The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE

Mr. Bolan: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in question period the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) indicated to the House that the unorganized townships of Loudon, Macpherson, Latchford and Bertram in the district of Nipissing had not applied for assistance under the government’s disaster relief program with respect to flood damage in those areas.

I wish to bring to the attention of the House that in the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs in the House on Friday, May 25, I said the following to the Minister of Northern Affairs in the House on Friday, from Hansard, page 2214: “There is one other thing I want to mention. I’m glad to see the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) here because I was going to ask him a question on this point. However, I was not able to ask it during the question period. It has to do with the request made to the Minister of Industry and Tourism by the West Nipissing Tourist Area Association.

“These people are in four unorganized townships which have been seriously affected by the flood. Some two weeks ago they requested, through the Minister of Industry and Tourism, that the four townships in that area be declared a disaster area. These four unorganized townships are the townships of Loudon, Macpherson, Latchford and Bertram. They are not the townships which were referred to in the statement made by the Premier (Mr. Davis) some three weeks ago, when he announced certain unorganized townships as being part of the disaster area. They are not the same unorganized townships. They are separate townships altogether.

“Two weeks ago, the association, whose president is a Mr. Rick DeSantis, wrote to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism requesting that those townships as well be declared a disaster area so that they might qualify for assistance. Some of these people are in very dire straits. I might say the government has responded to the tourist operators on the other side of the lake by declaring the township of North Himsworth and the township of Nipissing disaster areas so they would be able to qualify for the funds. However, these unorganized townships, not having any government body through which to speak, have not been able to get any results from the government. I believe there is a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, and I would ask the minister to take this up at that time. The lake is the same level right across. If the tourist operators at one end of the lake, i.e. the townships of Nipissing and North Himsworth, are affected by the rise of the lake, the same thing applies to the other side.”

Mr. Speaker, the remarks made yesterday by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs are inconsistent with the facts.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On this point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I understand the honourable member is reading from the Hansard of the committee. I think what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said was that he had not heard directly from the member with respect to this particular problem.

I recall that the member did raise in this House the question of townships that are situated on the other side of the lake, which happened to be in the constituency of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck), but quite honestly I do not recall his raising the question of those townships which happen to be in his own riding.

Mr. Mancini: That’s because you are never here.

Mr. Bolan: One would expect the Minister of Industry and Tourism to inform the Premier of that. Doesn’t the right hand know what the left hand is doing over there?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. It is becoming a habit and a practice around here for a member to get up and claim a point of privilege simply because he disagrees with what someone else has said. There has been a practice in this House in the past to allow any honourable member to get up and merely set the record straight from his perspective, but by no stretch of the imagination does it constitute a point of privilege. I am afraid it is going to be recorded for posterity that this Speaker had brought to his attention on numerous occasions what a member alleged to be a point of privilege.

These are certainly not points of privilege. They are not points of order. They are simply to set the record straight. I hope all honourable members will keep that in mind. Let’s call it by its proper name.

USE OF HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I rise with certain trepidation after your comments, because I do have a genuine --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If you are going to set the record straight, please say that you are rising for that purpose.

Mr. Cassidy: No, Mr. Speaker, it is a point of privilege which arises out of comments that were made last Thursday by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott). In question period, when we were discussing the matter of 2,4-D spraying in the Northumberland school district, the minister accused me of misleading the House and suggested we had no evidence of children in the Northumberland school district being ill because of 2,4-D spraying.

I have here results of a survey which indicate that 20 children in three schools became ill following exposure to 2,4-D spraying. I will send it to the government House leader and ask him to convey it to the Minister of the Environment when he returns. In that package I am sending the names of the parents of the 20 children. The parents have filled in their names on the questionnaire and made them available to the ministry.

The minister’s response to my questioning on the matter last week, and particularly his charge that I was misleading the Legislature, has not only violated my privileges, but also calls into question the integrity of the concerned parents in the Northumberland-Newcastle area. I am now furnishing the material he said we did not have. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to have the minister, on his return, withdraw the remarks he made that I was misleading the House, and I ask him to act on these very clear indications that children have become sick after exposure to 2,4-D spraying in Northumberland.

Mr. Speaker: I too will await the return of the honourable the Minister of the Environment. I am quite sure had the Minister of the Environment actually made the accusation that the member was misleading the House, I would have caught it and had it brought to his attention. I will await the version of the story or a response from the Minister of the Environment.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FOREST FIRES

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the members the latest information on a very serious forest fire situation which is developing in northwestern Ontario.

At the moment, a total of 53 forest fires is burning across the province, 23 of which are not yet under control. Most of the fires are in the area from Thunder Bay west to the Manitoba border. Fortunately, no loss of life or personal injury has been reported, but some cottages and some cut timber are being threatened.

As of noon today, we have 400 fully-trained and equipped firefighters in the affected areas, along with 57 aircraft and all of the necessary support. Every precaution has been taken to prevent these fires from spreading, but the situation may well deteriorate in the face of worsening weather conditions.

To give you specific details of the fire situation, the hardest hit areas are west of Thunder Bay around Ignace and Sioux Lookout. The largest fire, identified as Thunder Bay 37, jumped Lighthall Lake late yesterday and has now grown to 16,000 acres. It is still not under control.

The hardest hit single area is around Sioux Lookout where 20 fires are currently burning, seven of which are not yet under control. The largest fire there is fire number 21, which is 3,800 acres in size. In the vicinity of that fire, some one dozen unoccupied cottages have been threatened, and lodge operators have been advised to pull back any guests they may have staying in outpost cabins in the path of the fire.

Another fire, Sioux Lookout 29, is also threatening some 13,000 cords of wood that belong to a private company, McKenzie Forest Products. That wood is cut and stacked in the forest.

Most of these fires were caused by lightning from a disturbance that passed through northwestern Ontario last Friday. Because of damp conditions, those fires did not show up until Saturday and Sunday when the bush began to dry out. Since then, high temperatures, high winds and low humidity have combined to help fires spread and make the work of firefighters more difficult.

Our aerial attack fleet has been strengthened considerably by the addition of a number of heavy water bombers and helicopters from across the country. My ministry is also arranging to have trained firefighting crews flown in from other parts of Canada, if necessary. Auxiliary crews are being formed elsewhere in Ontario and dispatched to northwestern Ontario to relieve crews which have been on fires for several weeks. These auxiliary crews will also be used to ensure adequate fire attack forces are available to cover off other parts of the north and south.

This is an up-to-the-minute outline of the situation, as reported to me by our provincial forest fire centre in Sault Ste. Marie, as of 11 o’clock this morning.

DRIVING SCHOOLS

Hon. Mr. Snow: Today I propose to introduce a bill, at the appropriate time, which will require driving schools to be licensed and will enable the government to regulate their operation.

This decision is a direct result of the response to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications discussion paper on driver education in Ontario. This response indicated, quite clearly, that the commercial driving school industry was in favour of provincial government involvement in regulation of their industry. A summary of the response to the discussion paper has been prepared and will be tabled with this act.

Four options were presented for the regulation of commercial driving schools: to maintain the existing situation under which municipalities may choose to license driving schools; to improve access to consumer protection procedures; to introduce legislation which would create a body within the industry to regulate driving schools; or to provide authority for MTC to license and regulate driving schools.

[2:15]

We considered these options very carefully. Maintaining the present system provided no solution to the problem of lack of uniformity. Better consumer protection is responsive to complaints, but does not provide positive encouragement to improve the quality of service. The response we received from the industry indicated that some feel they are too fragmented to regulate themselves successfully. Therefore, to provide the regulation requested by some segments of the commercial driving school industry in the past, we concluded that the best solution at this time was to provide authority for MTC to license and regulate the industry.

This new act to regulate driving schools will provide for the licensing of all schools and will ensure that they maintain certain standards for business practices, facilities and instruction. At the same time, we propose to remove the legislation and regulations regarding driving instructors from the Highway Traffic Act and include them in the new act.

As part of the new package, we intend to ensure the quality of driving instructors by requiring all applicants for an instructor’s licence to have successfully completed an MTC-approved course. By combining all facets of the driving school industry under one act, I believe we will be better able to control the quality of driving instruction in this province.

With this act, I am tabling a compendium outlining our proposed legislation in more detail. We intend to make these details available to both the public and the commercial driving school industry so that they will have a further opportunity to comment on our proposals. As part of this information program, copies of the act will be available in all driver examination centres.

Driving in today’s traffic requires a high degree of skill. I am convinced we can no longer depend on less than the highest quality of driving instruction if we are to keep our roads as safe as possible. I believe this act, which should improve the quality of instruction, is an important step in this direction.

Mr. Bradley: At last.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RADIATION FROM X-RAYS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister recall a report entitled, Report of the Task Force on Controlling the Costs of Payments to Chiropractors, Osteopaths, Chiropodists, Optometrists, and Dentists, by the treatment and rehabilitation division of his ministry, dated April 1973, a report which he has had for six years?

On page five the first recommendation for immediate action at that time was that “radiological services provided by chiropractors, chiropodists and osteopaths be eliminated as planned services and, in return, permit the practitioner to refer patients to radiologists.” Why did the minister not implement this recommendation?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, a year or two after that, part of it was implemented in that the regulations were changed to allow for reference by chiropractors to outpatient clinics for radiology.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister tells us that what was proposed as something to give the chiropractors in return for preventing them from doing X-rays, namely, to permit them to make such reference, has in fact been given to them, but the quid pro quo, namely, that they not be permitted to do their own X-rays, was simply not enforced.

Mr. Speaker: The minister agreed.

Mr. S. Smith: Would the minister agree that this is what happened?

May I ask whether he can tell us what happened to the study which is referred to on page three of that report? Let me quote:

“A study which is now in progress indicates that an excessive number of radiological examinations are performed by practitioners who own their own equipment” -- these are practitioners of chiropractic -- “and in many cases, total body X-rays, for example, are of possible danger to the patient.”

May I ask the minister to table the study that is referred to on page three of that task force report and any other information he may have which might indicate any of the benefits of chiropractic X-rays -- information which I have now requested from him on two previous occasions and still have not received?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, I take it that the honourable member is indicating his opposition to chiropractic, judging by his line of reasoning.

Mr. S. Smith: X-rays. Can the minister not hear? Is there a problem in the sound system? X-rays.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There’s no problem with my hearing.

Mr. S. Smith: There certainly is a problem with your hearing.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Pipe down. When the member hasn’t got a case he tries to make it up with bombastics.

Mr. S. Smith: Address yourself to what I said. X-rays.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The honourable member knows this Legislature has, over the years, through various acts and regulations, endorsed the practice of chiropractic in this province and also included the right to take X-rays.

Mr. S. Smith: Why won’t the minister table the study? Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That particular report I’m not familiar with but even in his prelude the member referred to that as a report dealing with controlling costs. I have indicated to him previously, and to this House I believe, that over the last number of years the claims for X-rays by chiropractors have been going down. As well, four or five years ago -- I believe it was in 1974-75 -- we changed the regulations to provide for the ability of chiropractors to refer to outpatient clinics for X-ray services.

Mr. S. Smith: The report permits it here.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That report, if I understand what the member read correctly -- and I’ll dig it out; it’s somewhere back in the files in the ministry -- deals with the question of costs.

As the member knows, the current interest in chiropractic is germane to the development of new legislation for chiropractic which has been under way for some time. When that gets to this Legislature then those who have concerns about any aspect of the practice of chiropractic will have an opportunity to express those concerns here and, I anticipate, in a committee of the House when they may hear from the public.

I should tell the member, as a matter of interest, that the draft legislation prepared by the chiropractic group has been sent far and wide. The reaction from the College of Physicians and Surgeons was that while they proposed a different scope of practice, their redraft included the use of radiology.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since it was established that in certain hospital radiology units there has been excessive exposure to radiation for patients who came in to get X-rays, can the minister assure us he is satisfied there is no overuse of X-rays by chiropractors? Is he also satisfied that there is no excessive or undue exposure to radiation for patients when they have X-rays in chiropractors’ offices? If not, what steps does he intend to take in order to protect patients against the possible excess radiation in chiropractors’ offices?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would draw the member’s attention to page 2578 of Hansard which is dated June 5, two weeks ago today, at which time, in answer to a previous question from the Leader of the Opposition, I read into the record some figures, developed or drawn from our files by the X-ray inspection people, comparing average exposures for certain common views taken for chiropractic purposes, to average exposures for the same views in hospitals; he will note they compare very well.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister didn’t give the other side of the benefit which makes it worthwhile taking the risk.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The honourable member takes one person’s point of view as expressed through an organization and says, “Therefore this service should be banned entirely.”

Mr. S. Smith: I asked the question three weeks before this report.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I respectfully submit that, given the information before us, there are no grounds under any reasonable set of circumstances to withdraw this service from the people of Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a supplementary, the minister will recall that I asked this question three weeks before I even heard of such a report from the Consumers’ Association of Canada. The minister has still not given us any information he may have for the people of Ontario to indicate any benefit that may stem from having chiropractic X-rays; we await for that information. Will the minister undertake to table the study referred to in the task force report? Is he willing to table that study in this House so we can see for ourselves what the facts are and not just have the minister’s opinion?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member might as well ask me to table the report of the benefits that his patients got from his services. What the member is talking about is critical judgement, whether it be radiological services provided by a chiropractor, a dentist, a physician or whoever.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the minister is unwilling to table the documents, can he explain why, despite four requests, he has yet to table the Ministry of Health’s 1977 radiation report, a document which originally led to all of the revelations of overexposure to radiation and X-rays in the province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding we were going to have an opportunity to get at this matter in the standing committee; at that time I’m going to be more than happy to share this information with the committee.

Mr. Roy: What is the government hiding over there?

Mr. Cassidy: What are you hiding it for?

Mr. S. Smith: Table the study on page three. That’s all you have to do.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Give me the date.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Did I understand the Minister of Health to say that in 28 months as minister he has not been shown this report, which was done by his own staff six years ago and in which there is not only a comment about the cost control aspect, but in which there is a clear indication that the ministry is concerned about the possible danger to the health of Ontarians by virtue of chiropractors X-raying their patients? Has he never seen this? Did he never in the 28 months see it? Is he not aware it says there were possible dangers to the health of Ontarians?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The honourable member stands there waving a document around.

