is the minister trying to talk us into voting against it?

Mr. Roy: The only reason for that is that the minister’s party has enough funds the way it is.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 137, An Act to amend the Election Finances Reform Act, 1975.

SUPERANNUATION ADJUSTMENT BENEFITS ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves second reading of Bill 136, An Act to provide Superannuation Adjustment Benefits to persons in receipt of Pensions payable out of Pension Funds to which Contributions are paid directly or indirectly out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: In accordance with the statement that I made the other day prior to the introduction of first reading of this bill, I wish to say further to that, as members will understand, this bill has been brought about by discussion and by agreement between the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) and the Ontario Teachers’ Federation. I was not privy to those discussions. However, I am assured that this bill that is before us satisfies the requirements for the escalation of pensions for the teachers’ federation and is open, of course, as the bill states, to the addition of other plans. I would hope that we would see fit to bring this bill, too, to a rather early conclusion.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, we of course are delighted the government has moved forward to make some of these necessary changes, particularly as they affect teachers retired for some period of years. The annual pension adjustments that are going to result from this bill are going to be, of course, based upon the consumer price index, with a ceiling of eight per cent per year as set out. I would certainly hope that ceiling will prove adequate and that the cost of living figures will not proceed at a higher rate than that in years to come -- although in difficult times such as these, I suppose we can never be quite so sure as to the kinds of rate increase that develop, not only because of what governments in Canada but also what governments around the world do or fail to do.

Under the terms of the legislation, the public servants and teachers who were receiving pensions in 1973 and earlier are going to get an increase of the eight per cent figure retroactive to Jan. 1, and I’m sure this will be most welcome.

I have, on occasion, as I am sure other members have, spoken with groups of retired teachers particularly, those who have been retired for some years. The result of their retirement has on occasion been, really, a hardship, with a great sense of the fact of falling behind the pension programmes of others who have been perhaps more fortunately treated. I believe this bill, brought about, as the Chairman of the Management Board has mentioned, with the co-operation of the various groups involved, will prove to be a useful piece of legislation. Hopefully it will go a long way to resolving some of the particular problems that many retired teachers face at the present time.

We will, of course, support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We support the bill. The bill is totally inadequate, of course, but it’s certainly better than what prevailed prior to the time it was brought in.

There is no doubt the provision of an eight per cent increase commensurate with the cost of living starting in the year 1975 is infinitely better than that which was in force prior to the year 1975. The difficulty is, of course, that many people who retired from the teaching profession in the years prior to 1975 have been receiving totally inadequate pensions and this doesn’t begin to deal with those things.

If the government wants to have enlightened legislation dealing with pensions, and that’s what superannuation is, then surely it makes sense that we get away from the archaic notion that somehow or other the matter of superannuation and pensions is the rightful responsibility of the government rather than a matter which can be dealt with adequately and sensibly at collective bargaining time.

I think that if you were to adopt a posture or position which allowed for suitable, adequate and reasonable discussion and negotiation during the period of negotiations, and if that were to be applicable to those who had previously retired, in whatever form that it could be signed, then of course the people we’re now dealing with in this bill wouldn’t have had to wait for it. It would have been an automatic thing over the years.

Eight per cent sounds okay; it sounds fine right now in 1975; but it’s not quite keeping pace with the cost of living. It’s a damn sight better than it was before.

The unfortunate part about it is that not the minister, not I, nor anyone else, can predict what’s going to happen. It would seem to me that rather than assuming that employees, in this case teachers who are in the employ of one board or another for long periods of time, are incapable, insensitive or unwilling to deal adequately with their pension needs, we should adopt a position which said clearly that we thought that pension and pension negotiation was a matter which could rightfully be dealt with; and not only for current employees and future employees, but that the payments to past employees who are currently on retirement could also be a matter for discussion. Then I think we could have avoided, and can avoid in the future, having to deal with the superannuation of employees, civic, municipal, provincial or otherwise.

We intend to support the bill. There is no question about that. We would strongly urge a new approach to dealing with superannuation. We suggest to the minister that this matter should rightfully be on the negotiating table, and this isn’t the way to do it.

Please don’t forever leave it in the hands of the Legislature. To begin with, it’s evident from the vast numbers on all sides who attend the sittings that we are vitally interested in matters such as this and that we can hardly wait to express our opinions, learned or otherwise, about the affairs of people outside of the Legislature. I would have to think since we don’t show the degree of interest that we ought to, that the least we can do is leave it in the hands of those who are affected by it.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill? The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, I have a few general comments at this time, Mr. Speaker. First of all, if the moneys that have come into these superannuation funds had been properly invested over the years, rather than at the low rates of interest which were paid, then at this time properly to make an adjustment with an escalation clause would not now require one per cent more to be contributed from the present membership. I gather that there is now $853 million piled up in this fund and that it’s going to only 12,000 recipients, and this fund is building up. Even at the past rate at which the book entry for these funds was made, at that percentage, the fund is growing. If a proper rate had been paid in the past there would be no need at this time for a one per cent charge to be made on the members that belong, to this fund in order to have it adjusted to the cost of living.

Secondly, expressing it as a percentage is quite unfair to various categories involved in the payments to this fund. Obviously there are about three ways in which this is so. It is unfair for the younger workers who are contributing to this fund. They are paying for those older workers in the fund, those above 50. Those in the 40 to 50 age group are probably at the break-even point where it doesn’t really benefit them to pay the extra one per cent, and so on.

Perhaps on a straight percentage basis there will be a bit of unhappiness amongst all the young workers required to contribute to this fund. However, that’s as may be. I simply point that out.

On a percentage basis, what this does is benefit the person on a higher salary. Because pension funds are deductible from one’s income tax, those at the higher funding areas therefore receive a greater benefit by that added payment as it comes back to them as a deduction from their income tax.

Here again, this is a scheme which in essence benefits the higher-salaried person as opposed to the lower-salaried person. That is an inequity, and is an argument for a straight dollar amount being put in this fund rather than a percentage.

I have rather a lot of data which I could get into on this bill. I think I’ve made the major point, that it should have been better funded in the past all along so that this collection need not be taken at this time. We needn’t talk at all about going to a one per cent increase paid by the employees to make the fund itself capable of having a cost-of-living rider clause to it. It’s the negligence of the past which has brought us to the particular situation now where it is felt by government that one per cent needs to be collected from the employees. This should never have been allowed to happen. It is a cost to employees now which they should never have had to pay, and I can’t say that any more strongly than I have said it. This should not have happened. We should not be at this point now, as we are under this funding.

Mr. Speaker, we will not vote against this bill. There are, as I said, some reservations that we have with respect to it. We certainly won’t vote against it, except to say that I agree with the member for Wentworth that the entire superannuation matter should be a bargainable item and the investigation on that fund should also be bargainable.

We are well beyond the stage where employees do not have a say across the bargaining table on their superannuation. We are well into the stage where employees have a say in the investment of that fund. In this case, if the government continues to want to use the funds then the interest rates paid should be those more prevailing in the markets in which a normal pension fund would be invested.

