RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS (UK) ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS (UK) ACT
Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 65, An Act respecting a Convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, in my absence, the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) read a statement on first reading of Bill 65. It deals with rules. The convention codifies the rules that the courts will apply in recognition and enforcement of judgements.
Of significant importance is the fact that it also has the effect of neutralizing prejudice to Canadian interests resulting from a European common market agreement. Under that agreement, Canadian residents and companies with assets in Britain may have those assets seized to satisfy court judgements from other European countries which previously could not be enforced in Britain.
This result is very important to Canadian citizens with assets in Britain; for example, in cases where a judgement might be obtained in France or Italy in a court that would not normally be recognized as having any jurisdiction. Under a common market agreement, those judgements will now be enforceable in Britain.
This is of particular significance because of the assets in Britain of Canadian citizens. This is what is generally referred to as excessive jurisdiction. It is jurisdiction which, prior to this common market agreement, would not have been recognized in Britain or Canada.
To that extent, it is very important, to prevent the exercise of this excessive jurisdiction, to protect the interests of Canadian citizens doing business in Britain. At the same time, it codifies the recognition of judgements between the United Kingdom and Canada.
Similar legislation has been introduced in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and we expect it to be introduced in other provinces in the very near future.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you were not aware that I was our resident expert on international law. There are very few occasions when I have an opportunity to display that expertise, but I want to do so tonight.
I am always amazed and deeply impressed that the lawyers in this House, the government of Canada, the government of the United Kingdom and the European community could come to these conclusions in such an elaborate procedure.
As I understand it, the government of the United Kingdom has entered into an agreement with its fellow members of the European community whereby court orders hold sway in all the various jurisdictions. Since some of Ontario's residents may be doing business in the United Kingdom under this agreement which is about to come into effect, our residents may very well be liable for claims made against them.
It is very good of the government of the United Kingdom to warn jurisdictions out of the common market to take appropriate action through this legislation which would exempt them from the powers of that European agreement.
It is interesting that the United Kingdom on the one hand would involve itself in this European agreement and with the other remove any Canadian business person from involvement in the agreement itself.
I am glad to see it is in both official languages. I compliment the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) for that since it is an extension of a convention entered into by the government of Canada. That probably accounts for the fact that a good deal of it is en francais.
We have no objection to this. Very few of the people we represent have elaborate business dealings in the European countries. If they do, we do not want them to be entailed in legal red tape that would cost them money and worry.
Since this does involve legislation of this House and of many European countries, the only appropriate way to proceed would be to strike a small committee with minimum staff. Then during the summer months, we would have an opportunity to go to the various European capitals and determine once and for all just how this convention might affect us.
Presumably it would be within the jurisdiction of this House to reject it. There has been no elaborate argument put forward by the Attorney General, or even the Solicitor General, who in his remarks referred to this as a highly technical area of the law. I construe that to mean he did not understand it either.
It would be awkward for this House to proceed without full knowledge of this matter. Perhaps second reading, but no more, would be appropriate. The Attorney General himself might very well lead a delegation, but not too large a delegation, with adequate staff, but not too much staff, to go to Westminster and move around to the European common market centres, particularly those areas where the governmental jurisdiction might be able to inform us more thoroughly of these matters.
Mr. Speaker, I know you would be interested in this. This is the sort of thing we ought to give serious consideration to. Unless we are very vigilant, the whole darned Legislature is going to be over there. The small group remaining might very well establish this committee and by so doing we could at least meet some of our friends.
8:10 p.m.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, you may find it surprising I am carrying this bill for our caucus, being as learned in the law as I am known --
Mr. Boudria: Never apologize for not being a lawyer.
Mr. Gillies: There is nothing to apologize for yet.
Mr. Wildman: I want to indicate that in no way am I apologizing for not being a lawyer. What I am doing is calling attention to the most complimentary aspect of my career, the fact that I have never attempted or even wished to study law.
I am replacing my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) in this debate. He is researching this convention in France. He is a veteran of the conflict between 1939 and 1945, had a very distinguished military career and is one of the people representing this House in the celebration of the anniversary of D-Day in Normandy. He is there on behalf of all of us. I am sure that while he is there, he is consulting with the Mitterrand government about the effect of this bill.
Mr. Nixon: I hear they are going to throw the socialists out. They are down to 10 per cent.
Mr. Wildman: Some people have suggested that he may be representing his former colleague from Hamilton Mountain with regard to legal proceedings in Paris, but I am not certain that is the case.
Obviously we support Bill 65, which is an extension of a convention between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom. It seems obvious that we should be doing all we can to enter into these kinds of reciprocal agreements, not only between the United Kingdom and this country and jurisdiction but also with jurisdictions that are more closely related in many business matters with Canada and Ontario. I am speaking in particular about the jurisdictions of our neighbouring states, such as New York and Michigan.
We should be seeking to enter such agreements to ensure that judgements reached in those jurisdictions which relate to residents of Ontario could be enforced and the same reciprocally, so that residents and business firms that are resident in the jurisdictions of New York and Michigan, or other American states, could also be subject to judgements enforced here in Ontario.
I will be interested in whether the Attorney General can explain what the status is of attempts to reach similar agreements with jurisdictions that may carry on more business with Ontario than the United Kingdom.
I do not have anything to add to that except to say that while I was tempted to express my views on the Northern Ireland situation in this debate, I thought I would leave that to the Attorney General, knowing his views on that issue. I hope he can explain what attempts are being made with regard to jurisdictions closer to home.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has said, naturally we are supporting this bill to extend the reciprocal enforcement of orders made by courts so that when justice has been meted out it is actually enforced. I think we should have more reciprocal agreements where possible.
One of the reasons I am rising is to remind the Attorney General on this occasion that this bill may bring to his mind that he has promised stricter enforcement of maintenance orders for women who have not been able to collect from defaulting husbands.
I hope this convention will enable Canadian women to obtain their unpaid maintenance orders from people in the countries affected by this agreement, and I hope women in those countries will be able to obtain from Canadians who are defaulting on their orders their just due in the enforcement of maintenance orders.
I remind the Attorney General that he has promised to bring forward before the session recesses this month some indication of what kind of stricter measures he is going to bring in for the enforcement of maintenance orders generally in this province. I hope when we pass this bill tonight he will be reminded of that promise and that obligation.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, we have a number of reciprocal agreements with respect to the enforcement of maintenance orders with a large number of US jurisdictions. This particular convention does not apply to family law matters, but I agree the issue is important as far as reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders is concerned. I cannot tell the honourable member the number of states with which we have entered into such agreements, but they are numerous.
With respect to the reciprocal enforcement of judgements generally, we have a rather elaborate set of rules already in force and there is very extensive common law with respect to recognition of judgements obtained in other jurisdictions.