Mr. S. Smith: It comes from you.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The archives of my ministry take up whole buildings, with correspondence and reports going back over the years and the decades. The fact this ministry has been involved as deeply as it has with the Ontario Medical Association, with the radiological research laboratories and with various organizations, with the aim of developing standards which don’t exist anywhere in the world today for radiological services, is clear evidence of our commitment to developing those standards and improving the delivery of such services in this province.

Mr. Bradley: In other words, the answer is no.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Going back to the research which has been done, the problem that has been identified universally by the eminent scientists at the radiological research laboratories is one of assumptions regarding the levels of radiation that have to be used to get good diagnostic pictures. The member will recall that report, I’m sure. That is the problem we have to address as well as developing techniques for ongoing surveillance.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister’s answer was pretty weak.

Mr. Speaker: A new question, the Leader of the Opposition.

DISCOUNT PRACTICES

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Premier, which I regret is a somewhat lengthy one. Has the government any comment to make on the statement by Rodney Hull, the counsel to the public inquiry into food store kickbacks? Mr. Hull says he sees no need to make public the information which the inquiry has obtained regarding the size of rebates and discounts on the grounds that competitors may learn something they should not know.

Is the Premier in fact aware that current federal law requires that when discounts are demanded of suppliers such discounts must be offered to all other buyers? That happens to be the federal law. How, therefore, can Mr. Hull argue that this information, which other competitors must already have, unless the law is being broken, needs to be kept secret? Would the Premier not agree that is the main point of the inquiry? Does he not think this is the last straw for Mr. Hull and that his resignation ought to be sought by the commissioner?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know Rodney Hull and I am really not as prompt to express personal points of view about people as is the Leader of the Opposition, without having had the benefit of some discussion, some knowledge and some insights that I am sure he has had. I know he has discussed this with Mr. Hull at great length and is satisfied, in his view, that Mr. Hull is incompetent. I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition that I haven’t made that judgement because I haven’t had the opportunity to do so.

I would say the commission was appointed with some urging from members opposite, including, I think, members of the Leader of the Opposition’s own party. It was a commission supported, as I recall, by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The government takes some responsibility, of course, for the appointment of the commissioner, a very eminent gentleman about whom I have no personal knowledge either, other than that he is a member of the judiciary. He, in turn, has the responsibility, as is the custom in our system, of appointing counsel. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to differ with counsel, that’s fair and that’s proper, but I would point out to him that all of this information that is being prepared and delivered to the commission is material available to the commissioner himself. There is no question that when the commissioner makes his determination, when he makes whatever determinations he feels should be made, this information can be part of that recommendation or judgement that he might make.

I think it is a bit unfair. I’m not here to defend Rodney Hull -- as I said, if he walked into this chamber at this moment I wouldn’t know him from Bobby Hull; I don’t even know if they are related.

Mr. Bradley: You skate on the issues very well.

Mr. Conway: A good skater like you would recognize Bobby Hull anywhere.

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Davis: When it comes to this business, I will even skate with the member for Renfrew. It’s not easy, but I’ll do my best. I really think it is a bit unfair, and I say this objectively, to be critical of an individual in the House and say he should be removed.

The Leader of the Opposition can differ with his point of view, I think that is fair, but surely his function as counsel is to advise the commission and to do his job as he sees it in the context of the order in council establishing the commission. I think to make a personal judgement of that nature is ill- advised, but I am not as prone to make judgements on personalities as is the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: I don’t remember saying anything about Mr. Hull’s personality, but rather about his point of view.

By way of supplementary, is the Premier himself not following the deliberations of this commission? Is he not aware the agricultural community has come to feel the whole commission is a whitewash anyhow? Does he not believe to keep secret the very information the commission is seeking, namely the size and impact of these discounting practices, is contrary to the very purpose of the commission? Does he not recognize the contradiction in so doing, in as much as competitors are supposed, by law, to already have the information as to what sorts of discounts are being offered to their competitors?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have the wording of the order in council with me, but my recollection is that the commissioner or the judge has very broad terms of reference. Some of the Opposition Leader’s colleagues who used to practise a little law, or some who are still practising rather actively, would inform him --

Mr. Roy: Who would that be?

Mr. Warner: Name names.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t know who that might be.

I think they might advise the Leader of the Opposition that commission counsel is there to advise. If the commissioner wishes to do something not in keeping with the recommendations of commission counsel, then he has the right so to do.

All I am saying to the Leader of the Opposition is I think his observations about the competence or incompetence of Mr. Hull are ill-advised. I don’t think it is fair to make that assessment. Second, I do follow the deliberations of the committee. I think there are some things that will emerge when the judge makes his report, and I think the Leader of the Opposition is premature in his criticisms of counsel, who is acting as he thinks proper.

Certainly at this stage I don’t second-guess these people.

Mr. S. Smith: He has lost all credibility.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition can say Mr. Hull has lost all credibility. Once again, I think that is an unfair assessment to make. One would have to be there on a day-to-day basis. One would have to have a greater understanding of what is happening than the Leader of the Opposition, in my view, happens to have. As I say, I am not defending Mr. Hull. I don’t know.

Mr. S. Smith: It sounds like it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say one of the great shortcomings of the Leader of the Opposition is that he is too prone to make personal judgements about people --

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the Premier not aware

-- and if he hasn’t done so, will he check out -- that everybody who has been following this commission has come to the conclusion Mr. Hull has already lost his credibility?

If the Premier is not aware, will he not examine the basic point that has been put to him -- that since discounts are the main mechanism for establishing competitive advantage, not only among the supermarkets but in destroying all independent operators and small suppliers, how can he conceivably withhold information as to the size of those discounts and not subvert the whole objective of the inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will repeat for the member of York South, who obviously isn’t trying to gain an Emmy Award like the Leader of the Opposition, that he too --

Mr. Mancini: Is that a personal judgement too?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say that he too has had some experience in these matters. He too may have reservations about the way counsel is performing at this particular inquiry. As I say, I am not prepared to make that sort of judgement because --

Mr. S. Smith: Because you don’t follow the matter.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect to the Leader of the Opposition, once again, I may not follow it in as great detail as I know he is following it, as he does everything. I realize I am not as knowledgeable or as expert in all fields as he purports to be.

Some hon. members: We know that.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the supplementary question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I confess that. I do not pretend to have his absolute knowledge or the arrogance that goes with it.

Mr. Bradley: Don’t talk to us about arrogance.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Premier have an answer to the supplementary question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was just trying to confess the fact that I do not have absolute knowledge. But I would say to the member for York South --

Mr. Riddell: You’re embarrassing the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. W. Newman: Not at all.

Interjections.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health regarding the serious shortage of beds in Metropolitan Toronto hospitals this summer.

Does the minister agree with Dr. Peter Clarke, the chief of internal medicine at the Toronto Western Hospital, who said that the lives of four heart attack victims were endangered because they could not be admitted immediately into the coronary unit of that particular hospital one night a few days ago?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, all I know about that particular situation is what I read in the paper today. It is interesting that the administration and the board, who are responsible for the overall operation of that hospital, have not indicated, to my knowledge, the size of their coronary care unit as being a problem. They have not indicated that is a problem.

Mr. Swart: They wouldn’t even contact you; they know it’s hopeless.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Where that has happened -- for instance, when the North York General Hospital about two years ago indicated that was a problem, approval was given to expand the intensive care coronary care unit -- we can work out problems with individual hospitals.

I may say that, on the question of availability of beds, we have done some checking today, because of some allegations made yesterday. We have checked with a number of hospitals around Metro, and on the whole it appears that no more beds will be closed in the summer of 1979 than were closed in 1978; so to suggest that there are more beds being closed in 1979 is misleading.

Mr. Cassidy: In a letter to the Wingham newspaper, the Advance Times, the Premier wrote a few days ago that if a patient has to be admitted on the orders of a physician the admission will be effected even if temporary inpatient accommodation has to be utilized for emergency cases. Is it therefore now the policy of this government that hospital accommodation will be maintained only to the point where patients, if admitted, will be put into emergency wards? Or will the government ensure that there is enough hospital accommodation available in the province that a patient who has to be admitted for an urgent case can get direct access to the specialized facilities in that hospital?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Recognizing that every service of every hospital at some point is going to experience peak utilizations because of either seasonal or unusual demands, it is the policy of this government that we will have, as we have always had, sufficient resources to serve the health-care needs of the province. Recognizing that the health-care needs are changing, and have changed dramatically in the last 10 to 20 years, so too the system has been changing and will change continually to reflect the needs of the population, but those needs will continue to be met.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Can he explain, in this connection, exactly what it was the Premier was telling the province yesterday when he said we were not to assume that this year’s funding considerations should be applied without flexibility to the years that follow? Could he be more precise in explaining what this flexibility might mean for the forthcoming years, since there are some of us who are under the perhaps mistaken impression that the active-treatment bed ratios and the funding that is applied to them are reasonably fixed for those small hospitals in particular as they look at the next two or three years?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we have constantly under review the development of budgets and budgetary strategy for succeeding years. I think I have indicated to the member in committee and in this House --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Do the members want an answer?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sorry. Maybe I can tell the member afterwards. His colleagues aren’t interested.

With respect to the development of acute and chronic-care beds and extended care, we see in the province today roughly the right number of beds, but an inappropriate mix of beds. As members know, in a number of communities we are actually working with individual hospitals or groups of hospitals to ensure that the programs and services are rationalized in such a way as to take account of the ongoing health care needs and to meet them with the appropriate programs.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary to the minister: In line with Dr. Clarke’s comments that there will be a disaster in Ontario if some funds are not released, would he agree that there are a number of hospital beds in Metropolitan Toronto, as one example, that have been, to coin the phrase, dormantized, put out of use, and that he doesn’t even know about because the hospitals are not prepared to talk to the ministry any more?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is just about as patently ridiculous as most of the releases from that member’s office.

UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG CAAT GRADUATES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question to the Minister of Education. In view of the fact that community colleges are meant to train people for employment, can the minister explain how it is that the unemployment rate of graduates from community colleges in 1977 to 1978 is higher than the unemployment rate for our young people as a whole? Isn’t the minister alarmed at the fact that Ontario’s young people who have received community-college training have an unemployment rate of 15 per cent compared to the unemployment rate of about 13.4 per cent among young people in general? What are we training young people for -- a lifetime of unemployment?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would be fascinated to see the source of the figures which the honourable member has provided. I know that probably he is talking about those who have been trained in the areas of nursing, perhaps in social services and perhaps in the area of early childhood education programs, but in the industrially related educational programs, which the community colleges have, in fact, been providing, and in the business-related courses, the rate of employment is very much higher than that, and the honourable member knows it.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since I got these figures from a document which came from the minister’s office itself, The Graduate Placement Report of the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology, and since it showed that students in business-type courses in the applied arts section had an unemployment rate of 16.6 per cent six months after graduation, students in technology an unemployment rate of close to 12 per cent, those in business of close to 12 per cent, and francophone students a rate of 21.4 per cent, what is the minister or the government going to do in order to ensure that there is adequate planning so that the graduates of community colleges can and will find jobs and not a place on the unemployment rolls when they leave college?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In actual fact, the record of placement of community colleges has been excellent over the last three or four years, and the figures which the honourable member chooses conveniently to report are those areas in which there is an obvious decline in employment opportunities. Some of those are courses which young people still persist in applying for because it is their choice of career, knowing full well that the career opportunities are not as frequent as they were in the past.

It is the responsibility of community colleges to assess the employment potential of every single course which they provide and to make that information known to the applicants to the courses and, in fact, to limit enrolment in those courses in which employment opportunities are either declining or have declined. That is precisely what the community colleges have been trying to do, and I think they have been doing a very good job of it.

ILLEGAL ACTS BY POLICE

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Attorney General. Would the Attorney General care to explain to this House the consultative process between himself and the Solicitor General where his law officers are proceeding with charges as a result of evidence which appears to have been adduced by way of entrapment?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think to attempt to explain the consultative process between the Attorney General and the Solicitor General would be perhaps highly confusing and very complex and would take up an undue amount of time during the question period.

Mr. J. Reed: We understand that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: So I will refrain. I must admit it is an opportunity to discuss a number of matters of great interest, I am sure.

Mr. Roy: What do you think of the Solicitor General?

Mr. Makarchuk: Don’t be coy.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will spare the members a complete description at this moment. But I would be much obliged if the member for St. George would advise me as to the particular charges with which she is concerned. Then I would be prepared to respond.

Mr. Lawlor: What do you think about entrapment?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The issue of entrapment, as she well knows, is a complex issue in law. Without knowing the specific facts, I do not think I can respond adequately.

Mrs. Campbell: Could the Attorney General advise as to what his reaction was to the matter which I presented to him some days ago, which certainly seemed to imply entrapment -- the difficulty of course being that many of these cases are still before the courts? Does the Attorney General not now realize that with these growing issues there is a definite conflict between his role as the law-enforcement officer and his police role as Solicitor General?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am aware of the matter that was referred to me by the member for St. George. I am looking into it and will get back to her in respect to this particular case.

In relation to the alleged conflict between the role of the Solicitor General and Attorney General, I do not agree that there is any such conflict because the responsibility of law officers of the crown is first and foremost to be servants of the law. That, in my view, should remove the possibility of any conflict.

Again, I would like to remind the member opposite of a little history. First of all, I think in virtually all other provinces the two positions are combined. It is interesting to note that when the government chose to separate the two positions in 1972, the legislation which was introduced to bring this about was opposed by both opposition parties --

Mrs. Campbell: I was not a member then.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- on the basis that the responsibility of the Attorney General for the overall administration of justice was being “watered down” and his “accountability” was being “undermined,” to quote, as I recall, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who I think made these observations.