For example, the PSSF fund in 1970 paid five per cent when the prime corporate bond rate was 8.8 per cent; in 1971, five per cent, and the prime corporate rate was 9.2 per cent -- well ahead; in 1972 it was six per cent paid and the average was five plus, and again the prime corporate bond rate was 8.4 per cent. These are some of the rates, and the government continues to borrow from this fund and will not allow investment elsewhere. The higher figures were the rates which should have been paid.

In 1973 and 1974, we are now going to 8.1 and 8.4 per cent, but here again in that same period the prime corporate bend rate was 8.7 per cent and 10.2 per cent; so in this bill we are still lagging behind. If the government is not going to allow the money to be invested by the employees associated with the fund, it should at least pay a decent rate of interest to them.

In those same years, 1973 and 1974, the PSSF average was, as opposed to the 8.1 per cent put in, 5.933 per cent, and with the 8.4, 6.21 per cent; so we are still well behind what is a fair book addition to these funds compared to what investments could have been made if the fund was operated in the normal way and the moneys placed upon the open market.

The lack of proper funding in the past, and even with this current move, it remains an inadequate rate compared to where pension funds could be invested, is causing the rate of charge to be as high as one per cent. Even now, a portion of that need not be as high as one per cent if the proper rate was being paid.

I say to the government, it must pull itself together and do right by its own employees. If they are not going to let them bargain it across the table, which they should do, then at least pay them and add to their fund at a rate equivalent to the rate at which other pension funds could be invested on the open market, rather than the rates which are specified here.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the House have had letters from retired teachers and have had delegations of teachers visiting them to ask for adjustments to their pensions. So, when the minister brings in a bill to make additional payments to them, however inadequate they may be, we are bound to support the legislation.

I concur with what my friend from Windsor West has said, because from my earliest days in this House I remember some very vigorous debates, with the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and the Liberal education critic in the 1967-1971 House, Tim Reid, and Walter Pitman, all saying very strongly that the teachers should have much greater control over their pension funds, they should not have them only in provincial bonds but that there should be greater control and greater flexibility allowed.

I know the government has moved to some degree to increase the interest rates, but still the rates are not what it could have got on the bond markets. There has been some greater input, I believe, by teachers, but still not sufficient. So it seems a shame that because they are not allowed to invest in higher interest bearing bonds, they have to pay the one per cent out of their salaries to provide the funds for this bill. Of course, there is the extra per cent on the employer, in this case the Province of Ontario.

In a time of inflation I don’t know that eight points on the consumer price index as the upper limit is sufficient, if inflation keeps going as it is and we get the same kind of inflation push from Ottawa that we got in the last federal budget. But anything that’s going to help those many teachers who are retired to get some more money, to be able to live with some greater dignity and be able to support the needs that they have, we in this party are prepared, of course, to support.

Mr. Speaker: Does anybody else wish to speak before the hon. minister? All right, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed very grateful for the support I received from the other two parties in coming forward with this bill and what it means to the people it will affect. There are no great issues this evening that are going to cause great debate, as one can already judge, but I think I must respond to some of the things that were said.

First of all, the hon. member for Kitchener made reference to the formula for the retired teachers and I was pleased, because that is true. We all know what this means to that group of people. I think at every meeting the cabinet has had outside the city of Toronto, it has had presentations by this group. I can assure the members that the position of esteem that they hold in our society is one that warrants exactly what we are doing here tonight.

Naturally -- and I am not referring to the member for Kitchener now -- I would expect people on the other side would say we are not giving enough, and so on, and that we are not doing it in the right way. I don’t wish to challenge what they think because we are acting now within government policy. I would remind the hon. members that I have a statement before me here, saying that in the increases that we have given to date to the retired people, the increases as applicable up to the present date from 1950 and earlier do, in fact, represent increases from 68.5 per cent, and then diminishing, of course, up to 1973 to four per cent. I think that’s a credible job as far as the government is concerned.

To get around to the point that seemed to bother the members of the NDP -- the right to invest the moneys that accrue from the contributions -- I would like to say that we in the government, I think, again have taken a responsible position, the reason being that we had one experience with a fund within the government which, in fact, when allowed to be invested by the people themselves went down to a meagre two per cent last year and is in the red this year. That’s the Hospitals of Ontario Pension fund. I just want the members to remember that.

Mr. Ferrier: The stock market went down but it has gone up now.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: They had the authority to invest their own moneys; don’t forget that. The point that I make here -- and I have made it before and we don’t have to go into great argument because we have done it in other places -- is that I think one point that pleases a tremendous number of the people who are on pension is the fact that the government guarantee is there, despite what might have been made one day on the market or another day on the market. With those gains usually go some pretty substantial losses. As a matter of fact, I think up to this particular point in time we can be quite proud of our position. Again, in regard to the eight per cent --

Mr. Ferrier: Is the minister saying the free enterprise capital system isn’t always dependable?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- I hope that as members have read the bill they will realize there is to be a review committee. The eight per cent is not a magic thing, as having been the cap right at the present time, if indeed inflation were to run rampant.

Let me say this to members this evening: We had better darn soon get inflation under control in this country or we’re all going to be in trouble; and I don’t mean maybe on that one. Therefore, I believe the position we have taken to the year 1981, again, is a very responsible position. Let us hope that at that time --

Mr. Reid: Why did the government increase the Ontario budget by 17 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: We have to take care of all the ills which flow to us from Ottawa.

Mr. Reid: That was before.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: In any event, while we’re considering the future in this particular area I think our record is quite credible and members will note that it is up for review in 1981. It will be reviewed by a committee which will be established, composed of equal parts on both sides. In the meantime, that discussion can take place. I think that particularly, probably for the member for Windsor West, will be desirable from a co-operative point of view.

I’ll return to where I started. The fact of the matter is this is here because of discussions between the teachers and the Ministry of Education, despite what we would like to have ourselves. I suppose we’d all like to have more from time to time. I’m pleased that it was done on a co-operative basis, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that is sufficient response to what has been said.

Mr. Bounsall: It covers all the civil servants too, doesn’t it?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 136, An Act to provide Superannuation Adjustment Benefits to persons in receipt of Pensions payable out of Pension Funds to which Contributions are paid directly or indirectly out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Resolution for supply for the following ministry was concurred in by the House:

Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Walker, on behalf of hon. Mr. Miller, moves second reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Ambulance Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does the parliamentary assistant have an opening statement?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can indicate to the hon. members that this bill really contains only one section of any great substance; and that is section 2 which concerns the Metropolitan Toronto situation. It will allow the Ministry of Health to designate the council of Metropolitan Toronto as the appropriate body to handle the improved ambulance service to the public.

We had developed a situation in which there was very fragmented ambulance service with some six independent operators mainly in the northwest part of Toronto, the provincial ambulance service operating in another large section of Toronto and the Metropolitan Toronto Department of Emergency Services operating in a very significant part of Metropolitan Toronto. Problems developed in jurisdiction. Problems developed in calls not being properly answered wherever the borders were overlapping; there were all kinds of difficulties.

For that reason it was decided it should be co-ordinated into one body and accordingly the Ministry of Health is buying out the six independent ambulance operators and paying them very reasonable compensation. In addition to that, it is ceding its own Ministry of Health operation to the Department of Emergency Services.