Frankly, this legislation just codifies the existing common law that applies in relation to reciprocal enforcement of judgements vis-à-vis Canada and the United Kingdom. It really does not extend the law in that respect, but it was necessary to codify the law by legislation to protect Canadian citizens from the excessive jurisdiction that was created as a result of this European common market agreement.
One of the examples given is that a German court could assume jurisdiction in relation to a Canadian citizen in a matter simply on the basis that the Canadian citizen may have left an umbrella in a hotel in Hamburg and therefore would be considered to have assets in Germany. Under this rather interesting agreement, that would have given the German courts jurisdiction to deal with, say, a commercial lawsuit that would never have been recognized in Britain as far as enforcing a judgement or the seizing of assets is concerned, but because of this agreement that would be the result.
To that extent this important legislation brings into force, as far as Ontario is concerned, this convention that was reached between Canada and the United Kingdom to protect Canadian citizens against what is referred to as the excessive jurisdiction that has been conferred upon some of these European courts as a result of that agreement.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 45, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.
8:20 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any opening remarks. I made a statement on the introduction of the bill for first reading. It is sort of our annual coming to the table with a number of amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. I am prepared to answer questions any of the members may have with regard to the amendments.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly not opposing the bill on second reading. If I may suggest it, why can we not give it second reading and allow the House to go into committee so we can exchange views with the minister section by section rather than unloading the whole bit on second reading without his further comment except at the end? If we all agree to do that, it might be a more convenient way to deal with a bill of this nature.
The Deputy Speaker: Do all honourable members agree?
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, while we are in a general way in support of this bill, I want to express some concern regarding a provision in the bill changing the length of trucks. I want to express these views on second reading because of the very serious concern with which this proposal is viewed, especially in my part of the province in northern Ontario. While I will not go on at length about the other provisions of the bill, and I agree with my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) they might be better dealt with in committee in clause-by-clause consideration, I would like to deal with the principle of the lengthening of the allowable truck-trailer combinations.
It is suggested by the ministry that this proposal to increase the allowable length of highway vehicles from 21 metres to 23 metres is in the interests of safety. While we do not debate the statement that it may be safer as well as more energy efficient, and not only safer but probably more comfortable for drivers, I would raise the question of whether it is safe for the drivers of other vehicles, especially in northern Ontario where we obviously drive on highways that are not of the same standard as most of the highways in the southern part of the province. We do not have very many four-lane stretches of highway. In most cases, we do not have the volume of traffic that would warrant multi-lane highways.
As members from the area are fully aware and certainly those members who have visited northern Ontario --
Mr. Nixon: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to bring to your attention that I made a suggestion that we might carry second reading and discuss this matter in detail in committee. Obviously, this does not meet the requirements of the critic for the New Democratic Party. We have some members who want to talk about truck length as well. With your permission, I think it ought to be our right to put that forward before the third party, and my colleague would like so to do.
Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, Bill 45 does a number of housekeeping things. I am always a little suspicious of housekeeping amendments in a bill. Sometimes what one person calls housekeeping -- some ladies clean their house once every spring and do a complete job and others do it three times a year. My wife sometimes does house cleaning and I end up putting in new carpets and everything. I am not sure I will accept it is just a housekeeping bill, largely because of the section dealing with the lengthening of the vehicles.
In dealing with a bill like this we should also deal with truck usage on our highways in general. I am one who drives a fair amount of mileage each year. Over the last 35 years I have averaged about 30,000 miles a year. That is quite a few miles and quite a bit of time on the road and I must say I wear out a lot of cars.
I do not know whether it is just me or not, but it seems the increased use of transports on the highways in the last couple or three years has been phenomenal. Only a couple of weeks ago I attended a baseball game in Detroit -- I see the Premier (Mr. Davis) was there yesterday. When we came back after the 15th inning about 12:20 a.m. -- it was not finished yet, but we left -- we came across the Ambassador Bridge and there were more trucks on the bridge than cars. The trucks were in a special lane of their own and were lined up for quite a distance.
I worked on that bridge back in 1954 to 1964. I do not think lever saw anything like that in the 10 years I was there. On our highways here too we see a great many more transports hauling merchandise.
I think we have to start addressing some of the questions involving safety factors in these vehicles. We should look at more than just their length. The new four-lane highways we are building are certainly an improvement for driving, but I have personally seen many truck accidents. I have a fairly large research report here on truck accidents throughout New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Alberta and Ontario. I would not want to take the time of the House to read it into the record, but there are some very important things in it with regard to truck accident rates. It does not read at all well, when one realizes the number of deaths that are caused by truck accidents.
Maybe we are going to have to start looking not only at the safety and construction of trucks and tractor-trailers, but also how to regulate driving hours. My understanding is that the pilots who get into a CP Air 747 and take 400 people with them are restricted as to how many hours they can fly. I understand those restrictions are policed very closely.
Contrast that with one who is driving a 65-ton or 70-ton vehicle down the highway. There really is no check to speak of, no restriction on the number of hours that person may drive, and that concerns me a great deal. I know some regulations have been made in the last few years with regard to certain restrictions on drivers who have had strokes, eye trouble or whatever. Some of these regulations have resulted in people losing their licences because of certain problems that have affected their health. There is no doubt that is necessary.
Another problem that concerns me is the number of truck accidents on cloverleafs. They can happen when a transport is going off the highway or coming back on, but mostly when they are going off. In most cases when the vehicle is exiting it is going downhill and its acceleration is greater. I think there are getting to be just too many trucks turning over on these cloverleafs.
8:30 p.m.
A number of different things are involved, including the type of load one is carrying. If one is carrying a load of livestock it is almost the same as driving a water tank truck. If one ever starts down the road with a tank truck half full of water he should be awfully careful where he is going or he will end upside down in the ditch. Livestock moves whichever way the truck moves.
There are many other things. Another one I have noticed, and I know they have had some trouble with it, is these trucks carrying beef where they run them in on the hangers right on the top. That truck is top-heavy. My goodness, the possibility of overturning on a cloverleaf or when you are coming off a ramp is very great, especially if you are driving just a little too fast.
There are a number of things that concern me a great deal with regard to the safety of transports on the highway. We just had a terrible accident last Sunday on the Queen Elizabeth Way or the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto, and it held up traffic for eight hours. I know there is some possibility that charges will be laid. My understanding is we allow fruit trucks and similar vehicles to run on Sunday, but I am not sure that much of anything else should be allowed on the highways on Sunday with the amount of traffic that is on them.
We have had investigations and committees of the Legislature. The former member for York-view, Mr. Young, was chairman of that committee a few years ago on the safety of trucks. Another name that rings a bell -- I think it is stated in here someplace -- is a professor or something of one of the universities who did some studies into that as well.
I am aware, too, of our new basis of distributing axle load. I was talking to a gentleman just last night in London. He has one of these carriers for transporting his bulldozer; he runs a construction business. He says if he puts a bulldozer on that truck to balance the weight over all the axles in such a way as to come up to the highway standards for the weight on each axle, the front wheels are really hardly even touching the pavement and the driver just cannot steer. So after he gets off the weigh scales he has to pull off on a side road someplace and move the bulldozer up so he can drive the blasted truck.