Mr. Roy: We opposed it for different reasons.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Be that as it may, I can assure the member for St. George that I have no particular desire to hold on to more than one cabinet job at any particular time. But I want to make it very clear at the same time that I earnestly and sincerely believe that there is no such conflict.

USE OF MATACIL

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources a question about Matacil spraying in northern Ontario. Has the minister yet had anyone analyse the Matacil spray report by Dr. William Thurlow? Is he aware of the latest follow-up research by Dr. Thurlow and Dr. Lee that shows that Matacil and its solvent, nonylphenol, at subtonic concentrations have a definite viral enhancement effect, that is, they have the effect of strengthening viruses as in the case of Reyes syndrome? In the case of Matacil, the latest research shows that enhancement effect is 2.3 times; in the case of nonylphenol, it is two times.

Mr. Mancini: And the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) has been asking about it for five years.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister confirm that picketing at the Kirkland Lake airport this morning has stopped spraying in that area? Will he now cancel his spraying program on the spruce budworm for this year?

Hon. Mr. Auld: In answer to the first part of the question, it should properly be addressed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), who deals with the Pesticides Act, herbicides and that sort of thing. In fact, I am sure he would be delighted to reply. We operate on the basis of the approval of the Ministry of the Environment and of the federal authorities for the use of herbicides and pesticides.

As regards the answer to the second part of the question, I understand there were nine demonstrators and nine media people with cameras at the site last night which made it a little crowded. As far as I know, the spraying went on unimpeded this morning, and I assume it is still under way.

The answer to the third part of the question has, I think, been given in the first part. As far as we are concerned, we are acting within all the rules and we propose to continue until we can complete the project.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary question: As it is the Ministry of Natural Resources, for which the minister is responsible, which is doing the spraying, does he not think it is his responsibility to see whether or not the sprays the ministry is using are safe? Has he not been made aware of the telegram sent to the Premier (Mr. Davis) by Dr. Thurlow on June 10, which says in part:

“Ontario decision to spray Matacil must be cancelled immediately. Kirkland Lake residents’ deep worry is justified. Maine and Newfoundland both cancelled complete 1979 Matacil spray against budworm. Matacil and its solvent nonylphenol very toxic. New experiment proves enhances viruses, may contribute to Reyes syndrome.”

Has the Premier not made the minister aware of that telegram, and does this cabinet not think matters of that importance, and a researcher taking the time to make that contact with this government, should be considered seriously? Should the ministry not cancel the program?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated we operate within the rules of safety which are set by those ministries of the provincial and federal governments that are charged with that responsibility.

Interjections.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that a Halifax medical research team in 1976 indicated there could be a link between the spraying at that time, as a result of the budworm, and Reyes syndrome, and that also in that province over the last seven or eight years 10 children have died as a result of the spray used? In some instances not the source but the spray itself was the cause of the Reyes syndrome, and in others it was the emulsifier used which was the cause. Has the minister looked into that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I simply repeat I am aware of a controversy, but I am also aware that authorities in the United States and Canada have looked at this pesticide and have approved it for certain uses. That is the case with the use for which we are using it in spraying to destroy the spruce budworm.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health with respect to the strike of ambulance drivers in Mississauga, an issue which was raised locally by the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory). Could the minister tell us the present situation with respect to this dispute, and also assure us no one’s need for ambulance service is in jeopardy as a result of this dispute?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Supervisory and management personnel are staffing the vehicles to answer emergency calls. As well, under the terms of the Ambulance Act, surrounding ambulance services in Hamilton-Wentworth, Peel, Metro and Waterford will, as needed, answer emergency calls. I regret to say that routine transfer calls will not be answered, since that makes up the bulk of ambulance use and staff is simply not available to answer other than emergency calls.

Mr. Kennedy: Could the minister give an explanation as to the present state of negotiations or if, in fact, negotiations are on? Possibly that is for his colleague in Labour. I would like to know.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think that aspect of it might more properly be a question referred to my colleague, the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if I might respond to the member’s question, actually conciliation efforts were part of my ministry’s involvement, but to date the parties have not agreed that they wish intervention by way of mediation and that is sort of a prima facie request that must come from the parties. If and when it does come we will be pleased to act in a mediation role.

FANSHAWE COLLEGE

Mr. Van Horne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the Minister of Education: In the light of the reported settlement between the president of Fanshawe College and the Fanshawe board of governors, and in the light of the substantial public funding provided for community colleges, and in the light of the original request of the head of Fanshawe, who was relieved of his duties, and his determination that he be paid his full salary of some $56,000 until his retirement, a sum which would equal some $336,000, can the minister tell us the amount of the settlement that was reported to have been made yesterday?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot. The solicitor for the gentleman in question and the solicitor for the community college apparently arranged the agreement which resulted in the dropping of the suit which the gentleman had instituted against the community college and against other people as well, and it was stated by the solicitor for the gentleman himself that there was an agreement that they would not reveal the amount which had been agreed upon.

I share the member’s concern that whatever funds are utilized in this area are indeed public funds and that the ministry responsible for that institution should have some knowledge of this and I intend to pursue it. At this point I think the rumour he has heard is very widely blown up, but I’m not at all sure what in actual fact the figure is.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary: It is rumours like this, of course, that make us all very concerned, and I would ask the minister, if she has the information, whether she could make it available before the House rises on Friday and, if not, would she please provide it for me? The college is in my riding and I feel an obligation, if she can’t, to let the people in my riding know what is going on. I appreciate her concern over the negotiations made within the court settlement, but by the very same token these are public funds and the public has every right to know. Would she please let me know?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The honourable member has just reiterated what I said. I thank him very much.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Would the minister consider asking the provincial auditor to look at the agreement and the settlement and have him report to her and also to the public accounts committee?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I shall most certainly consider that seriously, but I do want to pursue the matter of the alleged secrecy of this arrangement at this time.

FREE TRADE POLICY

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier on a matter on which his government has been ominously silent in recent times, and that has to do with the question of trade, particularly in agricultural machinery, where in the last three years alone we had an increased deficit of almost half a billion dollars. Most of this is on parts, attachments and non-agricultural tractors. Also that the --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Canadian Senate committee on economic relations between Canada and the United States has recommended that we move towards free trade --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Given the honourable member’s background -- you were a teacher, I believe, in a community college -- you can ask a question: “Does the minister agree?” Then he has been asked a question.

[3:00]

Mr. Laughren: I’m worried about the Premier’s background, not my own.

Mr. Speaker: I’m worried about whether the member has a question or not.

Mr. Laughren: I did want to know if the Premier agrees with the sentiments expressed by the Canadian Senate committee on free trade that that is the direction in which we should be moving in this and other industrial sectors.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I must confess I lost the thread of the speech and the ultimate question. Was the question whether I agree with the Senate committee? I think my answer to that would be I would agree with parts and not with parts.

Mr. Martel: That’s a total copout.

Mr. Laughren: I was serious when I said the government had been ominously silent on this terribly important issue, and the Premier refuses to deal with it.

I’m asking him, is he aware that his Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), when he was in Japan last month, indicated to the Japanese that increased free trade with the United States was going to make it better for them to invest here? Is he also aware the minister said the industrial gateway to the North American market would be through Ontario? Doesn’t he feel that really is a move towards a continental integration of the economies of Ontario, in particular, and North America?

I’m wondering if he agrees with this and if that really is the policy direction of the Ontario government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can understand why the honourable member’s students on occasion became confused. I too was in Japan and I made it quite clear -- because I was discussing the auto industry with some people in that great nation -- and this was a layman’s perspective, that it made sense to locate here. I said that rather than locate in the state of California, where ultimately some of the products produced there might find access to the Canadian market under the auto pact at some time, it made equal sense -- in my view it made better sense -- to locate here because the same access would be available to them.

Whether the Minister of Industry and Tourism used this to explain the potential, as certain tariff changes take place over the next several years, as to the advisability of locating in this country rather than in the United States, I think I could follow the logic of that particular argument.

If the honourable member is asking whether I have become a continentalist in terms of trade, the answer to that is no. If the member is asking whether or not I agree with a greater involvement of trade relations with the United States, greater exports to that country, finding ways and means of expediting this, thus increasing investments and job opportunities, the answer to that part of the question is yes; I agree with it.

Mr. Sargent: Would the Premier not be concerned about the fact that with 60,000 agriculturalists and farmers attending the big show at the CNE a few months ago, not one of all the tractors on show there was manufactured in Canada? Is he not concerned about that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think as a matter of fact a number of tractors are being assembled here. I am concerned any time I see foreign goods displayed here, at shows or whatever, that could be manufactured in this province. That’s why the Minister of Industry and Tourism; that’s why the incentive program; that’s why we have been more successful than any province in Canada or any state of the union in creating some 177,000 new jobs, many of them in the manufacturing sector. It is just because we have those concerns. But more importantly this government is doing something about them and we’re doing it with some degree of success.

LIQUOR REGULATIONS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea), I would like to ask a question of the Premier, if I could have his attention.

Is he aware of the fact that since four liquor inspectors in the Ottawa area have been charged, the new acting liquor inspectors in Ottawa are enforcing the law in such a way it will make it impossible for most service clubs -- the Canadian Legion, Knights of Columbus and so on -- to hold their regular activities, such as bean suppers or bingo? Is he aware that if he permits that, he will be depriving organizations in Ottawa, such as the retarded children, minor hockey, children’s hospitals and so on, of needed funds? Would he intercede with the minister and with the new liquor inspectors to advise them not to create chaos and confusion among all the service clubs in the city of Ottawa and deprive them of these necessary activities?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I assure the honourable member that one thing this government does not want to see is chaos, in spite of some members opposite. I will do my very best to see that no chaos results in the great city of Ottawa and in Carleton as a result of any policies of this government.

Mr. Roy: Does the premier not think it is time he looked at the liquor laws pertaining to some of these service clubs and possibly enacted changes -- oh, the minister is now coming in; can I redirect the question?

Mr. Speaker: No. Just continue.

Mr. Roy: Can I redirect the supplementary to the minister? I’ll say that about the minister: I can get an answer from him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If you want to redirect, then put your question directly.

Mr. Roy: I just want to let him catch his breath, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister intercede on behalf of the service clubs in the city of Ottawa and ask his acting liquor inspectors, who have replaced the four people who have been charged recently, about the enforcement of some of the liquor regulations which makes it impossible for the service clubs to hold some of their much-needed activities such as bingos and bean suppers?

Would he tell his acting liquor inspectors possibly to enforce the regulations in such a way as not to deprive these people of these much-needed activities?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the honourable member’s main question was. Did it deal with racket clubs?

Mr. Roy: No, no. I have gone on to service clubs.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: In order to straighten out the situation in the city of Ottawa -- first of all, in the past couple of weeks the honourable member has brought to my attention the question of racket, squash and similar clubs, where there appears to be some difficulty. In the very near future, probably in the month of July, I will be bringing in a regulation that will settle that problem once and for all. Those licences will be treated as dining-lounge licences so there will be no more problem with youths under the age of 19 being in there for family recreation.

Mr. Roy: Good boy.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do not think it is wrong for a father to bring his son into such a place just because the father might be having a drink after playing there.

Mr. Bradley: Does that go for beverage rooms?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No. Athletic clubs. Secondly, in the past few months across eastern Ontario, particularly between roughly the city of Kingston and the city of Ottawa and extending up into the county of Renfrew, there has been some concern, not about new regulations by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario but about enforcement of the old ones.

This is the first situation, I can say in all honesty, that has been brought to my attention from the city of Ottawa. In every other situation that has been brought to my attention by members on both sides of the House, the board has worked out a very simple procedure whereby the service club meets with the board -- and there have been many dozens of those meetings -- and in each and every case the service club has gone away extolling the virtues of the board and gone on to the very necessary and worthwhile fund-raising activities and other social types of gatherings.

Mr. S. Smith: Is that the purpose of the procedure?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I would like to draw to the attention of the House that in no way, shape or form does that imply any type of favouritism or something like that. It is merely that the board, since I have become the minister, has been instructed to take indigenous realities into account and not to treat everything in the province as the same.

ESL PROGRAMS

Mr. Grande: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Education. It is regarding the provision of English as a second language programs in this province. In view of the fact that on Thursday hundreds of parents who have children who need English as a second language programs will be marching in front of Queen’s Park, and in view of the fact many times in this Legislature I and other members of this party have raised the matter of the provision of English as a second language classes to teach immigrant children and children from immigrant families how to properly use the English language, and have complained that the ministry’s rating factor has been ineffective in providing for that program --

Mr. Sterling: Put the question.

Mr. Grande: -- will the minister comment on the following figures from the city of North York?

Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware?

Mr. Grande: Is the minister aware, Mr. Speaker, indeed.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Grande: Is the minister aware that at Gracedale Public School there are 170 children on the waiting list for English as a second language; 13 are receiving that program now, and as of September 1979 the program will be discontinued;

At Shoreham Public School 93 are on the waiting list; zero children are receiving the program now, and of course there will be no program in September.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Really, that’s enough to make your point. Does the minister have a response to what she has heard so far?

Mr. Swart: There’s no problem.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware problems of this sort have been raised. I am aware there is a mechanism for establishing the appropriate number of teachers of English as a second language and there are some differences, I must tell the member, in the base upon which it is established within the ministry, the base upon which the Metropolitan Toronto School Board has established it and the base upon which certain of the municipalities in the Toronto area have established it.

I am not aware there are any schools in which English as a second language is required by the students and in which the program is not being provided. I would remind the honourable member it is indeed the prerogative of the school board in that area to staff appropriately for the programs which are necessary within that area.

Mr. Mackenzie: Not if you don’t give them the money.

Mr. Warner: They don’t have money.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They have that kind of capability within the fund allocation which is provided.

Mr. Martel: Oh come on, that’s a copout.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It isn’t. It’s the truth. The member just does not want to hear it.

Mr. Grande: Does the minister realize that after taking all the 44 teachers allocated to it by the Metro formula, adding 16 teachers from the regular classrooms and then adding 34 more paid by the special local levy, the city of Toronto still will not be able to provide English as a second language classes for half of the 6,000 children who need it within that board alone?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked. Does the minister realize?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Those figures I have heard and those figures we are examining.