This Act will allow us to designate the Department of Emergency Services as the one ambulance body in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Can the parliamentary assistant explain if this is the Act which is taking over Metro Toronto and putting it -- the ambulance service -- under the aegis of the Ministry of Health?

Mr. Walker: What this will do is allow us to buy out the six or seven, I believe it’s six, private ambulance operators, cede all their equipment -- we own the equipment anyway, and we pay line by line practically every expense that those places have, and we pay a compensation to them -- and everything, including our own operation, which operates in a large part of Toronto, will go over to the DES, Department of Emergency Services.

Mr. Reid: May I ask the parliamentary assistant what is going to happen to the employees who are presently working for the private companies? Will they be keeping their seniority, pension benefits and so forth, or will they be transferred under the CSAO? Just exactly what is going to happen to them?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant might reply to all those various questions when he does reply. Does the hon. member have any further comments to make?

Mr. Reid: I would just like to know what is going to happen to the employees who are presently working under the private operators as regards all their working conditions. Basically, that is the question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Ferrier: I don’t have too much to say. My colleague from Windsor West will be making some other comments. I do know that there has been, in a number of areas, some conflict or potential misunderstanding, because when an area is amalgamated and we have more than one operator, it is sometimes difficult to bring them all together. I know that the ministry, in our own case, with a fair amount of pressure, was able to work out a reasonable settlement to the people in my riding.

I think, on a matter of principle, it’s a good idea to empower the municipality to own and operate the ambulances of this province. I think that is probably a step in the right direction; one that I would like to see us definitely have the option to follow. Perhaps ambulance services are operated by a municipality on one hand, and we still have the private ambulance operators operating them on the other, so that we have two groups watching one another and operating similar facilities. Perhaps there might be better cost control as a result.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member believes in free private enterprise and competition, doesn’t he?

Mr. Ferrier: The trouble is that those government fellows don’t practise competition. That’s the big thing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Everybody wants to be a Tory.

Mr. Ferrier: I’d better not get off on that. It is the principle of the bill which I must stick to or the Speaker is going to rein me in.

Mr. Eaton: We want to get to drainage.

Mr. Ferrier: I definitely believe in the principle enunciated by this bill -- that the public in this case at the municipal level, should be given the right to operate ambulance services. In the case of Metro Toronto here, to bring about better co-ordination of services for the people and to provide better ambulance services with a lot less lead time in being able to respond to the call, is very important; because ambulance services must provide as quick and as adequate service as possible. It’s a matter of life and death. It’s a trite statement, I suppose, but it’s a true statement.

This bill maybe helps here in Metro Toronto, but it’s a good principle as far as the public having the right to operate it. That is the socialist move. Even if the municipality operates it, or the provincial government, or the federal government, it’s still socialism. I say that to my friend from St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman).

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will tell the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) on the member. He’s a socialist, that’s what he is.

Mr. Ferrier: Yes, I’m a socialist.

Mr. Eaton: The member had better sell all those shares he has.

Mr. Ferrier: I haven’t got any now. That is what happens, see.

The other principle here that I wonder about is in section 3, where an inspector can now go in at any time of the day or night. It used to be that he could make his inspection only in the daytime. I don’t know whether that’s to accommodate an inspector who happens to go up to Timmins or Kapuskasing or Rainy River, or some place like that, so that he can do his work at night, and then get out on the plane the next day.

Mr. Reid: Great place, great place.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What does he mean, “some place like that”?

Mr. Reid: It is a great place.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is an insult.

Mr. Ferrier: I don’t know what the reason for that is. On the other hand, to enable an inspector to go in in the middle of the night might sound a little bit as though a lot of suspicion was involved. He figures there is some skulduggery going on and he’s got to be able to go in unexpectedly and to take them by surprise. So, perhaps the parliamentary assistant would be able to explain why they have made this amendment -- that the inspectors are going to be popping in on the ambulance operators at any time of the day or night or early morning.

Mr. Walker: Those places have red lights at night.

Mr. Ferrier: Red lights at night? By golly! I won’t say anything else.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant guiding this particular bill through the House, a bill to amend the Ambulance Act, could make note of some of the questions I have. Some of them are in the same area as those of the member for Rainy River.

But let me state that there has been a lot of uncertainty in the last few months over the way this amalgamation has been carried out or is about to be carried out. This is an uncertainty for which the ministry bears a fair amount of responsibility in letting it happen. There were some real worries, some real fears, some real uncertainty as to what was going on as primarily people from the provincial ambulance branch talked separately to, I understand, the various private ambulance branches. It wasn’t until recently, if at all, that they got those groups of employees together to tell them what they might expect under a proposed amalgamation.

This amalgamation has been talked about and known for some time and rumours of this bill coming before us have been circulating for months now. There was a real concern on the part of the employees, as well as some of the owners of the six private branches, as to what exactly was going to take place.

They had horrendous difficulties in getting any information out of the ministry and in getting the ministry to commit itself to talking to them and talking to them collectively so the same thing was being said to one as to the other. They were simply being avoided. And the ministry has to bear some responsibility for this great state of uncertainty that was created in people’s minds for such a very long time.

I hope the parliamentary assistant can assure us here in this House tonight when he replies on the second reading debate, that these questions are finally resolved and that the ministry knows exactly what it is going to do with respect to the transfer. And I hope he assures us that all persons are fully informed with the same information regarding and relating to this transfer which this bill allows.

First, are all of the six private companies being purchased at the same time? What about the transfer of those employees to the ministry? I gather this is the mechanism envisaged. All those ministry employees, the ones already there, plus the ones that came in from the six private firms -- are they all being transferred at the same time to the department of emergency services of the city of Toronto?

I agree in essence with the consolidation, that the ambulance service in Toronto should ideally be under one particular form of overall supervision.

There has been a lot of concern among various employee groups in the six private firms and some among ministry employees as to what exactly will happen when they are placed together with the present employees of the department of emergency services with respect to the different benefits which they have under their collective agreements. They are concerned as to whether or not they will all be transferred together, so that a vote can be taken of all those members who will be in this combined service being run by the department of emergency services, in order to obtain a vote of all of those members, all at the same time, as to who their bargaining agent is to be, and that none of them will lose any of those benefits they have received whether as employees under the ministry’s ambulance services branch or as employees of any one of the private firms.

In this sort of a takeover, the parliamentary assistant must stand up in this House and be able to say clearly to this House that the transfer will take place all at one time, so that a vote can be taken of all of the employees at one time in this combined service. In this way they can determine once and for all and have done with it which one of two bargaining agents they will have representing them. He must say that until a contract is signed by that new bargaining agent with the department of emergency services on behalf of all those employees, any and all salaries and benefits which they had previous to this will be fully carried over until they are all covered by the new contract which would cover all those employees.

I think it is very very important that the parliamentary assistant can categorically stand up here and say that at this time, and that there be absolutely no confusion in the minds of any of the employees in any of those services as to what is going to happen to them in the future, so they can go about their job of being ambulance drivers and assistants to those who require the service of an ambulance in the way in which they have been trained and in which they are very qualified to carry out those types of operations.