If you are doing that, how have you got control of the vehicle? Have you ever tried driving a tractor when you had too big a load on the back? You lift the front end up, and how do you steer it?
Hon. Mr. Snow: Absolutely opposite to what happens.
Mr. Ruston: That is not right, because I heard this last night right from the people who own and drive them and have been steer it?
Hon. Mr. Snow: Absolutely opposite to what happens.
Mr. Ruston: That is not right, because I heard this last night right from the people who own and drive them and have been doing so for years.
Hon. Mr. Snow: He has been giving you a bad piece of advice.
Mr. Ruston: He is not, because I called another one today, the dispatcher of a large transport company, and he told me the very same thing. They have to get the weight at the front of their trucks in order to have proper control of them.
The minister may think that. I do not know; maybe he drove transport semis and everything. I have never driven a transport, so I do not pretend to know all about them. I have driven only stake trucks for many years, but I never drove transport semis. These are two people last night and today who both told me the very same thing, that this is one of the problems they are having.
The minister might tell me about that. I do not know how many of his inspectors and people involved in that are expert drivers of these semis and have first-hand knowledge of operating them on the highway, but I certainly have to doubt the minister is aware of all the problems there are.
I was talking about the axle weight, and how they are having trouble getting the tolerance under the axles. I also mentioned the centre bearing of the weight.
I realize the purpose of the minister's new length descriptions is to have the length extended -- and we can discuss this more closely in the committee -- on the condition that you are using the longer tractor. Naturally, I suppose that would be safer.
I was talking to a trucking company this morning that recently purchased a new tractor with sleeping accommodation, so this will give the extra length the company needs for that purpose.
I also read about places in other jurisdictions, such as Calgary and Edmonton, where 100-foot or longer tractors are being used. That would be equivalent to about 32 metres. They are also used in Quebec, where they are restricted to the four-lane highways. Our maximum weight here, if I understand it correctly, is 63,500 kilograms.
I raised this matter in 1981 or 1982, when I questioned the minister in the House about it one day. There was a request by the Ontario Trucking Association to have the vehicles lengthened to 100 feet or more; however, they intended to keep the weight at the same level of 140,000 pounds, or 63,500 kilograms.
These are some of the things I must say as a user of our highways. They are the problems people foresee with regard to the lengthening of these trucks and have brought to our attention.
Tailgating is always a problem on the highway and will be affected by the lengthening of these trucks. If the minister has driven along Highway 401 and decided to take his time, driving at 102 or 103 kilometres an hour, he may have noticed a big semi-tractor-trailer behind him within 20 feet of his trunk. I have found that happening to me. I have moved up to 112 kilometres to stay away from him, but if I want to drive at between 100 and 105 kilometres, the driver will almost push me off the road or I will have to slow up and let him go by.
We are talking about something very important when dealing with vehicles such as this. I have a great respect for the highway drivers of trucks of all kinds because I know most of them are well trained and courteous, but the minister should try driving down Highway 401 at 103 kilometres an hour and see how many trucks are almost in his trunk.
That is of great concern to me. I know it happens every day. The trucks are one reason my wife refuses to drive on the 401. Her speed is about 100 to 102 kilometres, although I drive a little faster, but we have to break the law in order to avoid being run over. It gets to that.
At the same time, I realize the transport of materials on our highways is very important. It is an economical way to transport goods. It is efficient and handy and we have to have it, but some of the things I have brought to the minister's attention are of concern to many people on the highway. They have a right to be on the road, too.
That is all I want to say right now. Those are some of my concerns.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that in no way was I attempting to usurp the place of my colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston). I was quite interested in his comments.
I was concerned about specifically expressing on second reading our view with regard to the proposal to lengthen the truck-trailer combination.
8:40 p.m.
As I was saying earlier, the topography and the type of roads we have in northern Ontario raise some concerns with regard to this change. As the minister is well aware, in northern Ontario we have two main routes from the west to central Canada, to down east as we refer to it up in that area. They are Highway 17 and Highway 11.
Highway 17, the Trans-Canada Highway, has a large number of trucks travelling on it almost every day and particularly at night. With the lengthened combination, considering the fact that these highways are two lanes -- they are not multilane highways in most cases, in nearly all the area except around Sudbury and perhaps in the immediate area of some of the other cities such as Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie -- and there are a lot of hills and curves, I think this can cause a real problem.
For a driver who gets behind one of these trucks or a convoy of these trucks, especially in the wintertime, even on a day when it is not snowing, it is like being in a blizzard. One cannot see a thing and it is almost impossible to get around the trucks; and I am talking about those of the current length.
The passing distance between curves and hills in my riding, particularly on Highway 17 north of Sault Ste. Marie, is such that, especially in the winter time and at night, it is almost taking one's life in one's hands to try to pass. Because of the number of hills, the truck traffic travels at such a slow speed that if one does not pass there is a tremendous lineup behind the truck and the length of one's journey will be greatly increased.
We also run into the problem of people who take chances. There will be a long lineup behind a truck or a convoy of trucks and somebody will get impatient and pull out to pass a large number of vehicles when he or she does not have the space and sometimes will run into a very serious accident. I realize the ministry has attempted to deal with this problem by constructing truck climbing lanes on hills and passing lanes, and they are very welcome. They have improved the situation on Highway 17 and Highway 11 greatly. I in no way denigrate the efforts of the ministry to improve the safety and traffic flow along those highways by having passing lanes. and truck climbing lanes, but even with them one still has a very difficult time getting around these trucks.
One of the problems now is that a lot of the trucks are travelling in convoys, as I said. In many cases these trucks do not maintain a good enough distance between them, although they are supposed to, to enable a car to pass safely, to get in between and travel safely between the trucks. That can result in a situation where the driver of the car attempts to pass two or three trucks at once and does not have enough room. That is quite dangerous. I wonder what the effect of lengthening the truck-trailer combinations is going to have in that kind of situation. I think it is going to make it even more dangerous.
I want to concur with the comments made by my colleague the member for Essex North about the length of time drivers are on the road. A lot of drivers appear to have been on the highway so long that they are fatigued to such a degree they do not drive safely. Obviously, we have to address that problem. I am not sure exactly how we are going to ensure that logs kept are accurate and that drivers are not travelling for such long hours they are dangerous to themselves and their fellow highway travellers. I have seen truckers driving, especially at night, who are obviously very tired. They wander across the centre line of the highway and they do not slow down to a degree or pull over on to the paved shoulder to enable someone to get around them. Then there are the problems I was mentioning.
There are many drivers who, if they are climbing a hill and there is no truck climbing lane, will look to see whether it is safe when they get to the crest of the hill and will signal the driver of a car following them to pass. They are very polite and helpful in that way.