ISLAND STOL SERVICE

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: As the minister is aware, the federal government, as well as this government, has been supportive of a proposed STOL air service between Toronto Island airport and Montreal. Could the minister indicate to the House whether the federal government is prepared to continue to support this much-needed air service?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have not as yet had an opportunity to meet with my new federal counterpart, although I did write to him today outlining a number of topics I would like to discuss with Mr. Mazankowski. One of those items was the Toronto Island STOL service. I hope to meet with him at the first opportunity.

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. Peterson: A question to the Minister of Energy: In view of the speculation that the new federal Minister of Energy may want to increase the price of oil more than the dollar a barrel previously agreed upon for July 1, I am very interested in asking the minister what representations he has made to the new Minister of Energy? What is Ontario’s position? What is the minister going to do if in fact it goes up more than the agreed upon dollar per barrel?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have had no indication from the Alberta minister that there is any change in the agreement Alberta made with Canada some time ago, although I do see that on June 5 of this year, Hon. Mervin Leitch, the Minister of Energy for Alberta, stated in the Alberta Legislature: “I can say to the members of the assembly that I have no information that would lead me to think the agreement isn’t going to be implemented in accordance with its terms.”

Furthermore, I met with Mr. Leitch here this morning and among other things we were talking about that. He was on his way to a meeting with Mr. Hnatyshyn tomorrow, I believe. Certainly he didn’t give me any indication today he has proposed changing their position.

I remind the honourable member that Alberta has in the past taken a very strong stand that “an agreement is an agreement and is not to be broken.”

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: It wasn’t Hon. Mr. Leitch I was referring to. There is speculation, certainly in the press and I understand reasonably well founded, that the new federal Minister of Energy, Mr. Hnatyshyn, wants to increase the price of oil more than the agreed upon dollar. There is going to be some pressure at the federal level in the cabinet to do that.

Mr. Speaker: What is the question?

Mr. Peterson: What is the minister’s position with respect to that particular initiative if it comes about?

Hon. Mr. Add: An agreement is an agreement and is not to be broken.

CENTRAL PARK LODGE

Mr. Cooke: I have a question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development: I would like to ask if the minister is aware of a strike presently under way in Windsor at Central Park Lodge for senior citizens? Does she agree with my position that workers should not have to go out on strike to obtain adequate staffing, that that type of regulation should be brought in by the provincial government through a proper act to regulate rest homes, to provide for adequate staffing, to meet the needs of residents?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, through you to the honourable member, no, I am not aware of that situation and I don’t think I would like to comment until I am aware of the facts.

CO-PAYMENT FEES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to set the record straight. At the end of yesterday’s question period there was an exchange between the Provincial Secretary for Social Development and myself in which she indicated she had certain notes to suggest that our famous meeting at Chedoke Hospital was supposed to be a private meeting. I remember no such thing.

I have now checked with my staff and I assure the minister my staff is prepared to state under oath that at no time did we ever suggest that meeting would be private; at no time did any member of the minister’s staff say to any of our staff that it should be private.

I can appreciate the minister may have believed in her own mind, for whatever reason, that the meeting was going to be private, but no such indication was ever given by us. I frankly resent the idea, the notion, that I would offer to have a private meeting and turn around and fool the minister by having a television camera there. It is so ludicrous as to be beyond description. I don’t understand how the minister could have formed that impression and I wish, for the sake of the record, that she would withdraw that allegation because it is unworthy of her.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, methinks the honourable member doth protest too much.

I have a note which was hand-delivered to my office on Friday, June 8 from his staff. It reads: “The tour will centre on an informal visit with the patients of the continuing care unit. Most residents are longtime patients with, for example, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, stroke problems and multiple handicaps.

“If time permits the tour will include a tour of the whole continuing-care unit as well as the Holbrook building where shorter-term patients receive rehabilitation services.”

At no time was there any indication the press would be invited.

Mr. S. Smith: Where does the word “private” appear?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I make many visits at the request of members to have an opportunity to talk with people in some of our institutions. We have never made it a habit of involving patients with the press. We are there to hear from them what their problems are. Many are intimidated when the press is there.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, under standing rule 28(b) I’d like to give oral notice, and file notice with you and with the table, of my dissatisfaction with the answer the Minister of Natural Resources gave to my question with regard to Matacil spraying. In view of the events later in the day perhaps we could have the late night show on Thursday evening rather than today.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let’s have it Friday night.

REPORTS

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing social development committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee has reconsidered the report presented to the House on Friday, May 25, as printed in the votes and proceedings of that date, and reaffirms that report as the committee’s final report on the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital inquiry.

On motion by Mr. Gaunt, the debate was adjourned.

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. McCaffrey from the standing general government committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 163, An Act to reform the Law respecting Residential Tenancies.

Report adopted.

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

Interjections.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

Mr. Pope: I win my $2; I knew you guys wouldn’t do it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Chair and the table officers are going to be apprised and aware of what is going on we must hear one another and we can’t do so with all of this barracking.

Mr. Gregory: You broke your word.

Mr. Eaton: Your word is no good.

Mr. Laughren: You don’t always get your way around here.

Mr. Speaker: With any luck at all we have about two and a half days left around here. Will you just keep it nice and cool.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. Mackenzie be substituted for Mr. di Santo on the select committee on Hydro affairs.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing administration of justice committee and the resources development committee be authorized to sit tomorrow afternoon.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DRIVING SCHOOL ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of Bill 141, An Act to regulate Driving Schools.

Motion agreed to.

Interjections.

[Later (3:31):]

Mr. Speaker: I will recognize the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Would he like to explain the bill?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement earlier in today’s proceedings explaining the bill.

[Reverting (3:23):]

ALLEGATION AGAINST NDP RE BILL 163

Hon. Mr. Drea: Read Hansard; you broke your public word.

Mr. Laughren: You just can’t live with minority government.

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

Mr. Speaker: On a point of privilege, the honourable member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: My point of privilege is that sotto voce across the floor of the House there is the allegation being made the New Democratic Party had a commitment not to return Bill 163 into committee of the whole House. No such commitment of any kind was given by any member of this --

Interjections.

Mr. Godfrey: There certainly was.

Mr. Renwick: -- by any member of this caucus or of the members sitting on the committee or by the House leader of this party. I want at this time to correct any allegation before it is allowed to mushroom in the way in which the Tories wish to mushroom that issue.

Mr. Pope: It sure will mushroom. Commitments are useless.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have a point of privilege. With all due respect to the remarks made by the honourable member for Riverdale, there was --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Will you please take your seat? Order.

There is a legitimate time for a member to seek the eyes and the ears of the chair. There was a motion before the House and the honourable member for Riverdale could have at least waited until the content of that bill was read by the table officers. It is just courtesy. It would have meant another five or 10 seconds.

Mr. Renwick: My apologies. I thought you had recognized me, Mr. Speaker. I would not have otherwise interrupted. I thought you had recognized me.

Mr. Nixon: Just keep cool for another couple of days.

Mr. Martel: Since when does the table cut a member off?

Mr. Laughren: What is the table doing anyway? Is the table running this show?

Mr. Speaker: I really don’t think there is enough significance in the objections to really bother about it --

Mr. Nixon: Next vote.

Mr. Speaker: -- but for anybody to be saying that anybody who is a servant of this House is out of line I think is uncalled for.

Hon. Mr. Drea: On a point of privilege, just as a reply: With all due respect to the request for a point of privilege by the honourable member for Riverdale, there was a very clear understanding in the committee on general government last Thursday afternoon that the bill would be reported and that it would be ordered for third reading. Some of the people who demanded it go to committee today came to me and asked me if certain things could not be speeded up, in fact one section reopened on Thursday, because otherwise it would have to go to committee. As a personal favour to the committee, and the Hansards can be checked, as a personal favour from the minister I asked that a section be reopened so there would not need to be a burden placed upon this House for one particular section.

All I want to say is I am frankly very shocked and amazed; there was a very clear-cut understanding, and I will just leave it at that.

Mr. Eaton: Right on. Your word is useless, like your policies.

Mr. Renwick: The minister is obviously making a reference to me with respect to section 125 of the bill. The minister came to me and said he was going to reopen that section. I am glad he did. As a matter of equity to the tenants of this province it had to be done. But I at no time, nor to my knowledge did any member of the committee from this party, make any commitment of any kind about the matter.

We asked that the bill be not reported until this afternoon so that the New Democratic Party could caucus on the bill with the amendments, which our party did this morning. It did so, so that we would have the option to determine what our course would be, and that determination was made in the caucus.

I want, once and for all, to lay to rest the canard or false allegation hurled across the floor sotto voce for the record by members of the Conservative Party.

[3:30]

Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to clarify something at least from the position of those members of the committee who were there Thursday afternoon last. In fairness, it was one of the only days the member for Riverdale was not present.

Mr. Nixon: No wonder you made progress.

Mr. McCaffrey: The member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. M. N. Davison) and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) made it absolutely crystal clear -- and there is no error in this -- that, in the interests of getting out a bill which we all felt was in the best interests of the tenants of this province, we would indeed wait until Tuesday, with the very clear comment having been made that it would give each of us an opportunity to caucus the bill and, more important -- there is no misunderstanding this -- to preclude anyone, in error, from suggesting it go to committee of the whole. That is exactly how it happened.

Mr. Eaton: Let the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere speak up.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You had an opportunity to set the record straight.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 288, 289 and 240, and the interim answers to questions 242, 243, 244, 245, 265, 266, 267 and 269 standing on the Notice Paper, as well as the answer to question 248 and the interim answers to questions 214, 215, 216, 217, 250, 251 and 254 standing on the Notice Paper.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, also before the orders of the day, a point was raised by the leader of the third party on June 18 in connection with some information he was expecting from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. The honourable member directed questions 265, 266, 267 and 269 on Notice Paper 63 to the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman). As these questions pertain to purchases made by a number of ministries, the questions should be directed to the Minister of Government Services. My colleague the Minister of Government Services has agreed to prepare a reply to these questions.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 89, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill 89, I wish to inform the House of certain amendments to the bill which I propose to introduce during committee. The two opposition critics, I believe, have already received copies of these changes. There are seven sections that are affected, although most of the changes are of a very minor nature.

First, I am proposing amendments to sections 6 and 10 which simply correct the numbering of cross-references.

Section 7 is being amended to clarify the method of notification of licensees of cancellation or modification of their licences.

Section 17 is being amended to enable the filing of a tariff of tolls in a form satisfactory to the board rather than one actually provided by the board, thus carrying one step further our efforts to avoid unnecessary rigidities in the way in which transportation regulations are applied.

Section 27 is also being amended to include the closed-door operating authority, section 6(2), along with those other sections which are proposed to come into force on proclamation rather than on royal assent. The reason is to give us a little more flexibility in bringing this closed-door provision into effect simultaneously with the other neighbouring jurisdictions which are also working at implementing the CCMTA recommendation which was the source of this change.

That covers five of the sections which we are changing. The remaining two have greater substance.

The first of these involves a clarification of the definition of a commercial vehicle in section 1 of the bill to make it very plain that a passenger car loses its exemption from regulation when it is used to pull a trailer for the transportation of goods for hire. This clarification has been prompted by recent evidence that there have been some deliberate attempts to evade the provisions of the act in this manner.

The final change relates to section 11, the commercial cartage zones provision. Before speaking to the specific change I should note that since introduction of Bill 89 I have been made aware of some apprehensions on the part of industry as to the impact of the proposed change on the viability of existing carriers. It is not my intention, nor as I read the select committee was it its, that the implementation of this recommendation of the select committee should lead to drastic change. That was the reason for interposing a hearing by the board on the merits of each individual case.

Given the requirement to justify any change before the board and the opportunity afforded to all parties to present their views, I cannot see this legislation resulting in any wholesale creation of commercial zones. Nevertheless, I can appreciate the fears of some individuals. For this reason it may be useful for me to spell out clearly my intentions in bringing the legislation forward as a clear indication -- in fact a commitment -- as to the kinds of supporting evidence which I will be looking for in any board recommendation for the creation of a commercial cartage zone.

I need hardly remind members that this proposed legislation gives me, as minister, the right to refuse to create a zone which is recommended by the board.

My intention in bringing forward this legislation is to provide some small measure of relief where local industrial or business development spills across an urban municipal boundary. I appreciate that the present legislation allows local cartage operators to serve as far as three miles from the boundary of their municipality, but this does not apply where another urban municipality is adjacent; in other words, for a major portion of southern Ontario. Not only are there cases where the three-mile limit may be inadequate, but it seems unfair to deny local cartage services to any industry simply because it is located on the fringe of a second urban municipality.

The main criterion, as far as I am concerned, is that a commercial cartage zone should only be established where it has been determined that there is a single local economic community of interest which overlaps an urban municipal boundary. While it is conceived that the board may find that two adjacent urban municipalities in their entirety form a local economic community of interest, I would expect the board to look at such cases very critically with respect to the existing availability and orientation of transportation services.

In most cases I would expect that a commercial cartage zone would be based upon a single urban municipality with the addition of outlying areas which interact closely with it, such as rural strip developments along provincial highways which extend beyond the three-mile limit, or portions of adjacent urban municipalities which are under-served by their own urban cartage zones.

In other words, I simply wish to allow a degree of flexibility in the existing cartage situation. Specifically, in making recommendations as to the desirability of establishing a commercial cartage zone, I would expect the OHTB to consider and report on the following: (a) the extent to which a single local community of economic interest exists throughout the area proposed for inclusion in the zone; (b) the extent of economic interaction among the businesses and industries located within the proposed zone; (c) the patterns of existing and predicted demand for local and line haul trucking services; (d) the present availability of both local and line haul trucking services to shippers throughout the proposed zone; and (e) the impact of the creation of a commercial cartage zone upon existing local and line-haul carriers.