If the member can’t absolutely guarantee that, then this bill which just draws them together and establishes what has been known for some months is going to be established is an inadequate bill in the sense that it simply does that. The ministry has been the catalyst for this and, as the bill explains, it’s the ministry that’s buying the privates so that the turnover can take place. The ministry has been remiss in its duties, up to the time of bringing in this bill, in sorting out that side and having very clear in its own mind what it is going to do with that side of the problem.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, replying to the member for Rainy River, the employees will be transferred over to the new unit which is the DES. That will occur at a particular point in time, according to my understanding of the situation. My understanding is that at some magic point in time, whenever that is, there will be some transfer to the department of emergency services and it will then assume jurisdiction.

We recognize, however, that in the interim, replying to the member for Windsor West, we will have a period when we will be negotiating with one operator and yet may have other operators already expropriated. There may be periods of negotiations so that we cannot say when the transaction will be consummated. But when it all is consummated it is my understanding that there will be a magic point in time when a transfer will occur. That’s my understanding of the situation.

I am prepared to re-attend on our ambulance branch and look at this very question, and, hopefully, make sure there is a minimum of problems created by it. Certainly the question of jurisdiction will be answered through the aegis of the Ministry of Labour and its normal rules. There will be the natural protection afforded by the appropriate Acts there. However, as to the point in time, I will make sure that question is properly attended to from our point of view.

Mr. Reid: That’s a major question.

Mr. Walker: That’s right. We certainly do not intend to create a confusion in this transfer. While there may have been some communication lack, I think that with the individual operators concerned now, the question is not so much a communication lack, it’s a question of amount lack that they’re arguing with us. There’s always the question of how much an ambulance licence is worth, when we own practically everything that’s in the shop and have basically set the shop up.

Mr. Deans: That’s what I asked the member a long time ago.

Mr. Walker: So we have certain disputes there that will ultimately be resolved.

Mr. Deans: What they sell is their ongoing clientele.

Mr. Walker: Yes, and that tends to come about regardless of good promotion on their part. So in any case, we’re not anxious to create confusion among the employees, particularly of those six independent ambulance services and of course in the Ontario operated ambulance service which occupies part of Toronto. We will be sure to make certain there is a minimum of confusion.

No doubt that can be done best by having the common date. It’s my understanding there is a common date, and I can’t give members that date at this point in time. I don’t think it is fully certain. Part of it was contingent on the passage of this Act which would give us the authority. There was a time when we didn’t think the Act would come in during this session, but as it extended into July it became obvious that we could get it ready in time and get it in.

Mr. Reid: Have the employees being consulted on this?

Mr. Walker: The employees, to a large extent, know what’s going on in principle. They do not, of course, know the details of our negotiation with the individual contractors. Quite obviously that’s something privy to the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Reid: That’s what they are concerned about -- their rights, their pension benefits and their seniority.

Mr. Walker: I don’t think the majority of the employees have that much concern.

Mr. Bounsall: Oh.

Mr. Walker: They always have some concern, of course. In any of the discussions or negotiations, it’s always been a part of the discussion that they would be protected as much as they basically are at this point in time and would share whatever benefits would come forward.

Mr. Reid: It wouldn’t satisfy me.

Mr. Walker: The member for Cochrane South raised a question -- I see he is back now -- on day and night inspection. This is an old section of the Act that is being revised to include night inspections. When this Act first came in, it dealt primarily with ambulance services in the province that were one-horse operations, if I can call them that, in that someone operated it from his home and at night-time obviously he would be asleep -- so one wouldn’t go in and do an inspection at night. Now almost all operations in the province are 24-hour deals, with appropriate centralized dispatch services, and now we feel we have an obligation -- and certainly the responsibility and duty -- to go in during the night to make sure the operation is up to par and the individuals are not sleeping when they should be properly on dispatch. That’s the purpose for the amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the hon. member for Kent wished to ask a question.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant: Is it the plan to take over all the ambulance operators in the Province of Ontario; towns, villages?

Mr. Walker: No. It just happens that Toronto is a peculiar area for problems with respect to jurisdiction. It’s the border difficulties with seven or eight competing ambulance services, and the appropriate people did not know who to call whenever emergencies require a certain system.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for --

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker? Could I --

Mr. Speaker: Is this on a point of clarification?

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, rather than having the bill go to committee and perhaps a bit of debate developing there, I would ask the parliamentary assistant one question at this time. I appreciate the common date, because that allows that at some given time all the employees may come together and the jurisdictional vote may be taken as to who the bargaining agent is. The parliamentary assistant has made that commitment quite firmly here tonight, but it’s the other question that I asked that is key to the uncertainty among the employees.

The question is: Once that common date is arrived at, and until they have taken a jurisdictional vote, and whatever bargaining agent becomes their representative then starts to negotiate a contract on behalf of them all; from the time of that common date until the date at which they get a contract -- covering them all -- it might be quite some months -- will each of those employees, coming from whatever branch -- the DES, the remnant of the old DES, the ambulance service branch of the ministry, and those six independents -- will the employees from each of those eight different groups carry with them at least the rates of pay they have been paid, plus whatever increases have been negotiated under their contracts? Will their pension funds be what they are, will any transfer be at no loss to any of them, and will all their fringe benefits pertain?

This will mean that for some months there will be different rates of pay to different employees and different amounts of fringe benefits. But you can imagine the problem that arises in the workers’ minds when they see a fringe benefit, for which they worked very hard and for which the negotiators worked very hard to acquire for them, if they can anticipate that in this enlarged group one of their fringe benefits or their hourly rate of pay will be reduced.

A very key commitment that should and must be made by this government to all those eight groups of workers is that they will not suffer a monetary loss, in terms of direct hourly rate or fringe benefits, as a result of the amalgamation. Once amalgamated, and once they have a bargaining agent, then it’s up to that agent to look after them all; but until that first contract comes up, the benefits they have should continue to that point at which they are all covered by that subsequent new contract.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the member can rest assured that we are going into the transaction with the intention of ensuring that the individual employees are in no lesser position than they would have been, had they continued in their contract as it existed at the point prior to a new bargaining agent taking over.

Mr. Reid: That’s a guarantee?

Mr. Walker: That’s the spirit and intent with which we are entering into it. We have no intention of destroying the position of the individual employees. Frankly, that’s part of the negotiations, part of the discussions.

Mr. Bounsall: That’s a commitment I am satisfied with.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 138, An Act to amend the Ambulance Act.

Bill 129, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Clerk of the House: The fourth order, House in committee of the whole.

DRAINAGE ACT

House in committee on Bill 130, the Drainage Act, 1975.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member wish to speak on Bill 130?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, I think there are a number of amendments that the parliamentary assistant might wish to put. He has favoured us each with a set of them, so I think we will be able to go on and take them fairly promptly.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Do them all. Do them all at once.

Mr. Breithaupt: If it is the parliamentary assistant’s wish at this point, we would be prepared to accept that group of amendments as having been moved so that we will not have to move each of them separately. There may be other amendments, of course, from time to time.