Unfortunately, these kinds of drivers are becoming a minority. I suppose there is a fear on the part of the driver that if he signals a car to pass and there is some accident afterwards, he might somehow be at fault and perhaps even liable. Therefore, there is less willingness to do that.
In Western Canada, the trucks on the road are much longer than those we have in Ontario. It is considered safe. I wonder if the Prairies -- Alberta, for instance -- have the same kind of topography I am concerned about in northern Ontario. They do in the Rocky Mountains.
Could we expect to have the same kind of difficulties? The highways I have driven on in western Canada, because of the easier topography and less difficult terrain, seem to be better constructed in that there are more four-lane stretches and so on. This is certainly so on the Trans-Canada Highway.
Also, I am concerned about the large number of trucks using our highways. I was once travelling with an older gentleman behind a convoy of trucks. We were in no hurry, so we were not trying to get by them, but we were going along at a very slow pace. I said to him, "I wish we could, in the ideal world, build roads just for trucks and for the transport of goods and have other roads for pleasure drivers and automobile traffic." He said: "We do have other roads for the transport of goods. They are called railroads." In his day, the railroads were the main means of transporting goods across this country.
We seem to be getting more and more away from that. We are following the example of our American and European friends where the truck transport of goods, rather than transport by rail, is becoming a major means of transporting goods in our economy.
I do not expect we are going to be able to turn that around and change it. However, if we are going to increase the numbers of goods carried by tractor-trailers on our highways, we have to increase the safety of those highways. We have to bring in regulations to ensure that those drivers are not a danger to themselves or to other travellers.
8:50 p.m.
I am sure my colleagues from northern Ontario share my concern about this proposal. We have expressed it before in this House. I do not know how we can construct enough passing lanes and truck climbing lanes to make it possible to ensure the safety of drivers.
I want to make a couple of other comments about other aspects of this bill. While in a general sense we support the bill, and it is housekeeping, as my friend said, there are some things I would like to have cleared up on behalf of the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis), who is attending a conference on transportation this week at the behest of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) and thus is not here to speak on this bill.
As an aside, I suspect one of the issues raised at that conference will be the issue of the safety of our highways in northern Ontario, as well as the member for Cochrane North's pet concern, the Dash-8. I hope they do not spend all their time on the Dash-8. I hope they deal with the issue of safety on our highways as well.
I will not go on at length about this, but I share some of the questions about the whole issue of truck axle weights and the administration of axle weights by the ministry.
While the minister indicated to the member for Essex North he was wrong with regard to shifting weight from the back to the front of the truck to make it easier to drive, that same issue has been raised time and again with me by people who drive logging trucks. I am sure the minister has heard this. The Ministry of Northern Affairs is carrying out a study about the safety of logging trucks and how to deal with measuring weights.
Those truckers usually deal in areas where there are no weigh-scales and they have to guesstimate how they spread the weight on the axles. They do not know for sure until they reach a weigh-scale on the highway. In some cases that is too late because their guesstimate has been wrong. I hope those issues are raised at that conference as well.
I would like to hear the minister respond to that issue. How will this proposal to lengthen the combination length deal with the issue of the distribution of axle weight and improve safety for the drivers themselves as well as the travelling public?
There are a couple of other things I would like to get information on with regard to this bill. One of the things the bill does is make it possible to impose an administrative fee for the reinstatement of a suspended driver's licence. It is my understanding that we have not been informed of what the amount of that fee will be. I hear it is likely to be $25. Could the minister inform us what relationship that figure, if it is an accurate figure, has to the actual administrative cost? Obviously, the purpose of this is to recover some of those costs from the person who is getting his or her licence reinstated.
One of the other provisions I would like to comment on briefly is the change that would allow ambulances and emergency vehicles like ambulances to exceed the speed limit in an emergency situation. Personally, I do not have any objection to this change. It would certainly make sense if there was a cardiac arrest victim who had to get to a hospital. One would want to drive as quickly as possible, but I emphasize that ambulances must drive as safely as possible.
I am a little concerned about this proposal in the sense that we have had a couple of very serious accidents in our area involving ambulances. The drivers were well trained and doing the best they could for the victim they were transporting to the hospital, but it resulted in a tragic situation in which not only the victim but also the ambulance driver and attendant lost their lives.
I am not certain what kind of training the ministry is anticipating with regard to ambulance drivers, either through that ministry or through the Ministry of Health, to ensure that drivers who are going to be permitted to exceed the speed limit are trained to the extent that they can do so safely.
I will not make any further comments. Some of my colleagues from northern Ontario may want to make further comments with regard to the issue of the length of vehicles and safety. As I said earlier on behalf of the member for Cornwall, we will support the bill and we hope the minister can respond to the concerns we have raised.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss some concerns about Bill 45, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act. I was interested in the comments the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) just brought to the attention of the minister, which concern the new provision under section 8 that exempts another vehicle from the speed limits.
I am a little concerned about this section of the bill. In the past a number of accidents have occurred with emergency vehicles that were going through red lights and coming to intersections and did not stop because they had the siren on and the red light going so everyone else would hear or see them coming.
I can see exempting them on the highway where there is a little more caution shown and where the visibility is much greater so that one can see oncoming vehicles from the opposite direction at an intersection, but in the cities and towns this may cause some difficulties. Instead of getting a patient safely to a hospital, two or three other accidents -- and they could be fatal accidents -- may occur when one starts to move in this direction once again.
With the new vehicles that are out on the road today, very seldom can one hear a siren or be aware that an emergency vehicle is approaching unless one happens to be looking in the mirror and catches the red lights back there warning that an emergency vehicle is proceeding.
I am afraid we may go back to the old days when a number of accidents were caused and a number of lives were lost. Normally when people travel to hospital from my area, which is 100 miles from the hospital here in downtown Toronto, they have police escorts. I think this is a pretty good system to rely on. The police can dispatch a cruiser to almost every major intersection to make sure that every precaution is taken so there are no further accidents or serious injuries when vehicles come to these intersections.
I do not think fire departments are exempt under this, are they? I notice the precautions that are taken, particularly by the city of Toronto fire department. Their fire trucks straddle the white line down the middle of the road and pretty well take to the middle of the road to get by heavy traffic. Ambulances here do it too. Usually the motorists will pull off to the right, and these vehicles can proceed then. But this may not apply in other communities that are not accustomed to that type of emergency vehicle travelling at that high rate of speed.
9 p.m.
The other area of concern is that the minister has permitted the length of vehicles in combination to be increased from 21 metres to 23 metres. This concerns me. I travel the Queen Elizabeth Way sometimes two or three times a week coming here to Toronto and to the Legislature and I have seen some of these large vehicles and the number of axles that are permitted on the roads today.
I know the minister and I have had discussions on this before. I refer again to the studies made in the United States, particularly in the state of Illinois, where they carried out some studies on the large vehicles and the damage they are doing to the highways today.