In addition to outlining to the Legislature the criteria which I will consider in determining whether or not to accept any board recommendation for the creation of a commercial cartage zone, I am also proposing some changes to section 11 of the bill to clarify the responsibility of the Ontario Highway Transport Board.

I am proposing the deletion of present reference to the district municipality of Muskoka, which forms subsection 5 of section 11, on advice from my legal advisers that it is redundant. In its place a new subsection 5 will direct the board to consider the economic impact of the creation of any proposed commercial cartage zone upon shippers, carters and public commercial vehicle operators.

In addition, this new subsection will place the board’s consideration within the context of finding public necessity and convenience. Once Bill 89 becomes law this will enable the government to issue the criteria outlined above to the OHTB in the form of a policy statement for its guidance in holding commercial cartage zone hearings.

That is the limit of my comments at this time.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased to participate in this particular debate today. This compendium of legislation reflects a number of changes that have transpired in the thinking of the government, the minister, the civil service and the Legislature itself.

I think back to a little over three years ago to an item of legislation, Bill 4, which I suppose was the first in a series of steps the government had intended to make with regard to effecting some change as it relates to the operation of the Public Commercial Vehicles Act in Ontario.

It would be redundant to go into the histrionics and the detail that surrounded Bill 4, except to say I think members of all parties and the Legislature itself have come a long way in their understanding of a very complex issue, transportation in Ontario. That is not to say we are complete in our understanding of this issue, but I think since Bill 4, which was not passed, and since the two reports of our select committee, members on all sides have come to appreciate what a complex issue this is and to understand there are no simple or easy solutions to the problems of transportation in Ontario.

After the select committee’s reports we saw two items of legislation which unfortunately were inadequate, and I regret the delays that were attendant as a result of the inadequacy of the legislation.

We have seen some progress, though, and I am pleased with the quality of this particular bill. I think the minister should be complimented; I suppose more specifically his staff, who have gone, in my opinion, to some trouble to accommodate the industry, to accommodate the shipping public and to accommodate members of the opposition, should be complimented.

We have here the start of some real improvements to the act, improvements that reflect the spirit and feeling of our select committee report. I think after the passage of this legislation and the enactment of the bill, it’s going to be difficult, certainly for myself, to complain that the spirit at least of the select committee report has not been respected.

Changes are going to be made with regard to certain commodities. It would be my hope the ministry would be attentive, aware and alert with regard to the problems that some of the people who move fresh fruit and vegetables are experiencing, and that provisions respecting enforcement, penalties and shipper collusion be enacted as soon as possible; I almost regard that as a quid pro quo for the passage of this legislation.

The restrictions respecting North Bay are to be removed and a new classification respecting lumber will be implemented. I think that in itself marks some sense of understanding we in the Legislature have for the problems in the north, for the problems facing the small carrier there respecting backhauls.

Over the course of the weekend I was doing a little reading on what goes on in other jurisdictions. I must say I personally am somewhat sensitive to the high cost of the movement of goods in northern Ontario. It would be my hope that in time a greater and more flexible licensing system may derive so that we can see a full movement of goods -- loaded vehicles wherever possible -- in order to do everything we can to reduce the cost of moving goods to our north.

[3:45]

The provisions respecting the enfranchisement of leasing operations or pseudo-leasing operations are most welcome by myself. I think back to discussions that the subcommittee of our select committee had with regard to this rather contentious issue. It was this issue in itself that brought about the select committee. I recall that on that subcommittee the honourable member for Scarborough Centre, now the Minister of Consumer and Community Relations (Mr. Drea), and the hard-working member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) and myself and members of staff spent a considerable amount of time working out compromises and seeing how we could possibly accommodate all people who were concerned.

In many ways the enfranchisement or the adapting to a legal form of people who heretofore were not necessarily operating illegally but were operating without benefit of a PCV licence in itself is recognition of the commercial patterns that have existed in Ontario, and possibly it reflects the difficulty that many operations have had in getting PCV licences through the Ontario Highway Transport Board.

It would be my hope that the regulated industry will accept their new cousins in good faith and that people who have been operating without benefit of legislation will come forward as prescribed in the act and make application. If they are treated fairly and objectively, in time everyone will be brought under the umbrella of the PCV Act so that we will see everyone in the province of Ontario operating under a regulated environment.

It would be redundant if I said I felt regulation was a panacea for all our shipping problems. But I do believe, especially in these days of very severe uncertainty with regard to the availability of fuel, that we are going to have to maintain a regulated system, a system that would be flexible, would be fair and would be competitive, but would be regulated, to see that we accommodate full loads wherever we can.

I find the various housekeeping amendments are in keeping with the spirit of the act. The improvement as far as uniformity of bills of lading goes will be of great assistance to those who are involved in enforcement, as will the provision for shipper responsibility vis-à-vis collusion.

I am particularly pleased to see there will be once again a formal method for the ministry to communicate its policy to the Ontario Highway Transport Board. During our brief investigation of the operations of the board this past spring it was quite apparent that all too often in too many instances the board was operating in somewhat of a vacuum. This particular provision provides one further mechanism for the minister to communicate his or her concerns and the concerns of the government to that board so that the board will at all times be reflecting government policy.

In conclusion, I appreciate the minister’s comments with regard to cartage. I know there was some genuine concern from people in the industry. It is time that we moved to correct the cartage situation and to see that wherever possible cartage zones reflect areas that have a community of interest, areas that have a business community of interest. Having participated on the select committee, I think I know as well as anyone that the whole cartage issue is a very contentious one and a very complex one. I think this particular item of legislation will in many ways help us in that regard.

Mr. Philip: I appreciate the opening statements of the minister and the member for Wentworth North, the Liberal transportation critic. If anything has come out of this long, hard struggle we’ve had with the problems of regulation in this province it’s that the three parties working together can eventually bring about a satisfactory solution so that everyone wins, particularly the shipping public.

I certainly rise in support of Bill 89. The bill has had a long and hard history. Bills 21 and 78 disappeared from the House. My party and the Liberal Party, of course, indicated to the government they were unacceptable, as did members of the trucking industry. Of course, I’m sure the minister realized there was that kind of opposition in the industry and he came back with what is undoubtedly a tremendously improved bill.

This bill in its present form, with its amendments, will be of great value, both to the trucking industry and to the shipping public. Although the bill does not contain all I would have liked to have seen in it, it is such an improvement over earlier bills that one must congratulate the minister and his staff for listening to the criticisms, the constructive criticisms, of the public and of the industry.

I am pleased to see that the hard work of the select committee on the highway transportation of goods is finding its way into legislation. I am pleased, also, to see that the minister is showing some leadership in developing policy that can be identified. That’s certainly something for which I and the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young), who was my predecessor as transportation critic, have called for a long time. The minister must take personal credit, and I am sure satisfaction, at seeing this kind of evolution.

Undoubtedly some of the praise for this bill must go to the Ontario Trucking Association, which has spoken for the industry and which has always been accessible to members of the government as well as to the opposition. Whenever members of the Legislature have had any real problems with legislation introduced earlier or with concerns about the industry, the association was always ready to answer our questions. Undoubtedly some of the credit for this bill must go to the OTA.

Credit should also be given to the very talented solicitor we had on the select committee, Max Rapoport, who has been a constant source of information and advice to a number of members of the House. Occasionally my long-distance phone bills show that I have not been slow in consulting him even though he is in retirement. Often it required long-distance phone calls to Florida to seek some clarification and to think through some of the problems facing the industry.

Lastly, I cannot help but suspect that the new chairman of the Ontario Highway Transport Board deserves some credit for this legislation. We in the opposition are often critical of the government and perhaps of the key public employees around the government benches and the government ministries, but certainly I have never been slow in saying I was pleased at the appointment of Mr. Alexander. I think both I and the Liberal critic have voiced our approval of his appointment, and of some of the statements he has made since he became chairman of the transport board.

Having said that, I still must confess that I cannot accept the section in the bill on the cartage industry. I am not at all certain that, even with the amendment to section 11, the bill is very much better than what presently exists. I cannot believe that entry regulation is not in the best interest of the shipper, even more than in the interest of the trucking industry. While accepting the reassurances the minister has just given, I still have the gut feeling that section 11 may be used as a form of deregulation. I will not move to delete the section. I think history will show whether or not my concerns are borne out or whether the reassurances of the minister will prove to be true.

I would be remiss, however, if I did not at least put these concerns on the record. Municipal licensing of cartage does not work; I think that is fairly clear. My suspicion is that the new regional form of quasi-deregulation will not work either; instead the board will be tied up in endless hearings. One need only look at some of the subsections of section 11 of the bill to see the board may well spend a great deal of time and energy on this.

Section 12(1) and section 11(4) overcome some of the problems I had with earlier proposed legislation. The weakness of the earlier proposals by the ministry was the possibility of someone getting around the current Public Commercial Vehicles Act by acquiring a series of municipal, or in this case it would be zone, authorities. The minister has plugged that hole and that at least shows he has been listening to what we in the opposition have been saying, to what some of the professional journals on the industry have been saying and also what the industry itself has been saying.

History will show whether I am correct that the movement of goods, be it in tow trucks or other forms of trucking, can only be regulated under the PCV Act; and I don’t know of any form other than with proper proof of necessity.

As I said before, having municipal licensing or operating authorities just doesn’t work. The regional or commercial zone proposal, I suspect, won’t work an awful lot better. Indeed you will have a system more difficult to administer. Again, only history will show whether that is true or not.

I suspect we will have a situation where some trucks will be operating under municipal operating authority; others perhaps even across the street or across a highway will be under regional authority. We know that in the same area you will have trucks going through with PCV operating authority. I suggest that will be very difficult to administer. If we are having trouble policing the present system, I wonder if this added complication will simply make the policing problem more difficult?

On page 1-18 of the final report of the select committee, the committee makes the following important comments:

“If economic regulation in Ontario is to work, it must be viewed as a system or a complex whole, a set of connecting things or parts or a set of co-ordinated doctrines. No system can be implemented piecemeal. A truck cannot be built of parts without a design with which each detailed part is compatible. This is equally true of a regulatory system.

“The committee does not believe in regulation as an end in itself but as a means of accomplishing defined policy objectives. If not part of a policy system, regulation is ad hoc and its effect can be contrary to public interest.

“Measures are recommended in this report which will be integral parts of an effective regulatory system. The necessary system is defined and recommendations are to be made with regard to the actual workings of the system.”

The cardinal principle of policy under which an integral system of regulation would be built is stated both in the select committee’s interim report on page 22 and in the final report on page 1-20: “We believe that it is crucial to retain economic regulatory controls over the movement of goods on Ontario highways. To retain capability for that movement is an absolute necessity; to retain influence for control over the shape and nature of that movement is clearly in the public interest.”

[4:00]

Even though all the government members supported this policy and even though the Minister of Transportation and Communication said in the House after the report was tabled that it is expected it will be in the Legislature, we still had, following the tabling of that report, the following quotation in the speech from the throne: “High transportation costs, particularly in the north, have long been a concern with shippers and consumers. Programs have been introduced at various times to help resolve this and related difficulties. The government has concluded that the adoption of a policy for selective deregulation of the trucking industry will go a long way to removing the inequities that remain. Additional benefits should derive from the effects on the cost of doing business and in terms of encouraging the expansion of secondary industry.”

Having listened to Her Honour deliver those sentences, one cannot help but feel that perhaps they refer not to the removal of the North Bay restriction, which is welcomed by members in this House, but one has the feeling that perhaps section 11 may somehow be related to those earlier sentiments.

Pardon my suspicion, but members on that side of the House have expressed those sentiments and it was in the speech from the throne. It’s therefore my position that we will be watching very closely to see how section 11, the section dealing with cartage, will be operating. We will be monitoring the minister’s policy statements in this regard.

I trust that the deregulation that was mentioned in the speech from the throne does not refer to section 11 and that section 11, or the cartage section, will not be simply the thin edge of the wedge towards deregulation, because the rest of the bill, the rest of the act -- and it will become an act in a few minutes I trust -- are just excellent.

I have spent a lot of time expressing my concern about section 2 and section 11. However, there’s an awful lot of good in this act, so much so that in talking with one executive from the industry he commented: “For heaven’s sakes, quickly accept the act, warts and all.” The wart that he was talking about was the section on the cartage industry. He says: “We’ve waited so long that we’ll accept it as it is.” So if the industry is willing to accept it who am I to disagree with that kind of sentiment? They and the shipping public are the ones most affected by this act.

I guess I was one of the most vocal members on the select committee in advocating action against those shippers who would enter into collusion with those carriers who would violate the PCV Act. This bill sees that equal justice will apply and certainly I commend the ministry for this. This should assist in seeing that the principle of a regulated trucking industry is not violated.

The North Bay restriction is also very welcome. My colleague, the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), has been a long-time advocate of this. I can remember how a very important member of the select committee, somebody that all of us valued as a friend, Dick Smith, was a great advocate of this as being an important addition that we needed, and I only regret that a great man who put so much hard work into the select committee report is not here to take some of the credit for the ideas, because some of the ideas were his.

The select committee recommended that the restrictions be removed and the member for Algoma, Mr. Smith and I and other members did so because we had heard from shippers and municipal organizations and we were convinced that it was the right step to take at this point in time. We realized that the restrictions that were imposed in the 1930s made sense at that time but they no longer make sense today.

There are a great number of other improvements in the act that we in the NDP have been advocating for some time: Changes such as uniform bills of lading, which we heard from shippers and from the shipping industry, and particularly those that we had a great deal of information from when we held hearings in the border towns, is now seeing the light of day and of course will improve and facilitate the quick movement of goods. In summary, we will support the bill joyously over most sections, but reluctantly over the section dealing with cartage.

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express some concerns about one area of the bill which I have had an opportunity to discuss with the minister; that is, of course, the matter of transportation of wood products for the lumber industry, particularly from the northeast section of northern Ontario, and more particularly from the Hearst area. I realize it is only one area; nevertheless, it certainly raises many concerns in my mind, as well as in the minds of the people in the lumber industry.