Mr. Deans: Move them all, one right after the other. Then we can go back and just go through them.

Mr. Chairman: I have an amendment on section 1.

On section 1:

Mr. Eaton moves subsection 12 of section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:

“12. ‘Engineer’ means an engineer registered under the Professional Engineers Act or a surveyor registered under the Surveyors Act, or a partnership, association of persons or corporation that holds a certificate of authorization under the Professional Engineers Act or the Surveyors Act, as the case may be.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Eaton moves subsection 27 of section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“27. ‘Road authority’ means a body having jurisdiction and control of a common or public highway or road, or any part thereof, including a street, bridge or any other structure incidental thereto and any part thereof.”

Mr. Chairman: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant could tell us why he has elaborated on the definition section. Is it because it is to include a drain that might go through a builtup area in a village or town?

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): It is a definition of the road authority. It is to clarify the definition and bring it in line with the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

Mr. Ferrier: Oh, I see; okay.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Chairman, on section 1.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, the amendment on section 1?

Mr. Reid: No, not on the amendment; just on section 1.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Reid: Can I speak on section 1?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, we will allow the member to speak.

Mr. Deans: Briefly.

Mr. Reid: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I am not an expert like those members of the House who sat on the select committee. I would like to draw the parliamentary assistant’s attention to subsections 10 and 12 of section 1.

I have a number of questions that I was going to raise on second reading, but primarily what I want to ask the parliamentary assistant is this: In the riding of Rainy River particularly, and I suspect in the Manitoulin area and other areas of northern Ontario, a drainage superintendent or anybody else, or an engineer particularly, used to be paid 75 per cent of the cost of engineering by the province --

Mr. Eaton: Eighty per cent.

Mr. Reid: Eighty per cent, pardon me. The cost of a drainage superintendent or of an engineer for some of the municipalities in my area is just almost an impossibility, because of the tax rolls that they have and the fact that they just don’t realize the amount of money in taxes to pay for many of the programmes put forward by the government, and particularly something like this.

Having gone through the bill I must admit I am not the expert that some of my colleagues are, but only I ask you, is the province prepared to pick up the large percentage of the cost of these people? I am not talking about 75 per cent or 80 per cent, because even under the former 80 per cent we could live with some of that. In the case of today it is almost impossible and will be impossible for some of the municipalities in my area and the Dryden area, and for farmers in northern Ontario to take advantage of this legislation.

Mr. Eaton: In regard to that, the unorganized territories won’t have a superintendent under this programme. The programme will continue as it is. Eighty per cent of the costs are paid in that case, and on many things in the Act they work through the ag-reps in that area.

Mr. Reid: Who is going to pay? This is the problem.

Mr. Eaton: We are paying. The programme is 80 per cent and will continue to be 80 per cent.

Mr. Reid: Would the parliamentary assistant, and I am sure we won’t do it tonight, consider looking at those areas with low assessment or those areas where the tax base is so small that municipalities cannot afford even to pay their 20 per cent share with a view to coming up with a programme so that in those areas where this in fact is the case there might be, particularly for northern Ontario, some additional subsidy made so that they, in fact, can take advantage of this Act?

Mr. Eaton: The municipalities don’t pay anything in this regard. The individuals who are getting the drain pay the other 20 per cent. Any individuals on the drainage area pay the other 20 per cent.

Mr. Reid: Who is paying for the drainage superintendent, for instance? Who is paying for the engineer?

Mr. Eaton: When the engineer does a report on the drain, it becomes part of the cost of the drain.

Mr. Reid: Right.

Mr. Eaton: So when the total cost of the drain is figured out, the property owners who are involved pay 20 per cent and the other 80 per cent is paid by the government.

Mr. Reid: Right, but who is paying the drainage superintendent in those areas?

Mr. Eaton: There won’t be drainage superintendents in those areas. If they have a drain, there will be a commissioner appointed by the area and he will be part of the cost of the drain.

Mr. Reid: Fine. Mr. Chairman, one other --

Mr. Deans: Something like the chairman of the drainage committee.

Mr. Reid: Maybe we could hire Lorne over there at a reasonable sum.

I have one other question, if I may, under section 13. Improvement means any modification, and I would like to draw the attention of the past chairman, ex-chairman or whatever, to some of the matters that were raised in the Rainy River district when the committee was there. This is under section 13, section 1, Mr. Chairman. The Rainy River runs through all the farming area in the Rainy River district and it’s an international waterway, in that on the south side of the river is the United States of America, the State of Minnesota, and of course on our side the Province of Ontario, the Rainy River district. I have been through every provincial ministry of the Ontario government trying to get some assistance for the drainage problems caused by the river, the flooding in the spring and so on; and my brother John, who is a federal member for Kenora-Rainy River, has been through every federal ministry trying to find out who will accept responsibility for the problems caused by the river and the flooding and the drainage into it and out of it. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant can tell me if the government of Ontario, through this bill, will accept responsibility for that?

You have the chairman of the committee there, who I hope will whisper into your pretty pink shell-like ear and give you some words of advice on this; because the federal government accepts no responsibility and the province accepts none. Are you prepared to accept some responsibility in these particular cases?

Mr. Eaton: No, we are not, when it comes to that particular case, because that is a federal responsibility and it comes under the Canada Water Act.

Mr. Reid: They don’t accept that. They feel that’s drainage; it’s your responsibility.

Mr. Deans: Your brother John isn’t doing his job well.

Mr. Reid: An international waterway? Come on now.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): The federal member isn’t doing his job.

Mr. Reid: You said you were going to look after that when you were there. You were romancing all the people in the area, so to speak.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Chairman: The minister has an amendment to section 4.

Mr. Eaton moves that subsection 1 of section 4 of the bill be amended by inserting after “area” in the second line, “requiring drainage as.”

Mr. Chairman: Does this amendment carry? Carried.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: Section 5. The minister has an amendment.

Mr. Eaton moves that clause (b) of subsection 1 of section 5 of the bill be amended by striking out “regional office of the ministry” in the seventh line and inserting in lieu thereof “minister.” Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Chairman, this amendment applies to two or three sections. Is this just a matter of legalese or is there some reason why “minister” is put in instead of the former idea of “regional office of the ministry?” Could you explain the reason?

Mr. Eaton: It’s a legal matter. It clears up the question of who the notice is sent to. You really can’t send it to a regional office, under law, because it isn’t a legal person.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Walkerville has a special announcement.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Chairman, the Wintario draw numbers are: Series 19 and 21, No. 35282. So, fellas, line up outside the door.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I lost again I

Mr. Chairman: On section 5, does the amendment carry?

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Chairman: There’s one amendment.

Mr. Eaton moves that subsection 1 of section 6 of the bill be amended by striking out “regional office of the ministry” in the third and fourth lines and substituting in lieu thereof “ministry.”

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Just on that point, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: On section 6?

Mr. Gaunt: On 6(1) you’re striking out the “or regional office of the Ministry of Natural Resources”, which coincides with the amendment applicable under 5(1)b. Is this the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of Agriculture and Food?

Mr. Eaton: The Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Gaunt: Okay.

Mr. Eaton: We’re striking out the words “the regional office of the ministry” and inserting “minister.”