I suggest that is an area the minister should be looking at. Through deregulation in Ontario and the agreements entered into with our neighbouring states, there are more trucks on the Queen Elizabeth Way now than ever before. They are causing serious problems to motorists using the QEW.
I have seen a real hazard on that highway involving pup trailers. Instead of running parallel with the vehicle in front of them, some of them move as much as 18 inches, swerving down the road. I was riding on a bus one day and the driver had a hard time escaping such a vehicle as it came alongside the bus. I thought for sure we were going to be sideswiped.
There are such vehicles on the road today that I do not think get proper inspection for that type of hookup. I believe the minister travels on Highway 5, where there are a number of traffic lights that slow him up a bit -- I do not know whether he is a speedster -- but I suggest that he travel on the Queen Elizabeth Way a little more between the Niagara region and Toronto.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I travel it quite often.
Mr. Haggerty: He may do. But if he has a driver sitting in front of him and he is reading the newspaper, he does not see what is going on. I do not know whether he has a radio in his car so he can speak to Queen's Park. I am just saying that in some cases these trucks are a hazard on the road, and I suggest that he should be looking closely at this.
Instead of extending the lengths, maybe we should be curtailing it. The next thing we are going to see here is the train system of trucking, similar to what they have in some of the states. Following deregulation there, I understand there are more applications every day from American trucking firms that want to enter the trucking business in Ontario.
I am also concerned about another aspect of this bill. The explanatory note on section 15 says, "The new provision recognizes that some vehicles are not able to strictly comply with the act because of their length." Here the minister allows them to go and then says it is okay to violate the provision by going beyond that length or even width.
Let us take a look at section 15: "Where, because of the length of a vehicle or combination of vehicles, a turn cannot be made within the confines of the lanes" -- and that means he can take two or three lanes on a four-lane highway -- "referred to in subsection 2, 3, 5 or 6, a driver, when making such a turn, is not in contravention of any such subsection if he complies with the applicable provision as closely as practicable."
That is good wording, is it not? That is opening up a can of worms, as the saying goes, if these trucks are allowed to get much larger. That is what is happening with the trains and the pups being hooked up. There was an accident just recently on the Queen Elizabeth Way; the truck was right across the road. The law is going to say: "Okay trucking firms, you can have as long a load as you want as long as you are, within reason, in a safe lane." But he can take three lanes making that turn.
Just look at the slip-ons on these highways today. They are not constructed to handle the long vehicles today. Almost every turn one looks at, one can find a truck that has overturned on that slip-on coming on to the QEW. I have seen a number of trucks just out of Fort Erie that have rolled over because of the improper construction of the road for these longer vehicles. It just will not handle them. I suggest this is really broadening things out; it is not going to be safe for a motorist to get on the QEW at all.
The member for Algoma has mentioned the tailgating by these truckers. At one time truckers showed some common courtesy on the highways. They do not do that any more. They come one after the other with only about 50 feet or 100 feet between them. Sometimes, when they are passing on the road, they almost cut off a motorist by moving into a lane quickly after passing.
Although someone said we support this bill in principle, I think we will regret the day we supported sections 7 and 15 permitting longer vehicles to be used on our highways. As I said before, as long as we allow heavier weights on these vehicles, which is what is taking place --
Hon. Mr. Snow: No.
Mr. Haggerty: The minister says no. I have seen trucks with --
Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I can tolerate a lot of discussion on this very important subject, but when the honourable member starts saying things that are absolutely untrue --
Mr. Laughren: Out of order.
Hon. Mr. Snow: There is nothing in this bill, and there has been nothing passed in this Legislature in the almost nine years I have been minister, to increase the weight on a truck. I am sorry.
Mr. Haggerty: Not on the truck; on the trailer.
Hon. Mr. Snow: Not on the trailer either.
Mr. Haggerty: The minister says I do not know what I am talking about --
Mr. Speaker: Now back to the bill, please.
Mr. Haggerty: -- but I can tell him he is permitting these larger trucks with heavier loads. He is shaking his head. How come he has all the weigh stations checking the weight then?
Hon. Mr. Snow: No, they are not.
Mr. Haggerty: Yes. There is another one going up on the Queen Elizabeth Way. Two more have been added.
Mr. Speaker: Back to the bill.
Mr. Haggerty: Back to the section of the bill. There must be a reason the minister wants these weigh stations.
Another hazard, if we look at the number of accidents in those areas, is that trucks pull out one after the other. They cause enough problems.
Regarding the number of axles on the trailers, if the minister is not aware of the damage that is doing to municipal roads, all he has to do is stand on any street corner in any municipality and watch those vehicles trying to navigate a narrow road and he will see the asphalt move with the vehicle; it pushes it right out.
The ministry is doing major reconstruction work now laying asphalt on Highway 3, and I thank the minister for doing that, but the reason he has to do it so soon is the weight permitted on these trucks. Our roads are not built to carry it. If the ministry wanted to get additional revenue, it could start charging these truckers for their use of the roads.
When I look at parts of this bill, I believe that five years or three years or six months down the road, we will regret the day this bill was introduced.
9:10 p.m.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) has hit upon something we should all take advantage of. If we had moving asphalt instead of moving trucks, we could have a major energy conservation program in Ontario. The minister should take that more seriously instead of getting up in a such a defensive manner to respond to the member for Erie.
We can support most of the provisions in this bill without hesitation, but I too am concerned about section 7. I spend an unusual amount of time on the highway, anywhere between 35,000 to 40,000 miles a year, either between here and my constituency or within my constituency, which is very large and sprawling. I have been increasingly concerned over the years with the problem of transport trucks on the highway. I know they have to be there; they have a right to be there, and they pay a lot of taxes. At the same time, there is the question of safety.
I was not a member of the select committee on highway safety, but I seem to recall that all-party committee of this Legislature recommended against longer trucks. Yet here we have section 7, in which the maximum length is increased from 21 metres to 23 metres.
I wonder whose advice the minister is taking on this, aside from the obvious source of the trucking industry, and to what extent the minister has taken into consideration the recommendations of the select committee and the safety problems associated with longer trucks. Where I find it such a problem is in attempting to pass a large truck, particularly if there is any kind of precipitation on the road, either water or snow, and being unable to see beyond the truck. I am not suggesting that things will change dramatically because we increase the length of the truck from 21 metres to 23 metres, but it is a change for the worse. It certainly does not make it any better. Where there are highways with very long distances between passing lanes or lots of hills on the highway, that does become a serious problem.
While I have no trouble supporting almost everything in the bill, I have enormous problems with section 7. First, I do not understand the need for the increased length that is being allowed. Second, I do not understand how the minister reconciled the danger questions with the demands of the industry. For example, I would be interested in knowing from the minister whether two metres was the requested increase in length or whether there was a request for a larger increase, to what extent this was a sawoff or compromise increase and to what extent it was the increase that was asked for. I hope the minister will respond to that.