One of the problems they have up there -- I know that the minister is very familiar with the problem, and that he has spent much time discussing the various points with them -- is obtaining public commercial vehicles to carry their lumber when a request is made of them for delivery. As the minister knows, these lumber companies have literally millions of board feet of lumber stacked in their yards. When they receive calls for the shipment of so many board feet, they have run into very grave difficulties in the past in obtaining carriers immediately for the transportation of these goods. It is an immediate concern for them when they do get a request and they can’t follow through on it because, in the first place, they have lots of money tied up in that inventory -- they have bank loans, and they have to pay interest on those bank loans -- and the name of the game, of course, is to get that lumber out as soon as possible.

One of the problems was expressed to me by a member of the Hearst Lumbermen’s Association, who indicated to me that at one point last winter he had more than 12 million board feet of lumber sitting in his yard. He was on the verge of bankruptcy, the main reason being that he could not get delivery of the lumber.

There are two main carriers in that area, as the minister knows. There is Star Transport, which operates out of Timmins, and there is Alary Transport, which operates out of Hearst-Kapuskasing. In both instances, again, as I am sure the minister is aware -- and this has been made quite clear to him by them -- upon asking for a carrier of a load of lumber, the answer is from Alary, for example, “We are not going to deliver a load of lumber to Windsor or to Toronto unless we have a return load to come back with.” Star Transport will say, “We are not going to Timmins to pick up your lumber unless we have a return load to come back to Hearst” or wherever the place may be. These carriers, understandably so, are not prepared to operate on a one-way load basis only; they want a return trip that guarantees them some form of revenue whichever way they are going.

The problem has been expressed clearly by the lumber company, and their concerns were clearly set out in a letter, under date of May 19, 1979, to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle). I would like to put on the record for posterity some of the problems they raise in their letter -- again, I understand that the minister has taken these problems into consideration and that through the W licence, as I believe it is called, he has come up with what he feels is a solution, and I would like to speak to the House shortly on that point.

I would like to read some of the comments made by the Hearst Lumbermen’s Association.

“We note that we still will be required to prove public necessity and attend hearings before a licence or a certificate can be issued,” a point which is the major contention presently.

“In the case of lumber for which transportation is required when the market calls for it, it is not public necessity which should have to be proven but rather industry necessity. We maintain that these special licences should be available upon request, if need be proved by industry that they are required, without the need of any hearing.

When the demand is there it is not time to attend hearings -- “

Mr. Philip: How do you prove it without a hearing?

Mr. Bolan: Will the member for Etobicoke just listen?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the honourable member continue and disregard the interjections?

Mr. Bolan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

“When the demand is there it is not time to attend hearings and debate whether you can ship your lumber or not. Certainly by this time it should be known that you do not compare the movements of lumber with that of a department store or whatever.”

I think we are all aware of the fact that when one is dealing with the shipment of goods in northern Ontario it is not like dealing with the shipment of goods in Hamilton or Toronto or the golden horseshoe, places where they have transportation, carriage, available immediately. I understand what the lifting of the North Bay restrictions means. However, I am not satisfied in my own mind that that is the answer to the problem.

Although the minister has explained it to me with respect to the W licences, I would like to hear his comments again on that when he makes his reply on second reading of the bill. If I have that assurance that his ministry feels the issuance and creation of the W licence will go a long way to assist the lumber industry in the movement of wood products from northeastern Ontario, I will not bring in an amendment which I have prepared.

I am not trying to be difficult about the matter. I want some reasonable assurance from the minister’s people that in the professional opinion of the people who deal with the minister they believe the situation up there, which at times as I have indicated is quite critical, could be solved with the creation of the W licence.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I thank the three honourable members who have spoken for their contribution to the debate on this long-awaited Bill 89.

I recognize the concern of the member for Etobicoke regarding the commercial cartage zones. He and I disagree on that particular matter. I really feel that with what we have now in the bill, plus the guidelines I outlined in my statement and that I propose to make official to the board, he has nothing to fear as far as the shadows or bogymen he sees or feels he may see are concerned. I don’t worry about bogymen, I only worry about real things.

Mr. Philip: The bogymen are in the speech from the throne. They are a little bit larger bogymen, that is the only thing.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would want me to ignore the interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Indeed.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to comment, though, on the comments of the member for Nipissing. We did have a discussion on this a week or so ago when we thought this bill was coming up at that time for second reading. I think I explained fully our concerns and our intention regarding the W licence.

I am also very much aware of the desire of the Hearst Lumbermen’s Association. They only have one real desire and that is for the total deregulation of the hauling of lumber. This is something that has been discussed and I must say I think the provisions we have now -- well, there are several things. First of all, the elimination of the North Bay restriction will have some effect. I am not sure at this moment -- and I am sure the member for Nipissing isn’t and I don’t think anyone is -- as to just what effect that will have on the movement of lumber.

[4:15]

Many licensed C or D carriers -- C carriers mainly -- who are presently prohibited from going north to North Bay will have that restriction removed. This may make some units available in the north to haul that type of material down. I doubt if this will help too much with the real lumber part of the commodity, but it may help with the plywoods and the more finished products. Only time will tell how much additional capacity for the mills the removal of the North Bay restriction will make.

We recognize lumber as somewhat of a special commodity. It has been with this in mind we have looked at several things in the last couple of years in the other bills. We now have in the new W licence a type of licence that will be available at a modest fee. That will keep a large fee from having to be built into the rates for the hauling of lumber. It will be a fee similar to that for an R licence for the dumptruck industry. The applications will be handled somewhat in the same way as our licence applications. There will be a hearing of necessity before a licence will be granted, but we also propose there could be a hearing held, as has recently been done with the R licence, to establish the need for the number of additional licensed units necessary in any of the three areas of the province -- northwestern, northeastern or eastern Ontario -- where these licences will apply.

I think we have the mechanism for keeping a regulated fleet in the lumber hauling industry, while not adding large additional costs to the movement of lumber, which is a competitive commodity, and perhaps more important establishing a system where we can assure there will be the number of vehicles necessary so there will not be a shortage. We will have a method of determining the need so the appropriate number of vehicles can be licensed.

I am satisfied in my mind that with the ability of policy direction with this new type of licence, with the ability to hold a hearing to determine the demand and with the ability to hold the hearing to grant the licences, we can assure the industrialists, the lumber manufacturers of northwestern, northeastern and eastern Ontario, that they will have adequate vehicles to move their commodity.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole house.

House in committee of the whole.

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 89, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

On section 1:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that clause (ad) of section 1(1) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(ad) ‘commercial vehicle’ means: (i) a commercial motor vehicle or a combination of commercial motor vehicle and trailer, as defined in the Highway Traffic Act, drawn by it; (ii) a dual purpose vehicle or a combination of dual purpose vehicle and a trailer, as defined in the Highway Traffic Act, drawn by it; or (iii) any other motor vehicle as defined in the Highway Traffic Act while drawing a trailer as defined in that act, a combination of the motor vehicle and the trailer constituting the commercial vehicle.”

Does the minister wish to explain the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think I explained that amendment in my opening statement. That amendment covers the situation where an automobile now exempt from the act is drawing a trailer and hauling goods for hire and therefore becomes a commercial vehicle. There would be no doubt it would require a PCV licence.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any other member wishing to speak to the amendment?

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister would make it very clear for purposes of enforcement that non-commercial vehicles have no requirement to pull in and be weighed or inspected. I think there is some concern by the public, especially people who have U-hauls, or people who are going back and forth to their cottages, that that might be the case. While it seems to be clear in the legislation I think the public may be concerned.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, if a motor car is hauling a trailer carrying goods for hire this amendment makes that motor car a commercial vehicle and, as such, it would have to go through the inspection stations; but it wouldn’t affect people pulling trailers behind their cars taking beer to the cottage.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that section 6(18)(a) of the act, as set out in section 6(4) of the bill, be amended by striking out “14” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “19.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Did I understand the member for Etobicoke wished to speak to section 6?

Mr. Philip: No, Mr. Chairman; we are in agreement with all the sections.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that section 6(a) of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding at the end thereof:

“and the revocation or amendment of the licence shall be effective on the fifth day after the day notice of the revocation or amendment is mailed by registered mail addressed to the licensee at his last known address.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that section 10(e) of the act as set out in section 10(2) of the bill be amended by striking out “18” in the fifth line and inserting in lieu thereof “9.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

On section 11:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that section 11(5) of the act, as set out in section 11 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(5) In determining whether to recommend the designation of a commercial cartage zone the board shall consider whether public necessity and convenience will be served thereby, taking into account the impact thereof on the users of for-hire transportation services within the area under consideration and the providers of such services; and considering the impact on the providers of such services, the board will take into account the impact on those operating exclusively within areas of the proposed zones to which this act does not apply and those who hold operating licences which would be affected thereby.”

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, we think this improves section 11. Even though we are not all that comfortable with section 11, it certainly makes us a little bit more comfortable. We are pleased that the minister met with the industry and, I gather as a result of some of his talks with them, came up with this amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 12 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 17:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that section 12(k) of the act, as set out in section 17 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“12(k). A tariff of tolls shall be filed in a form satisfactory to the board and any tariff so filed shall be published and maintained available to the public by the board.”

Motion agreed to.

Sections 18 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 27:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that section 27 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“27(1). This act, except section 3, subsections 2, 3 and 4 of section 6, subsection 2 of section 8, subsection 2 of section 10 and sections 19, 21 and 26, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

“(2). Section 3 comes into force on August 1, 1979.

“(3). Subsections 2, 3 and 4 of section 6, subsection 2 of section 8, subsection 2 of section 10 and sections 19, 21 and 26 come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

Section 28 agreed to.

Bill 89, as amended, reported.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 90, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

On section 1:

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, on the last occasion we discussed this bill, my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan) raised a matter pertaining to section 1 with respect to an amendment to the existing section 7(a) which pertains to the definition of a driver.

[4:30]

At that time I joined in the debate and expressed concern about how the word “driver” could be interpreted. Since that time, I have had occasion to discuss this with the minister and review the jurisprudence on the point. There was a decision by Mr. Justice Robins of the Supreme Court of Ontario noting there was some confusion about the word “driver.” An explanation was given by the minister as to when the word “driver” was inserted in the act -- I think it was 1973 -- and the confusion that can arise from that. With this explanation I am satisfied this amendment clarifies what a driver is. However, I still express concern -- and I think our concerns are clearly on record from the last occasion we discussed this bill -- that the definition is extremely wide. Thinking about the section, I have not seen any solution about how we could narrow it down and at the same time effect the purpose intended by the amendment. On that basis I have no further comments to make on that section.

I do have comments to make on section 2(l)(1) of the bill.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Let the minister speak first. He may solve all your problems.

Mr. Roy: I hope he does.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m not happy with this amendment at all and I am going to put it forward with great reluctance. I really think what this amendment is doing is unnecessary and regressive as far as the meaning of this act is concerned.

Mr. J. Reed: Then why are you doing it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I recognize a legal point that the lawyers have been arguing about for some time, so perhaps with the mood of the House today I will propose the amendment and then, if it doesn’t work, I will be able to say it was somebody else’s fault.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that section 14(1) of the act as set out in section 2(1) of the bill be amended by inserting after “for” in the third line the word “reasonable.”

Mr. J. Reed: You wouldn’t use “reasonable.”

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does anybody wish to speak to this amendment?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to explain it.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I assume you all understand it and have it before you.

Mr. Philip: We don’t have the amendment before us.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m sorry, this amendment wasn’t distributed. It was something we just concocted up here.

Mr. J. Reed: Typical Tory ad-hockery.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The meaning of all that is that the bill previously said a driver must produce his licence for inspection upon the demand of a constable or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of the act. There has been a situation where an individual reached into his pocket, pulled out his licence, put it back into his pocket and said “I produced it.” Of course, the officer was not able to see it. I am not very happy with that kind of a thing being in this act.

The amendment in the act -- not the amendment I submitted -- says: “Every operator of a motor vehicle shall carry his licence with him at all times while he is in charge of a motor vehicle and shall surrender the licence for inspection upon the demand of a constable or officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this act.” That is the subsection my honourable friend from Ottawa East objects to. On a very narrow point of law here, he tells me an unreasonable constable could say he needed that licence for 24 hours, 48 hours or seven days to inspect it. I don’t think the police forces of our province or our municipalities are going to take that attitude.

The amendment I have just given says the driver must surrender the licence for reasonable inspection. That still covers the point I want to cover in the act and I hope that will satisfy the honourable member.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, if I may make some brief comment about that I will say in passing I suspect the reluctance of the minister to make the amendment. He was fortunate I was here because I suspect this amendment may not otherwise have been made. I don’t say this in a facetious fashion but I suspect it may not have been in there, seeing the minister’s reluctance in proposing the amendment.

Let me explain, Mr. Chairman, what my concern was about that section. First of all, the act read before that an individual “shall produce his licence for inspection.” Having read the act the way it was originally worded and looking at this amendment, it immediately dawned on me what must have happened, why the amendment was necessary. Not knowing the factual situation, I suspect some individual, possibly with some legal training, on some --

Hon. Mr. Snow: An inebriated lawyer.

Mr. Roy: Well, you put it on the record, but they do take liquor once in a while.

What happened was this individual was testing the limits of the law. Having been stopped on one evening he probably did exactly what the minister suggested -- took his licence out and said, “I am producing it,” but did not give the constable an opportunity to inspect it. Or he said, “You inspected it. I have produced it and you inspected it,” but did not give him a chance to read the particulars on the licence. As it turned out, this is exactly what had happened.

Every time you enact laws, Mr. Chairman -- you know this -- the law has to be as reasonable as you can possibly make it and it has to apply to the widest range of people, but at both ends you have people who may take advantage of the law. At times there is just no way to enact a law involving all the people who will abuse it. We see it with our Criminal Code all the time; with as many amendments as it has had and as encompassing as it is, it is still sometimes not adequate.

You know, Mr. Chairman, from your experience, not only as a member here but as a member of the executive branch, the Criminal Code is not sufficient, for instance, to deal with organized crime. There is a particular modus operandi there which cannot be covered by certain laws such as those in the Criminal Code.