Mr. Gaunt: Okay.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment is accepted. Anything before section 9(2)(b)?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex Kent): I was going back to when we had 6(1) --

Mr. Chairman: That’s carried.

Mr. Ruston: Yes; what about 6(3)?

Mr. Chairman: Section 6(3)?

Mr. Ruston: “The party requesting an environmental appraisal” -- this is a new section under the Drainage Act. “The party requesting an environmental appraisal or the council of the initiating municipality, as the case may be, within 40 days of receiving the account therefor” -- I haven’t heard too much talk about this tribunal, but I’ve had some people a little concerned as to the procedure for going to it. Where is the tribunal office going to be located? Can the minister tell me that?

Mr. Eaton: I can’t tell you the exact location of the tribunal office but it will be somewhere here, perhaps in our building, in our ministry. They will hold their hearings in the areas where the appeals come from.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

On section 9:

Mr. Eaton moves section 9(2)(b) of the bill be amended by inserting after the number 4 in the second line, “for the area requiring drainage.”

Mr. Chairman: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Eaton moves section 10(2)c of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“Any local municipality and conservation authority entitled to notice under section 5 or, if no authority is entitled to notice, to the Minister of Natural Resources; and”

Mr. Chairman: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Eaton moves that subsection 4 of section 10 of the bill be amended by striking out, “pro rata” in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof “in equal shares.”

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, by pro rata I would assume that would be the responsibility of those petitioning, and if one has 50 acres and the other has 20 acres, they pay on a pro rata basis. That’s the way I understand it.

You’re saying in equal shares. Are you saying that each petitioner would pay an equal amount regardless of the amount of acreage each had; or am I mistaken on this? Could you explain that?

Mr. Eaton: This came about because the basis of pro rata is the engineer’s report and he has pro rated it in relation to the area to be drained. However, in this case this is a preliminary report. The engineer hasn’t done that. All he has done is submitted a bill for estimating costs, and it shouldn’t be a high one. We’re talking about $200, $300 or $400, so if there are 10 petitioners it would be split in equal shares, no matter what size.

Mr. Ruston: Very good. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Ferrier: I wonder about the change. You might have two or three big landowners there who have been pushing it and they get some other fellow down at the other end of the drain, or up the way, who agreed to have this preliminary study and in economic terms he may not be nearly as powerful or as well off as the others. I’m not at all convinced that the change from the pro rata basis to equal shares will do as much justice in this matter of the charge for the preliminary report. I would like you to justify to me, at least that it is a step forward rather than a backward step. I wonder if the Act is I better as it is without the amendment.

Mr. Eaton: Yes, I think we can justify it. I tried to explain that the engineer hasn’t made a report to say how many acres are to be drained by each individual signing to pro rata it on. There is no basis to pro rata at that point, because it’s just a preliminary report on which he’s estimated the cost.

Mr. Deans: Is it eventually pro rated?

Mr. Eaton: Yes. If it continues on and becomes part of the drain, then it would be pro rated as part of the total cost of the drain. This is only if they decide to stop at that point and not go any further.

Remember, we brought in the preliminary report on the idea that they could have this and get an estimate and make a decision without having much cost involved. So if they decide at that point to stop and not go any farther, not to get a full engineer’s report, not to complete the drain, the only cost involved would be for that preliminary report, so it would be split evenly amongst those petitioning.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lambton.

Mr. Henderson: I would have to support the parliamentary assistant in this amendment. I was something like the member for Cochrane South; my first thought was, “Why?” I’m sure you realize now, as the parliamentary assistant has suggested, that in the preliminary report the engineer might find that it’s not feasible in any way, and so he would have no reason to work out the acreage to make it pro rated.

However, I note that the parliamentary assistant doesn’t bring in an amendment to cover the full report being thrown out. It’s pro rated, so I think it’s a good amendment.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member have anything before section 62? If so, what section?

Mr. Gaunt: That is a bit of a jump there?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, it is. Doe’s any member have any comments or amendments before section 62?

Mr. Gaunt: On the appeal section, Mr. Chairman, which comes in section 47.

Sections 11 to 46, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron-Bruce.

On section 47:

Mr. Gaunt: I don’t have any amendment here, Mr. Chairman, but I just merely repeat what I said on second reading. I still have qualms about the appeal system as it is set out in this bill. I know there is a liability there in terms of having some people misunderstand the appeal procedure. I just wonder if we could get some sort of commitment from the parliamentary assistant that they will review this matter actively when they’ve had some experience with the Act, to see if there is any problem here, and if there is bring in an appropriate amendment to solve it.

An hon. member: We can change it after.

Mr. Eaton: Certainly, we will make that commitment to review it. I might make mention here -- I wanted to do this at the start but I didn’t get the chance, so I’ll take the opportunity now -- that we met yesterday with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Ontario Association of Rural Municipalities -- they had set up a committee resulting from discussions at the Provincial Municipal Liaison Committee -- and we went through the bill very thoroughly. I had an excellent meeting with them and they’re going to keep their group continuing. We’ve agreed that if they have other things to bring back as we see the bill get into operation and as we see the procedures go through, that we will meet with them again and we will discuss it. Then if there are some appropriate changes to be made, we will make those changes.

We have made this commitment to them. We made it in the light of something too that was said by the House leader of the opposition when he raised the question of the commitments made by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough). They have assured us that, although the Treasurer has made this commitment, they are willing to accept that we go ahead with the bill -- that he’s really off his commitment, you might say. They have conveyed that to the Treasurer. So there is no problem in that way. We went through the bill and they were quite pleased with the outcome of our meeting. A few of these amendments have come about because of that meeting.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 47 carry?

Section 47 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member wish to comment before section 62?

On section 62, the minister has an amendment:

Sections 48 to 61, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 62:

Mr. Eaton moves that subsection 3 of section 62 of the bill be amended by striking out “shall” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “may.”

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. Ruston: On section 62, subsection 3, of course we all know that “may” and “shall” are quite different. In this section it says:

“Where any allowance or compensation has been determined for an owner, the council shall, where the amount so determined is less than the total amount owing from that owner, deduct from that total the amount so determined and the owner shall be responsible for paying the balance in a manner prescribed by the by-law.”

Now, I assume that you want to leave up to the discretion of the council how it would be handled. What was the other reason for changing that, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Eaton: Yes, that was the intention in our discussion with the two associations yesterday. It came out that for some people with damages or payments for the land, municipalities would pay them right at the time it happened, but it might be a year and a half before the drain was completed. So, on the basis of what we had in there before, they had to wait until the drain was completed to see what the cost was against those people before they could deduct that amount. Now, those people can be paid at the time and then it can be settled up at the end, if the municipality wishes to do so. The choice is given to them.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 62 carry?

Section 62, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member have anything before section 66? The minister has an amendment on section 66.