The highways are something we all have to share. I think there is a danger now of that old expression regarding truck drivers as being "knights of the road" being lost. I get an increasing number of complaints myself about truckers not being what people used to regard them as, namely, the "knights of the road." I do not know why that is. I do not know whether there is increased pressure on the truckers to get to their destinations faster, but the public's perception of truckers is not what it was 10 or 15 years ago.
I put myself in that category as well, because I have been driving a lot of miles for a lot of years and my perception about truckers has changed over the years. Therefore, I am not surprised that there is an unsympathetic reaction to this change in the allowable length of trucks.
When he responds, I hope the minister will respond to those concerns from this side of the House about that increase in the length of trucks.
Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to speak in front of such a large audience. However, the lack of quantity is more than made up by the quality over there, particularly now that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) has taken his seat.
It is unfortunate that we did not follow our House leader's advice and refrain from speaking so much on second reading and get into committee of the whole where we can deal with the sections one at a time. I am not too sure that any section in the bill addresses the one concern I wish to bring to the minister's attention.
I became concerned when a tragic accident happened not too many miles away from my farm. It involved a pickup truck that went out of control and ended up wrapped around a big tree on the side of the road. I had a look at it shortly after the accident and there was blood splattered up the tree about --
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In view of the fact that there are only four members of the government party in the House, I think you should check to see whether we have a quorum.
Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.
9:19 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: I am advised there is a quorum present.
Mr. Riddell: I want to thank the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) for summoning the Tories to the House to listen to the great comments by the member for Huron-Middlesex.
I was talking about a tragic accident that happened not too many miles away from the farm. It involved a pickup truck with a driver and passenger. The truck went out of control and wrapped itself around quite a large tree.
It made a complete mess, not only of the truck but of the two people in the truck. As I indicated, there was blood splattered 10 to 12 feet up the tree. It appeared as if the brains of one of the persons in the vehicle had been splattered against the tree about 10 feet up. I could go on and describe it further.
As a matter of fact, I received an inquiry about it. When the truck was towed to the service station, which was within about three miles of my farm, I started receiving telephone calls stating there was an odour coming from the truck. Sure enough, when we looked into it, there was. The fact of the matter was they could not get all the parts of the bodies out of truck. They were enmeshed in the steel, carpeting and what not in the truck.
I wanted to describe that tragic accident in that fashion because the only reason the truck went out of control was that it had the largest oversized tires I have ever seen on any vehicle. When I went to have a look at the truck after it had been towed to the service station, I could not believe the size of the tires on it.
I investigated further about what possibly could have caused the accident. I wondered if it might have been impaired driving or speed -- there is no question there was speed involved. I was told by those who have more expertise than I in these matters that when somebody drives those trucks with those oversized tires at a speed faster than 80 kilometres an hour, the tires start to float. There is very little of the tire actually making contact with the surface of the road. Obviously, speed was involved but, as I said, if the driver is doing anything over 80 kilometres per hour he apparently has absolutely no control over a pickup truck with those oversized tires.
I am wondering whether we should not be restricting or limiting tire size on vehicles such as pickup trucks. There is no reason in the world that a pickup truck should have had the size of tires that truck had. For the life of me I cannot understand why there would need to be that size of tire on it. The tires looked as if they were almost as large as the tires on my David Brown 950 tractor, which is not a big tractor, but the tires looked practically as large as the rear tires on my tractor.
I think we should be limiting tire size on vehicles. That concern came to me as soon as I went out and saw that accident. I thought there would have to be something done about it.
The other point I want to make, as has already been made, is there is no question but that truck drivers have become most discourteous. I can recall not too many years ago when truckers were considered to be some of the most courteous drivers on the road. As a matter of fact, I think Labatt used to have a policy that if its drivers came across a driver of a vehicle that was obviously in trouble, they would pull the truck off to the side of the road and would get out to see if they could render any assistance.
I do not know whether Labatt still has that policy, but we certainly do not see too much courtesy on the part of most of the truck drivers on the road today. They come wheeling out into the passing lane. Many times I have been right beside the rear end of a truck when on comes the light and out he goes. I have had to hit the brakes in order to avoid an accident.
The other thing I take offence at is these truckers who like to play games on the highway. I call it a game when one truck pulls out to try to pass another truck and the other truck is not going to ease up one little bit, so you are travelling for miles along the highway behind these trucks with the one truck trying to overtake the other and the other not giving up one little bit. As a result, you have a line of traffic waiting behind these trucks wanting to get by to get on to its destination.
I do not know what the minister can do about it; chances are there is nothing we can do about it, because if the truckers want to play these games on the highway, they are going to go ahead and play them. But it does make for hazardous conditions, as far as I am concerned, when the truckers show as little courtesy as they do. As I say, I do not know what the minister can do about it, but I sure would like to see something happen whereby these truckers would start to drive more safely than they do at the present time.
Mr. Shymko: Fine fellows, some of these truckers. I was helped by a trucker once.
Mr. Riddell: Those are the two points I wanted to raise. First, can we limit tire size for certain vehicles, because --
Mr. Gillies: What is it with you guys?
Mr. Shymko: What have you got against truckers?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Riddell: What is wrong with them back there?
Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.
Mr. Riddell: Pardon?
Mr. Speaker: Back to the bill.
Mr. Shymko: I was helped by a trucker once.
Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.
Mr. Riddell: I really think we should limit tire size on vehicles of a certain size if indeed these tires float. Most of us have driven pickup trucks at some time and, unless you have a load in the back end of the truck, you know how useless they are. They are very light, and then we load them up with these oversize tires. I think I have the terminology right when I say these tires float over 80 kilometres an hour and you have absolutely no control.
This truck went off the side of the road, somehow got on its side, skidded right along the shoulder of the road on its side and wrapped itself around the tree, and you can image what the two people inside that truck looked like. I explained it to members in some detail because I hope we never have to see an accident such as that again because of these ridiculously oversize tires being placed on these small trucks.
Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this bill, and I will be brief but my remarks are serious, and I hope the minister will take them that way.
I had the privilege of serving on the highway safety committee a number of years ago, in 1976-77. It was a good committee and did a lot of work and, unless my memory has played tricks on me totally, we were not in favour of lengthening tractor-trailers on the highway.
I know there was a consensus that we probably had not spent as much time as we should have on trucking, trucks and the safety of trucks. But it was dealt with, and I can tell the minister very frankly that I would feel bad for the chairman of that committee, a former colleague of mine, Fred Young, who felt so strongly about safety on the highway, if I did not raise this concern. Were he in this House, I know darn well he would be raising this very concern with the minister.
I have very great difficulty with that section of the bill. I understand that in this place I cannot always follow everything, and I guess I was not following this particular legislation very closely until I took a serious look at it tonight. Much of the bill is good; I am not really trying to zero in on the rest of it, but I have grave reservations in this one area.