This is what happened in this case; an individual abused the law and I can understand and appreciate the amendment.

Before the amendment proposed by the minister the act said the individual “shall surrender his licence for inspection.” First of all, the word “surrender” has a connotation which is somewhat frightening to people who tended to value their driver’s licence -- that you take your driver’s licence and you surrender it over -- but having seen the interpretation by the courts that the word produced was not sufficient, I can understand that.

Then they went on to say “surrender their licence for inspection.” My concern is, having blocked one end of the abuse, possibly you leave it open on the other side that an over-diligent police officer enforcing this section -- and I want to make it clear again that the amendment deals with people and that the majority of police officers wouldn’t even think of doing that. The majority of police officers, whom we have come to respect and support in this province, would basically understand that section permits them to have the licence, read the particulars on it, possibly use their car phone, check with the computer if everything is okay and give the licence back.

I felt the possibility existed there, Mr. Chairman, that if the word “reasonable” was not there, there was no one to interpret what the inspection involved. So you could have had a situation where a police officer who didn’t like Joe Blow who kept rodding his car around the town or something could say, “Let’s have your licence and give me the next 10 or 12 hours to inspect it.” In other words, he could have used that section under the guise of inspecting it for suspending the licences of individuals for a limited period of time.

I just wanted to have a situation where it was clear that police enforcing such a law would be reasonable. The word “reasonable” is used all over the Criminal Code. It’s used all over the place when we’re talking about statutes which affect enforcement and punishment, that police use reasonable and probable grounds. That word is used repeatedly in law.

That was the reason I tried to convince the minister that while I was concerned about the word surrender, at the other end I was also concerned that the inspection by the police officer was reasonable. Therefore, if someone tried to abuse this section by taking a licence for a period of be it two or three hours, be it 10 hours -- I’m not suggesting that he would have taken the licence for a week, because I think then the courts would have certainly said that that was not the inspection they had in mind -- I felt that in having the word reasonable there, if a police officer was to take someone’s licence for a period of 12 hours or 24 hours in these circumstances someone would be there to judge that maybe that was not reasonable in the circumstances.

So I hopefully, with this type of amendment --

Mr. Ashe: You’re supporting the amendment.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I appreciate that, but the thing has got to be on the record -- the member for Durham West, as usual, his contribution to the debate is limited to shouting and using his hands. I just want him to understand that those of us on this side involved in the legislative process, and sometimes involved even in the administration of the law itself, like to see that we draft the best laws possible. We feel there is some onus even for members like him to understand what the amendments are about.

On that basis I wanted to make my comments very clear and say to the minister that when he looks back in his old days at legislation he will not have to regret the day when he inserted the word “reasonable” in the statute. I don’t think this is the type of amendment that is going to come back to haunt him, and it seems to me that that is the type of progressive and well balanced legislation which we should get out of this assembly.

Mr. Philip: The member for Ottawa East says the member for Durham West only interjects, or does not contribute much to the debate. I’ve heard more concrete, reasonable proposals from the member for Durham West and at least he is here constantly and does not just come in for an occasional interjection on a legal technicality.

I think that what is dealt with in law is a real response to a real problem. The member for Ottawa East does not in any way convince me that this is a potential problem. I recognize that the minister has compromised to the member as a way of getting the bill through quickly. I won’t take any more time. I won’t support but I won’t object to the amendment.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

[4:45]

On section 10:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that section 96(1)(a) of the act, as set out in section 10 of the bill, be amended by striking out “or” at the end of subclause (i) and by adding “or” at the end of subclause (ii) and by adding thereto the following subclause:

“(iii) an ambulance while responding to an emergency call or being used to transport a patient or injured person in an emergency situation.”

He further moves that section 96(5a) be amended by striking out “located on the roof of the vehicle” in the third line and by inserting after “light” in the fourth line the words “visible from all directions.”

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will explain it very briefly. I think on introduction of the bill, I told the House I was going to move this amendment, and this includes ambulances as well as the police vehicles and fire apparatus. The second amendment, I moved because some of the older fire engines don’t have a roof on the cab where the light can be mounted. This means it doesn’t necessarily have to be mounted on the roof.

Mr. Roy: I think this is a wise amendment. I have discussed with the minister a factual situation that happened recently in the city of Ottawa where a motor vehicle was involved in an accident with an ambulance. The question of liability for very extensive damages was an issue involving a long trial. It was a very unfortunate situation in that the driver of the motor vehicle was a paraplegic.

I think it was necessary to clarify the law. I was involved in that case before the Supreme Court and it was a real problem in determining the question of liability between the parties. There was no way of settling any action of this nature. I think with the law as it stands now, there would have been no question as to liability. It would have solved the problem without involving a lengthy and very costly trial. I think the amendment helps clarify the law in that regard.

Motion agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Section 11 agreed to.

On section 12:

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I have a rather lengthy amendment here, but I guess it has to be read into the record at least once; is that right?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Yes, I think perhaps it should be at least read once.

Hon. Mr. Snow moves that section 12 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“12(1) Subsection 1 of section 120 of the said act, as re-enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1974, chapter 123, section 29, is amended by inserting after ‘children’ in the second line ‘or mentally retarded adults’ and by inserting after ‘school’ in the second line ‘or a training centre.’

“(2) Subsection 3 of the said section 120, as re-enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1975, chapter 64, section 1, is amended by inserting after ‘children’ in the third line ‘or mentally retarded adults’ and by inserting after children in the eighth line ‘or mentally retarded adults.’

“(3) Subsection 5 of the said section 120 is amended by inserting after ‘children’ in the fourth line ‘or mentally retarded adults’ and by adding at the end thereof ‘or a training centre.’

“(4) Subsection 6 of the said section 120, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1974, chapter 128, section 29, 1975, chapter 64, section 1, and 1977, chapter 54, section 14, is further amended by adding at the end of clause (a) ‘or for transporting mentally retarded adults to and from a training centre’ and by repealing clause (h) and (i) and substituting therefor the following clause:

“(h) requiring the retention of prescribed books within vehicles or any class or type thereof and prescribing the information to be contained and the entries to be recorded in the books.”

Hon. Mr. Snow: I believe I explained during second reading of the bill that in that amendment the last paragraph refers to the log books. I think it is self-explanatory. The balance of it is to implement the contents of the private member’s resolution put forward by the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, which I believe was supported by all parties in the House. It provides for the use of school bus safety features when transporting mentally retarded adults.

Motion agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 13 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 90, as amended, reported.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 99, An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Are there any amendments to be put forward by the minister?

Hon. Mr. Snow: With a bill with a number like that, Mr. Chairman, I would almost like to move that we delete the whole bill.

On section 1:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that sections 1 and 11 of the bill be struck out.

Mr. Philip: I appreciate that the minister has responded to some of the concerns that were voiced by members of the New Democratic Party on section 1. I had circulated to the minister the fact that I was prepared to move an amendment to section 1 that after the word “route” would have added “as prescribed by regulation or specified in the traffic control manual for highway work operations, published by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications.” The minister, in turn, said he would rather delete the section and continue to monitor and look at the problem. I can appreciate that he has done this and, therefore, I will not move my amendment, now that he is deleting it.

I would like the minister to give his opinions on one question for the record. I have met with some of his staff and I am still not certain as to the actual status of the traffic control manual for highway work operations. We know this is published by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. I was told in the meeting I had, following my concerns on section 1, that this is continuously updated and that new studies and various situations are dealt with.

In looking through the manual, it certainly seems fairly specific. One would think the ministry has been doing a considerable amount of work at developing rules for adequate signing to cover most situations. I guess my concern is what steps are being taken to ensure that the municipalities in particular -- and I am a little less concerned about the Ministry of Transportation and Communications employees who, I am sure, probably use this as a Bible -- but other groups also, such as private contractors and so forth, are following this manual, since one would assume that the situations dealt with in the manual involved a considerable amount of thought and make a considerable amount of sense. I would like the minister to address himself to that.

Why is it that, instead of deleting section 1, he is not moving in the opposite direction, which would at least give additional weight to this manual?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, the document referred to by the honourable member, the highway work operations manual, is not a legal document; it does not have a legal status. It is a guideline put out by the ministry for use by ministry staff. It is accepted by most municipalities and, I think, by most contractors as a guide for proper signing and safety measures when work is being done on a highway.

The manual is under active review and expansion at the present time. The Municipal Engineers Association is involved in the review. It will be revised, and there will be wide distribution of the manual to many municipalities in the province.

The situation right now is not a difficult one. We were attempting to clarify and simplify procedures by the amendment in this bill. The honourable members have expressed some concern and, rather than make or accept any hasty amendment at this time -- this act is amended on almost an annual basis -- I would prefer just to delete the two sections involved, section 1 and section 11; then, on completion of the review of the manual and after giving some further thought to this matter, perhaps we can come back with a more complete reasoned amendment the next time the act is amended.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, is the minister’s concern one of the need for flexibility, since the manual has not yet been completed to the fullness that he or his staff would like, or is it one of concern over possible litigation, that perhaps the ministry would be more subject to court action for specific violations where either the ministry staff, a contractor’s staff or a municipality’s staff have violated this? I wonder if he can give us some indication of how he would weigh those two possible objectives. Perhaps it’s both reasons.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I must admit I am having a little trouble trying to understand what the honourable member wants. First of all, I have explained to him that the document he is referring to is a guideline put out by the ministry. It is something we update periodically. It is very difficult in a guideline manual that defines signing and safety barriers and precautions that must be taken during construction jobs -- there has to be some degree of common sense used on a job, depending on the grade, the curves, or whatever the situation may be. It is not our intention to put that manual forward as part of an act or as a legal document.

[5:00]

There is the concern that there might be times when our staff would be called upon if there were litigation over whether a sign was properly installed on a construction job and an accident was caused. From the wording of that amendment, as I read it, my staff and engineers would be called into every court case to determine whether the sign was installed in accordance with the manual. As the manual is not a legal document but a guideline, I don’t think this is the proper thing to do.

In dealing with this, the courts normally hold road authorities liable if they are negligent. The courts decide whether the construction site was properly signed and lit and whether it was safe or not.

The provision we were trying to bring in in this amendment was simply to eliminate the need for the actual signing, if the road was closed because there was a roadside detour. I guess the ministry has been living with that provision in the act for a number of years. The members have expressed concern about jt. I propose to delete these sections and ask for a few more months’ time to bring back an amendment after everything has been properly looked into.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The minister has moved that section 1 and section 11 be deleted from the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: That will result in renumbering. We will use the numbers as printed in the bill.

Sections 2 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 12:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Snow moves that section 12 of the bill be struck out and the following be substituted therefor: “That this act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Section 13, agreed to.

Bill 99, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House reported three bills with amendments.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 89, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act;

Bill 90, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act;

Bill 99, An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the next two orders are 17 and 19 dealing with municipal hydro restructuring. I would remind the members of the House we are sitting only until six this evening.

HALTON MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Auld, moved second reading of Bill 119, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Halton.

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

Mr. Ashe: Yes, very briefly, Mr. Speaker. This is the first of two bills restructuring the hydro-electric services in the regional municipality of Halton and also in the regional municipality of Durham. This piece of legislation creates four utilities in the four local municipalities in the regional municipality of Halton. There has been some concern indicated by the municipality of Halton Hills that they would not have enough time to organize the transitions before January 1, 1980, so we will be proposing an amendment in committee that would give them a three-month extension on the option of coming together under the new utility.

Mr. J. Reed: In addressing this bill I should point out that this restructuring will take place on an expanded municipal basis. I say that because I know the original intent of the government when regional government came into existence was to create regional hydro utilities.

I think Ontario Hydro and the government both recognize that the expanded municipal concept is a very viable concept for hydro restructuring. I would serve notice on the government too that if, as is the fear expressed by a few, this might be one step towards a regional system, I for one would be very much opposed to the implementation of any such regional eventuality.

I feel the big beneficiaries of this restructuring, or the immediate beneficiaries, are going to be the rural people, who traditionally pay a substantial premium for their electric power. With this restructuring, the rates will find themselves coming together, possibly over a period of time, but the decision as to how to accomplish those objectives will be made by the new utility.

I should also like to point out that in the Halton restructuring, we have a relatively simple situation in three of the four utilities where we have one commission which is simply expanding its boundaries. The difference that exists with Halton Hills is that there are two municipal commissions in existence, the Acton Hydro Commission and the Georgetown Hydro Commission, and the area of old Esquesing is the rural area. It stands to reason then there are certainly more difficulties in ensuring a smooth transition from the situation as it exists now into this new expanded municipal concept.

I want to go on record as being disturbed, if the information given me is correct, that the bill which brings this into effect was first presented to the commissioners only on May 25, 1979. We know this matter had been debated by a task force; it had been given consideration and so on, but the bill itself was only shown to them at that time. This has been one of the causes of the difficulty and the reason for the request to delay implementation. It is physically very, very difficult to do it in the kind of time originally scheduled. I think the commissions very rightly felt they were being herded in a direction they did not want to go without due, proper consideration and without the proper groundwork to provide for a smooth transition.

At this time, to all of those commissions whose faces will change as a result of this bill I would like to pay tribute for the work they have done, to their efficiency and effectiveness and to the role they have played in the Halton area in the past. They have been manned by people who have been dedicated and consistent in their work and certainly it is fitting to pay tribute to them at this time.

The task force that looked at this bill made recommendations that do not entirely agree with the contents of the bill. Three of the municipal systems agreed with the task force. The fourth one, Halton Hills, made recommendations which are not consistent with this bill. However, since that time the commissions themselves have got together and worked out this method, the method of simply delaying the implementation of the thing for three months which will allow them to do a proper restructuring job. I welcome, then, the amendment by the honourable member which will simply put back the date of implementation from January 1, 1980, to April 1, 1980.