Sections 63 to 65, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 66:

Mr. Eaton moves that subsection 2 of section 66 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

The amount collected under subsection 1 shall be credited to the account of the drainage works and shall be used only for the improvement, maintenance or repair of the whole or any part of the drainage work.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. Ruston: Of course, before this said the amount collected shall be deposited in a special bank account and used only for the “future improvement, maintenance or repair of the whole or any part of the drainage works.” What we are doing here is crediting it to the drainage works. I think the difference here is that instead of putting it in a bank account it is going to be in the account of the municipality as a whole, if I take it correctly.

In other words, there are some funds that municipalities hold to handle special drainage areas -- sewage areas, water areas, it could be any of those areas so defined. The municipality must put excess funds in a special account so that any interest is credited to that certain area. Now I would take it from this that it would be held in the funds of the municipality and there would not necessarily be any income created from it.

I don’t know that I disagree with it that much. Although there must have been a reason when you had the other one in, I’m sure that the municipalities probably suggested this change. I can’t say that I disagree with it that much, because the municipality is responsible for the maintenance of these drains, as you know. The drainage superintendent is paid by the municipality. All the meetings and so forth are paid for by the municipality, so I would have no objection to that amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 66 carry as amended?

Mr. Eaton: Just to clarify it, I think you can see what would happen in a municipality that might have 20 or 25 drains and had 25 banks accounts.

Section 66, as amended, agreed to.

Section 67 agreed to.

On section 68:

Mr. Eaton moves that section 68 of the bill be amended by striking out “exclusive of the report” in the fifth line.

Section 68, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 69 to 92, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 93:

Mr. Eaton moves that section 93 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(2) Where no drainage superintendent is appointed under subsection 1, the council may by law appoint one or more commissioners,

“(a) to assist the engineer in the construction or improvement of a drainage works; and

“(b) to supervise the maintenance of any drainage works,

“and to report thereon to council and may provide for fees or other remuneration for services performed by him under this subsection, but such fees or other remuneration shall not be deemed to form part of the cost of the drainage works, and shall be paid from the general funds of the municipality.”

Section 93, as amended, agreed to.

Section 94 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 95 carry? The member for Essex-Kent.

On section 95:

Mr. Ruston: We are moving along here pretty fast. You know, Mr. Chairman, if all the bills --

Mr. Ferrier: The member for Kent (Mr. Spence) is his legal adviser.

Mr. Ruston: Oh, I had my legal adviser beside me, the hon. member for Kent, but it’s hard for me to keep track, we’re going so fast --

Mr. Chairman: You couldn’t have a better one.

Mr. Ruston: That’s right. We’re not used to going through bills in the committee so quickly. You can see how quickly we could expedite the business of the day, Mr. Chairman, if we had people learned in these things to go through them. On other bills they have to speak four hours on one item.

Mr. Chairman: I am sure the House agrees with the member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. Henderson: The member for Kent is qualified.

Mr. Ruston: Regarding section 95, I have a comment written on here; now I have to see why I put it there. I read this bill very thoroughly last Saturday and Sunday, Mr. Chairman, and I am trying to remember now --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Essex-Kent, take your time.

Mr. Ruston: The thing I was going to ask was about commissioners, but I am satisfied with the answer the parliamentary assistant gave on the second reading.

An hon. member: Did you have your legal adviser with you?

Section 95 agreed to.

On section 96:

Mr. Eaton moves that subsection 3 of section 96 of the bill be amended by striking out “the drainage works extends” in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof “the lands assessed for the drainage works extend.”

Section 96, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to speak on any other section of the bill? The member for Huron-Bruce.

On section 97:

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I think the Ontario Drainage Tribunal is going to be a very busy body. All of the technical matters having to do with points in dispute as they apply to any municipal drainage throughout the province may be referred to the tribunal. I am wondering what sort of staffing you foresee in this regard. First of all, how many members are going to make up the tribunal? Have you settled on that yet? What sort of support staff do you anticipate?

Mr. Eaton: We haven’t settled on a number for the tribunal as yet. The Act allows for a chairman, a number of vice-chairmen that we may appoint and others. As far as support staff is concerned, it will primarily be in the way of stenographic help; and, of course, they will have the use of the staff of our ministry on technical matters in regard to drainage.

Mr. Gaunt: I recognize that this may not be sorted out within the ministry as of the moment. I’m sure you must have some idea as to what complement you’re going to attach to this tribunal; you must have an idea -- five, 10, 15. They’re going to tour all over the province to wherever they have a problem or to wherever someone applies to have a hearing before the tribunal. He’s entitled to have the tribunal come to the municipality and hear his case so I presume they will be doing some extensive travelling throughout the province.

Mr. Eaton: We really haven’t settled on a firm number yet. We anticipate perhaps between three and five and we’ll see what kind of work load develops; we can add more to the tribunal at that time. Right now, we haven’t anticipated the exact number we’re going to appoint to it.

Mr. Gaunt: You’re going to start off with somewhere between three and five and if the workload increases, you’ll increase the complement of the tribunal accordingly.

Mr. Eaton: Right.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 97 carry?

Mr. Ferrier: I would like to talk about that section, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Ferrier: When the drainage committee was trying to come up with this proposal we met, I think, with some assessment boards and discussed what they did and how they operated and they gave us a few clues. I forget the proper name of that.

Mr. Henderson: Assessment appeal court.

Mr. Ferrier: Assessment appeal court. Is it the intention of the ministry or the government that the personnel on this body will have no responsibilities other than the responsibilities of drainage appeal procedures or appeals brought before them? Is it possible that some members of these other provincial bodies will also be appointed to sort of do two or three duties?

I think they will be a busy group but I think that in time they will probably resolve quite a few problems or provide the means of resolving them and they may not be as busy as they may be in the first year or two. Could you tell me if the likelihood is that their sole responsibility will be appeals under this Act?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lambton.

Mr. Henderson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before the parliamentary assistant replies I would like to add some more remarks to those of the hon. member for Cochrane South. As the hon. member is well aware, we met with the assessment appeal chairman and we met with the land compensation chairman. You will remember that we became very concerned as a committee. The land compensation board, we felt, was technical and the person making the appeal would not feel at home within the technicalities they were demanding. I would hope here, Mr. Chairman, and I would like it on the record, that when this body is appointed, it will be a body which will let the individual come in without a solicitor and will listen to the evidence presented.

Mr. Deans: Something like the OMB.

Mr. Henderson: I haven’t been before the OMB personally in recent years --

Mr. Deans: Let me hope it is nothing like the OMB.

Mr. Henderson: I would possibly have to agree. As I say, it was the hope of the committee that this assessment appeal tribunal would accept evidence presented without a solicitor and without an engineer, and would not rule it out because it was not presented in the order that a sophisticated court would expect.

Mr. Deans: Absolutely.

Mr. Henderson: Yes. I would like that in the record for future guidance. I am sure the hon. member for Cochrane South and the hon. member for Kent would like to confirm that that was the feeling of the committee. I don’t know what the parliamentary assistant has in mind for staffing but you will note that the clerk of the initiating municipality is to be the clerk of the court. I wanted to have that in the record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Section 97?

Mr. Eaton: Just to respond to that: I want to point out that it is certainly our intention to make it a very informal hearing procedure, so that an individual can go in there and state his case without that kind of support from lawyers and technical people and so on, and that the people who sit on the board can help him draw his case out and get the information from him, as was pointed out with the assessment review.