My colleagues tell me it has to do with the distribution of weight on the axles and the wheels. There may be such an argument. I would like to know how thorough and how total the research has been on it.
We certainly did not get any indication of support for longer trucks from anybody other than the trucking industry in the brief comments we had on it in that particular committee; certainly we did not get any support for it from the many other groups that appeared before that committee. I really wonder if this is not another example of giving us a bill -- l hope it is not, very frankly -- that has a number of good things in it but one thing that somebody wants to slide through and that is why this section is in the bill.
9:30 p.m.
I have another concern. Generally speaking, I guess it deals more with my end of things, the labour end of things. It is about a phone call three or four days ago. Others may have got one; I do not know. It was from a trucker about himself and one of his buddies.
The trucker was concerned about this bill. He made a couple of comments that do not deal directly with the length of tractor-trailers, but I think they can certainly be taken into consideration when we are taking a look at whether the longer trailers are safe.
He gave a couple of examples of what is happening with drivers today. I suspect this is accurate. I know it is at some trucking firms because the pressure is on workers and drivers at transport firms. The pressure is on in almost all industry across the province in tough times when there are layoffs and when even organized workers do not seem to have the clout they used to have, a lot of it because of fear in the community and fear about jobs. It is a time when management can quite often get away with pushing a little harder and requiring a little more from the workers.
Quoting himself and one of his buddies, this trucker talked about the increase in overtime for some of them. I know that is a fact at some firms, although it may not be at all of them. He said that where he is working they are working far too much overtime.
He gave two examples. He started at 10 a.m. on Victoria Day with a 10-to-six run. At 10 p.m. he was still working. By 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. that night, he took an out-of-town run and arrived back at 5:30 in the morning. He said that is a common practice.
He said a second driver does it all the time. On May 23, he started at 1 p.m. on the one-to-nine shift. He was still working in the city at 10 p.m. Then at 11 p.m. he took a run to Sudbury with no sleeper-cab. He was back on the next shift at 1 p.m. It should not be allowed. I suppose if we had some way to check it something could be done about it. I suspect it is all too common. I suspect the pressure on drivers in terms of overtime and the traffic runs is there as well.
I think that adds to the question of danger. It is not as safe, particularly with the longer tractor-trailers. It seems to me we should be concerned about this.
I guess I was goaded into rising to say a few words for another reason as well. I have heard the minister say many times that he travels or knows the Queen Elizabeth Way. I am not sure whether it matters if he is with a driver or not. I do it at least three times and sometimes five times a week.
I do not think it is just older age starting to catch up with me or anything else, but one thing I have noticed in the last year or two is that it is getting a little more tricky with the trucks on that road. Just the other day I was saying to my wife as we came to Toronto, "I remember sitting down back in 1976-77 with some officials from the trucking companies on the highway safety committee and raising concerns that had been raised with us about the speed at which some of the trucks were travelling.
I remember being told, "Really, you are wrong." There was a real defence. Some other people in this room may have been at that meeting. I was told: "Because of the need to conserve and the cost of fuel, most of them are controlling it at 55 or 60 miles per hour. They are not going over that." I can tell the House that in the last number of weeks on the Queen Elizabeth Way I have had them go by me at a heck of a lot higher speed than that. I have also seen more tailgating than I have seen in some time.
Without even realizing this bill was coming up in the House, I was making a comment to my wife the other day that I remember sitting down at that meeting of the select committee and having them tell us that they really were not travelling at the speeds we were suggesting, that it was not unsafe and that in most cases, particularly with the responsible truckers, they were controlling the speeds of their tractor-trailers.
I may be looking at the wrong trucks all the time, but I do not think so. My observation is that is not very factual. I do not think what they told us at that meeting was true then and I am darned sure it is not true today. Now I see we have a bill that is going to increase the length of those tractor-trailers.
There may be answers I do not have, but I would like a lot more information on the safety of this kind of move before I would vote for this, even if it means I have to disagree with my caucus. I hope the minister will take another look at this question.
What is happening concerns me as to the number of trucks and the way they are travelling on the highways. It concerns me in terms of the pressures I think are being put on workers, more so now than has been the case for a long time. It is going to make them wander a bit in some cases, especially if they get long runs such as those I have read into the record. It is going to be much more difficult for ordinary drivers passing them.
The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) should take into consideration that there is a fairly good trend toward smaller-sized cars. The trucks have not come down in size, they are increasing. One is up against a giant. It really is the minnow and the whale when one takes a look at this situation.
I like the bigger cars and had one until recently when the damned engine went on me. Now I am in a small Ford wagon and do not feel any more secure in the smaller car on the highway. What is happening to the trucks and trying to pass them and move raises great concerns with me, as I am sure it does with tens of thousands of Canadian drivers.
The minister may be making a mistake in this section of this legislation.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I feel this is a good occasion, year by year, when all of us who are experts on highway safety and truck transportation and management of cars, because we experience it from day to day, have a chance to express to the minister some of our views.
I suggested to begin with that we might go immediately to committee of the whole House so that the minister could comment as these things are said. I would suggest to the members who are interested in this topic that we are missing one ingredient and that is the opinion of the minister.
This time next year he will be back in the construction business as the Liberal government takes over, but just on the off chance, God forbid, that he is minister next year, it might be more useful if we could have an exchange with the man who has been minister a long time and has established a pretty good reputation across Ontario and with members of the House for being a pretty fair-minded guy.
I warned him that at the next election we are bringing back Rev. Robin Skuce to run against him. Robin came within a handful of votes of beating him the first time he ran and when the Rev. Skuce returns it is probably going to be game over for the minister. This is not exactly on the principle of the bill but I thought I should warn the minister.
I want to refer briefly to a very serious matter and that is the death of those five kids who ran into the moving train in the minister's area.
Hon. Mr. Snow: Say it again, please?
Mr. Nixon: I want to refer to the tragic accident that is now being reviewed by an inquest into the deaths of five teen-aged children.
I remember the select committee on highway safety mentioned by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). One of the recommendations that crept into the report, or at least was spoken about, was the special danger of freight trains at unmarked crossings, that is, without any kind of flashing light.
Here we have vehicles, the car moving and the train moving, and the train has absolutely no lights or warnings whatever. If it is a dark night and the driver is somewhat impaired in his vision, as in this case, evidently, the driver was -- there is evidence he never even knew there was anything in front of him until the very last split second,
A suggestion was made to easily cure at least part of this and that was to put some reflecting lights or tape, not electrically connected, on each of the boxcars. As they whip by across the road, the lights will reflect and there will be flashing lights there whether or not there is a wigwag. This is a very simple thing and it would be sensible if the minister would require that freight trains in Ontario have these markings.
He is shaking his head and we are going to get this great speech about the federal Liberals not being up to date and not doing these things.
Hon. Mr. Snow: That is exactly right.