I should also point out that between the two utilities in the Halton Hills area there has been a great deal of sacrifice on the part of both commissions and a very mature understanding of the direction in which this bill would take them. I would like at last to express my appreciation to the members of both those commissions who worked with me to give a very reasoned and understanding consideration, who were able to put by the personalities of the moment and so on to look forward to what we hope will be a step in the right direction.

I firmly hope and believe this kind of step, this enlarged municipal step, will save us from a regional concept as was once envisaged. I think it is very important to put that on the record. I sincerely trust the expansion will have the desired effect for the rural people.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us, Bill 119, is very similar to a number of bills that have brought about restructuring in the various municipalities and regions in this province. We in this party have supported the other bills with some reservations and with the introduction of some amendments which didn’t receive the approval of the House.

[5:15]

Bill 119 is perhaps less controversial than the bill for Niagara or the bill for Oxford or some of the other areas where there were two classes of local municipalities, one where the municipality was to supply all of the hydro within the municipalities and others where the rural hydro was still supplying part of the municipality. In those municipalities where there were two authorities supplying the hydro there were obviously some concerns, because the costs varied substantially between one and the other and there were parts of the urban areas left out of the urban commissions and, therefore, even though they were urban areas they had to pay a much higher rate. That doesn’t exist in this bill, where we have the four municipalities and a commission for each supplying all of the consumers.

As has been stated by the member for Halton-Burlington this will primarily be of benefit to the people in the rural areas of these municipalities and, of course, those urban areas which formerly were supplied by the Ontario rural hydro. In those four municipalities, it is going to provide a substantial improvement over what they have at the present time.

The provisions in this bill have been worked out in a number of bills and are similar to a number of other bills; it seems to me they give adequate protection to the employees. This must be of concern to those who now work for the rural hydro and, for that matter, who work for the existing commissions who will be assured of job security in the bill which is before us.

I am not going to go into any details with regard to this bill or even with regard to the principle of the bill, because it has been debated at least half a dozen times in this House over the last two years. I will simply say our party is going to support Bill 199 without any amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to the bill? If not, the member for Durham West.

Mr. Ashe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief. I want to start off saying I appreciate the expediency with which we have been handling second reading of this bill. I will just touch briefly on the points mentioned by the member for Halton-Burlington.

He talked about the timing. It is very true, the date of May 25 is about correct when they actually saw the bill per se. Of course, there had been ongoing involvement and discussion with the local study team with the knowledge of the existing commissions of what was happening. I wouldn’t want to leave the impression that was really the first time they ever became aware that legislation was forthcoming.

There was every intention at that time and since that the legislation could be finalized in this sitting, but recognizing the possibility it would not and we would run out of time, finalization will be left over until the fall. But that was never the intent and I don’t think it was ever indicated as being the intent per se. It was just recognizing a possibility.

The member for Halton-Burlington makes an excellent point, to which I would also add my remarks, relative to a regional utility versus the lower-tier utility we are now going forward with in this legislation and in bills passed in the not-too-distant past as well. It does make viable utilities within the local tier level and it will suit the purposes and serve the needs very well of those municipalities and the people they serve.

If there is ever any expansion of that, I suggest it will be on the impetus of the utilities themselves and not on behalf of this government. I would suggest that is not imminent and I would concur with that completely.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) touched upon the similarity of this bill to previous ones and there’s no doubt it is similar. It also embodies the principles coming out of the Hogg report and it does, as was already mentioned, contain full protection to employees.

In closing, I would also like to acknowledge the assistance and co-operation of the honourable members and of the municipality and the local study team for the efforts they’ve put in, and the commissions now in existence and their staff. They have all been very co-operative with the staff of the Ministry of Energy and Ontario Hydro and myself personally and for that I thank them.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

DURHAM MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Auld, moved second reading of Bill 123, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Durham.

Mr. Ashe: Very briefly again, the principles of this bill are very similar to the one we’ve just dealt with and previous ones. It in effect dissolves the 12 existing utilities, the commissions within the regional municipality of Durham, and creates eight new utilities, seven of them being hydro-electric commissions and one, the city of Oshawa, being a public utilities commission. Again the general principles contained therein are very similar to the bill which just passed second reading and other similar restructuring legislation.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I think most of the comments that were made about the previous bill can be applied to this one. There are a few mechanical differences in Bill 123 but the principle of the bill is the same. It provides for the same benefits and should have the same effect. If there’s one thing I neglected to say in speaking to the last bill, one of the further hoped-for objectives of the enlarged municipal concept is that it will also have a longer term positive effect on the urban areas in terms of service and the ability to upgrade equipment as the years go on.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill but with somewhat less enthusiasm than we supported the previous bill. There are three differences in this bill, one of them -- already mentioned -- with which we find some disagreement. This bill provides that the public utilities commission will continue to operate the bus system in the city of Oshawa. I think -- correct me if I am wrong -- that’s unique in Ontario. I think it is an excellent idea that rather than setting up a separate commission the public utilities commission there would operate the bus system as well as operating the hydro system and operating other public utilities as formerly. So we are in support of that.

I understand though that the city of Oshawa has some concern about the initial composition of the commission formed by this bill. I realize there is a need for uniformity in the various commissions which are established. However, Oshawa would like to have seen its five-member commission extended until the time of the election in the fall of 1980 and have had one member added from the rural area. This would have given a six-member commission. Because this was only going to last for a year and a half it seems to me the government could have accommodated that wish of the city of Oshawa.

I don’t think it’s of the magnitude that our party is going to be moving an amendment to it. However, they felt it would have provided for a smoother transition. It would have meant the members who are now serving are familiar with what is taking place and have been very active in the restructuring would be able to have carried through until 1980, until the whole new commission was set up and in operation. I think the government could have bent far enough to have permitted that for the city of Oshawa.

I must say I have some difference with the member for Halton-Burlington with regard to the principle of this bill. There is a substantially different principle in this bill to the previous bill we were discussing; that is, that half of the municipalities in this bill, four out of eight, will have two authorities supplying them with hydro. That was not true in the other bill. When one has the re-establishment of the old commission boundaries, this does create some problems. Where there are new subdivisions which have developed or are developing or are going to develop outside those boundaries, they will have to be connected up to the rural system.

I recognize this is not as serious as it was in the Niagara area for two reasons. One reason is that the freeze in Durham has only been in existence for five years. That is long enough, but compared to Niagara, where it was in effect for 10 years, it is only a short period of time. Therefore, there is not such a change within those municipalities. I guess one couldn’t call the Newcastle area basically rural, since with the town of Bowmanville, which has some 12,000 people, Newcastle with a couple of thousand and a couple other urban municipalities it has a large urban population. There has been some growth in some of those municipalities outside of the existing commission boundaries. Those will be continued for a period of time and, in the other three more rural municipalities, almost indefinitely those urbanites will be connected to the rural system when they could be connected to the adjacent urban system.

The whole principle in this bill, which is not in the previous bill, of re-establishing hydro commission boundaries the same as they were five years ago or 10 years ago or 15 years ago, without giving any consideration whatsoever to the growth that has taken place and the areas that have urbanized, is a bad principle. I spoke at length on the Niagara bill, and I am not going to repeat all of it here at this time. I think it is worth pointing out over and over again that in these restructuring programs the government surely should permit the municipalities to look at their commission boundaries and have those boundaries conform with the urban service areas or with the actual urban areas that exist within those municipalities, instead of with the old arbitrary boundaries which cut right through the urban areas.

I realize that the amendments which were put in the Niagara bill were not approved by the Liberals on the right, who thought what took place 20 years ago should still stand now, or by the party across the floor. I am not going to introduce an amendment at this time because, as I have already said, the situation is not as serious as it was in Niagara, and it would stand little chance of success in this House.

Nevertheless, we are going to keep plugging away for this principle. I suggest that in the not-too-distant future the government is going to have to break down and adjust some of those boundaries which they have just recently set up under these bills because they simply do not conform to the situation as exists, namely, the urbanization in those municipalities.

This bill also contains those provisions with which we find favour for the security of employment for employees and a great many other measures which we support. Therefore, we will be supporting this bill and not putting any amendments to it.

Mr. Nixon: I wanted to speak briefly on both these bills. As we expand the areas which are going to come under the jurisdiction of public utilities commissions, it means that fewer and fewer of the residents in what are or were rural areas are going to be direct customers of Hydro.

[5:30]

I know the honourable parliamentary assistant must have read the article in the Globe a couple of days ago, indicating that as the number of direct customers of Hydro grows fewer and fewer, the costs of serving those customers escalates. The minister knows this means the cost of electricity purchased directly from Hydro, particularly in the rural areas, is going up faster than it is for residential service in urban areas. It is already higher than similar services elsewhere in Canada and it is a matter which must concern us as members of this House. I know the parliamentary assistant, with aspirations to the ministry, must really take this as a challenge because the time has probably long since come and gone when this House should have given attention to a containment of the increase in the costs of electrical service to the rural customers in the province. The question is whether as these customers decrease in number, the cost of servicing can be maintained. I feel, and I think many reasonable people would feel, the costs of this service should be shared across the whole of the province. I hope the minister, or the parliamentary assistant, perhaps soon to be minister, would agree.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I think I have to start off with the last speaker first, as he kept promoting me right along. I would just hope he would inform the Premier --

Mr. Nixon: The Premier is never in the House.

Mr. Ashe: -- so it would be suitably recognized in the end-of-month paycheque. I thank the honourable member very much anyway.

Going back to the order, I would like to thank the members opposite generally for their support, and particularly the member for Halton-Burlington, who indicated his full support. The member for Welland-Thorold brought up a couple of points I would like to address very briefly.

I think the first one he mentioned of particular note was the uniqueness of the bill, if you will. I suppose it is rather unique in the restructuring process that the Oshawa Public Utilities Commission still has control over the bus system in the city of Oshawa. Of course, that in itself is not unique within Ontario. There are other PUCs that operate bus services in the province, although I do not think there have been any in previous restructuring legislation. It is not the only one. The reason it is carrying on is it was the request of the city. They have been providing that service, apparently reasonably well, I would understand. It is working well. Of course, it is never the intent of this government to upset something that does work well. We just like to compliment it and let it carry on.

Mr. J. Reed: You made a mess of our area.

Mr. Swart: If it’s working well, it’s something over which you don’t have control, like the transport system in Oshawa.

Mr. Ashe: As far as the size of the commission is concerned, there is no doubt we gave great thought to the approaches made by the commission in Oshawa, and as a matter of fact, the municipality itself. I think it is fair to say we weighed them very carefully, but felt for the sake of uniformity that there did not seem to be any great case or any great shift in the experience loss in that commission. They were only going to lose one experienced person and would still have four fifths of that experience carrying on. There would be more than enough continuity into the new commission.

The honourable member also brought up the argument, as he has done previously, relative to equity for the rural hydro users. Of course, that ties in very well with the concerns expressed by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk in that if we did go along and adjust and expand and skim the cream from the urban areas adjacent to urban municipalities, that would just put further pressure upon the rural hydro system in the province of Ontario, regardless of the rate structure they were now under. That is why, under the present rules and guidelines, we are putting that onus on the municipal councils to ultimately make the decision as they see it fair and right and feasible financially. When they wish to expand the service area of their commission, they do it to their municipal boundaries. In the case of Durham, this is not feasible at this time so that is why it is not happening.

The member alluded to the fact that there were still two hydro authorities within some of the municipalities in Durham. That is basically correct, but this is not unique in that as was already identified in many of the other restructurings, including Niagara, this held true. It is not that there are two commissions within a municipal boundary. That is consistent. What it is saying is there is a commission serving all or part of a municipality, with the balance being served as at present by Ontario Hydro, and that is all. There is one commission for one municipality.

Just being more specific, in the present makeup in Durham there are two municipalities that have three commissions plus Ontario Hydro; there is one municipality that has two commissions plus Ontario Hydro; there are four municipalities that have one commission only, two of those serve their total area, two of them serve part, and two of them are partly served by Ontario Hydro. There is one municipality -- namely my own, the town of Pickering -- that does not have a commission at all at this time and is served exclusively by Ontario Hydro. So we, in effect, eliminate 12 and create eight, as there are eight lower-tier municipalities within the regional municipality of Durham.

In the case of the urban south municipalities, that is to say Pickering, Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa, they will serve to their respective boundaries, including the newly created commission in the town of Pickering. In the case of the other municipalities, again they are not serving their full boundaries because it is not economically feasible at this point in time.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, of course, brings up a very legitimate concern of many relative to the future for rural hydro rates. There is no doubt the trend has been up, it will continue to go up, and we are not attempting at this time to put any further pressure on those rates by removing more of the cream around existing service areas, but there is no doubt that the government, and of course the Ontario Energy Board, is looking at the feasibility and practicability and possible changes for the future that might equalize and rationalize the problem for the rural user.

There is no doubt that one can argue both sides of this issue, the first one being it costs a lot more to serve that area so why shouldn’t they pay more, and yet the other side, in terms of equity and shouldn’t everybody pay the same throughout the province, has an equally valid part to the argument.

This is being examined very closely and of course recommendations will be coming forward very shortly that may in the short or medium term solve the problem.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

HALTON MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

Consideration of Bill 119, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Halton.

Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 12:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that the bill be amended (a) by adding the following section after section 11: “12. With respect to the town of Halton Hills and the Halton Hills Hydro-Electric Commission established by section 2, each date mentioned in sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 11 shall be deemed to be a date three months alter the mentioned date,” (b) by renumbering the subsequent sections accordingly.

Mr. J. Reed: This amendment came about with respect to the fact that there are two commissions in the town of Halton Hills which need the time to properly reorganize their utility. I thank the parliamentary assistant for bringing this motion forward.

Mr. Ashe: May I just add one item for the record so there’s no misunderstanding? This does extend the time by three months but, as in another part of the bill, it also leaves the option open that if the town of Halton Hills commission does overcome the organizational difficulties that it foresees, it can still organize on January 1, or even sooner if it suits its purpose.

Mr. Swart: I too support this amendment. It’s my understanding that they want it; there would be nothing to be gained by any of us opposing it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.

Bill 119, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendments.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 119, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Halton.

The House adjourned at 5:43 p.m.