The people may sit on some other board or commission somewhere. We are not ruling out that they can do other things because they are going to be appointed as individuals to the board. It is not a full-time position; it’ll be on a per diem basis. We are going to be looking for people who have the skills in the drainage programme which will give us the proper kind of guidance in that regard.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 97 carry?

Mr. Ruston: Not yet.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. Ruston: Just briefly on this, I envisage this tribunal as sitting in more than one place at a time. I am supposing that you might have five or six members on it and maybe three would be holding a hearing in one part of the province and three possibly in another. I would hope it would be something like this otherwise you might have long delays. Someone mentioned the Ontario Municipal Board, and said it took 11 months to get a hearing which is completely --

I am advised by the member for Kent that when the committee studied this they considered it to be similar to what the parliamentary assistant has said -- these would be people who would be fully cognizant of the drainage problems people had and they didn’t intend, as the member for Lambton said, to have legal people appearing before them. It would be strictly a very informal board.

The only thing I would be concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is the time involved. I am sure there is a time limit and that would be the key thing as to how soon you can get before the tribunal.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I might add some remarks to those of the hon. member for Essex-Kent. In looking over the past procedure of the Drainage Act, as you know there haven’t been that many cases which have gone before the county courts but it was the fact that the county court judges have been so busy that it was difficult to get them into the courts. It was my hope, and I am sure I can speak for the other members of the committee, that this court would possibly sit within a month of the application. I don’t think there is any time limit but that was our hope.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the way it is set up today it is going to slow down the first steps of the Act but I would hope it would remove a great deal of the appeals. The people would be better informed and, therefore, I am convinced there won’t be that many appeals before the tribunal.

Mr. Deans: Let’s watch it and see. I think you are probably right.

Mr. Henderson: Yes, it’s my feeling so I just leave that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Breithaupt: You need a helmet for that.

Mr. Chairman: Carried?

Mr. Eaton: To the member for Essex-Kent, we do see the possibility, if it’s needed, of more than one group sitting at once, but as we say, we want to start out with just one and see how it works out.

Mr. Ruston: Very good.

Mr. Chairman: Does 97 carry?

Section 97 agreed to.

Mr. Deans: On 104.

Mr. Chairman: On 104? Do all sections previous to 104 carry?

Section 98 to 103, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 104:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: And all after 104 are carried too, as far as I am concerned. On 104, can you tell me something about the amendment? I don’t have the original Act and I don’t understand what the amendment was and I am curious to know how the referee is going to enlist the aid of any police officer, under law. How do you interpret that working?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lambton.

Mr. Henderson: The parliamentary assistant has a professional answer for the member but I am sure you have been in many of these appeals. You know there have to be papers served on individual witnesses and there has to be order within the court and I am sure that --

Mr. Reid: Just like in the House, order in the court.

Mr. Henderson: -- the sheriff and like officers --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Henderson: That’s the section you are speaking to, is it not?

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the member for Lambton. Without his help I am sure we would never have got through the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 104 carry?

Mr. Eaton: Just to inform you what the amendment is, we removed the words “by the county or counties” after the word “paid” because they no longer pay.

Mr. Deans: I see. Thank you. I just want to know what the amendment was.

Mr. Eaton: All right.

Section 104 agreed to.

Sections 105 to 128, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Ferrier: With your indulgence before the bill is reported, I had to curtail my remarks a little bit the other day. I think it is very significant that we have brought in a very good bill for the farmers of this province and that the members of the select committee were able to hammer out the details of the Act ahead of time so that we have not spent undue time to get through a 128 section bill in this House.

I would like to commend, as I didn’t have the chance the other day, the chairman of the committee, the member for Lambton, who really was dedicated to seeing that we got a better Drainage Act and that the farmers of this province got a lot better Act under which to work. As a member of the committee, I want to put on the record how much I appreciated working under his leadership and direction. It is too bad we couldn’t call this the Henderson Act but he, along with the committee, did a very good and dedicated job. I am sure that the rural people of this province will remember for quite some time the work that that committee did.

Mr. Breithaupt: They’ll never forget it.

Mr. Chairman: I am sure the member for Lambton would like to reply.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, yes, I would like to reply to thank the House for the co-operation they have given in making this bill and getting it through the House. The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) brought up a good point the other day about the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee. I was along with the parliamentary assistant when we met with these people. Those people were as anxious as the members were that this bill be made available to the people of Ontario. All the members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, were interested in the people, in the farmers of Ontario and in the consumers.

I suggest to you this bill is equally as important to the people in the urban areas in the production of food. As I said earlier on many occasions, well-drained land will produce up to twice as much and therefore will assist in the food production of this province.

Mr. Chairman, I thank all the members of the House, for assisting in the bill.

Bill 130, as amended, reported.

Mr. Eaton: One word, Mr. Chairman, before we close off here. I want to refer to a question on proclamation raised the other day by the member for Huron-Bruce. We were a little concerned about the timing because of the school for the drainage superintendents and so on. However, after meeting with the group and knowing how anxious they are to get it into effect, we have a couple of small things to do as far as regulations in creating the forms are necessary. I would be hopeful that we can probably get this proclaimed by September.

In regard to the moving of this bill through the House, I just want to say a word of thanks to the law officers of the Crown in the Attorney General’s department for helping us to get the order of this bill together. I think the member for Kent made reference to the fact that it is quite readable and can be followed along properly in this procedure now. This is because of the fine work that they did in this regard.

I would also like to thank the legislative counsel, Mr. Anderson and his staff, for bearing with us in the amendments that we were making in one day, and also our own staff for the great job they have done.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves 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 begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 130, the Drainage Act, 1975.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I would like to say that tomorrow we will move into committee of supply and hear the estimates of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. If, by chance, one of the standing committees were to report back to the House, I would ask the concurrence of the House to adjourn that debate so that we could proceed with the consideration of the report that would come from whatever committee would report first. I would suggest also, in the event that that does not occur tomorrow, we might follow that same procedure on Monday.

Mr. Speaker: Before the motion to adjourn, perhaps I should inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 30(a), the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) has moved that the ordinary business of the House for Friday, July 11, 1975, be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. This matter concerns the inadequate security and staffing facilities at the regional detention centre for Ottawa-Carleton following the escape of seven inmates in the early part of June, 1975.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, may I ask you, since you have informed us of this --

Mr. Speaker: It is just for information purposes.

Mr. Deans: -- I am curious to know, sir do you agree that the matter should in fact be accepted?

Mr. Speaker: Well, not at this point.

Mr. Deans: Do you rule in favour or are you opposed to it?

Mr. Speaker: No, nothing at the moment. If you will check that particular rule, the procedure is that the person moving it may speak for five minutes as to why the ordinary business should be set aside and one representative from each party may use five minutes to state whether his party thinks it should or should not be. If it is agreed that the ordinary business should be set aside, then each member who wishes may speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, just on one point with the government House leader, is it correct that if the three environmental bills are reported back this evening, as may be the case, we would then proceed with them directly tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that would be the case.

Mr. Breithaupt: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:05 o’clock, p.m.