Mr. Nixon: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
If the minister, in his remaining months in office, were to take some initiative in this connection, the problem would be solved. It should be solved right across North America. It is ridiculous that freight cars do not have reflecting tape, which would be very cheap and very easy. As they whipped across the rural crossings there would be plenty of notice and warning. I want to suggest to the minister he should do that.
9:40 p.m.
I also remember Fred Young, who was the chairman of the highway safety committee and did a very good job indeed. One of the main controversies at that time was whether we would opt for air bags in our cars. On one of the occasions that I remember and will never forget it, General Motors took us out to Oshawa to allow us to test one of their cars equipped with air bags.
Six of us, as committee members, crawled into this car. Fred Young, as chairman, was in the driver's seat. We were not going to run into a tree to see how it worked. One of the test engineers would hold this button and when the signal was given he would press the button. It is murder. When that button is pushed these things inflate explosively. I was in the back seat. They had airbags in the back as well, I believe, like floating truck tires. The minister is frowning.
I do not remember the thing restricting me. I do know it popped out of the dashboard and poor Fred Young was left with a bloody nose, his glasses smashed and pasted back into his eyes. It was quite a scary occasion. We still recommended airbags, did we not? There was sort of a division in that committee. It may be that some kind of restraint like that would save a good many lives.
I am going to disagree with a number of previous speakers and even some of my own colleagues, believe it or not -- and I hardly ever disagree with them -- on their suggestions about trucks and truck drivers. I suppose it is because I get my gas from Earl's Shell Service in St. George.
Mr. Wildman: J. Earl?
Mr. Nixon: No. With the size of car J. Earl drives, he has to take his own gas station with him.
If members have never heard of Earl's Shell Service, they should stop in there because a lot of truck drivers do. They should hear what they say about us the car drivers, particularly those in the rural areas. They are not referring to the farmers themselves, but they talk about the ubiquitous pickup truck that always comes sliding out of the farm lane without really stopping.
They pull out in front of the truck with maybe a couple of hundred yards space. It seems long enough, but it makes it tough for the trucker. While the pickup truck is accelerating in low and second and heading uptown -- maybe to Earl's Shell Service to get some oil for the lawnmower -- the big truck has been sailing along at the speed limit, or maybe a kilometre or two over it, and has to use its airbrakes. Sometimes he gives a blast of the air horn and gets a finger in response -- that lovely exchange members may have been exposed to. The trucker has to slow down, then immediately start picking up speed again.
These fellows who drive trucks for a living and work long hours -- something we have been talking about -- can get a little irritable as well. Their feeling is that these days we ordinary drivers of private cars are stupider than we used to be in regard to reasonable safety responses on the road.
We have all been talking about our driving experience. I am glad I do not have to drive all the way to Hay, Ontario, two or three times a week, but I do go to South Dumfries township, which is 100 kilometres. I go there and back most days of the week. If one works out a little arithmetic there, times 24 cents, etc., one will know it is a very interesting drive indeed. My mental calculator is ticking off the kilometres as I go along.
Mr. Mancini: Saturdays and Sundays too.
Mr. Nixon: I put the car up on blocks every Sunday and put it in gear.
My experience with truck drivers is not the same as those experiences which have been recounted by my colleagues. It is three lanes along there, just as Highway 401 is three lanes up to the farm of the minister. Beyond that it drops off a little, but that is another matter.
With the Queen Elizabeth Way having three lanes, trucks are restricted from the fast lane and very rarely does one see anyone breaking that rule. Most recently, the rule was broken on the Gardiner Expressway last Sunday when that big tanker was in the fast lane and tipped over on the road, holding up the Gardiner Expressway for nine hours. So there are exceptions.
I find truck drivers obey the speed limit just about the way private car drivers obey it. My own view is that the speed limit is too low. It ought to be established on the basis of common usage on the road. The minister has heard my remarks about this before, but neither he nor anyone else drives at 100 kilometres an hour on the Queen Elizabeth Way or 80 kilometres per hour on the other roads. My own view is that the idea of saving gas is irrelevant now and there is no clear indication we are saving lives.
This is a personal opinion after a great deal of research and after reading my favourite magazine, Car and Driver, which someone sent me. Speed limits ought to reflect what the ordinary citizen feels is a safe driving rate, not what people may say in answer to a poll about what the speed limits should be.
As far as the length of the trucks is concerned, I think the minister has been whipsawing the length of the trailers year by year, saying, "Okay, you can have a longer trailer, but you are going to have to have a shorter cab." Now we are saying, "We will allow the cab to be longer, but we will not allow the trailer to be longer."
It is true that these are getting to be real Goliaths of the road, but as far as I can see, the statistics indicate these big trucks are no more prone to accidents than the smaller trucks, probably considerably less. If the minister has some statistics, I would appreciate it if he would give them to us.
We have an Imperial Oil depot for delivering gasoline to service stations in a large area. The depot is in my community and I know a number of the drivers there very well. They drive the very largest tankers with a pup on behind, the kind that is supposed to cause such mayhem, death and danger. They have had no accidents of any kind over the last three of four years in that area -- a record of 100 per cent. One sees them manoeuvring those things into service stations and leaving the loads of gasoline behind. Those guys are as professional drivers as the pilot of the 747 we were talking about.
I forget which member was talking about truck drivers driving such long hours. It is interesting also that pilots are very carefully restricted so they do not drive long hours. The big difference is that the pilots for Air Canada, the fully experienced captains, are paid much more than the Prime Minister of Canada. If their hours are cut back, that is fine.
Hon. Mr. Snow: When I am flying, I think they are worth more.
Mr. Nixon: That is right. I hope the minister sits in the middle of the plane like me. Their hours are restricted. Sometimes I think their hours are restricted to the point they practically forget how to fly between flights, but that is another matter.
These guys driving the trucks, particularly the ones who drive so many hours continuously, are usually driving for themselves and trying to make a living. They are trying to make their payments on their trucks or they are paid on some basis that requires them to work unconscionably long and, I would agree, dangerous hours.
In previous debates about this matter, the minister has said it would be practically impossible to police it. If it were illegal and we did have some inspectors checking up on it with a driver's log, I think something might be done to assist in this matter.
It is not our intention to vote against the bill, but a number of my colleagues have indicated their strong objection to the possibility of making the trucks longer. We may want to express our objection on this important matter when we get into committee, if we ever do.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I thank the member. The member made a suggestion for an early vote, but I see other members want to speak. The member for Prescott-Russell.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker. I too want to join in this debate, although I do not intend to make a very long contribution. There are a few comments I want to make on our annual revisions to the Highway Traffic Act.
One matter I raised with the minister last year and the year before is the whole matter of seatbelts for school buses. We do not see that addressed in this year's bill and we have not seen it in the past.
I always felt we went at our seatbelt legislation backwards. We should have started with public transport vehicles and then proceeded with private cars. I do believe the only reason we proceeded the way we did is that seatbelts were already in the cars and they were not in the school buses.
9:50 p.m.
I do not think that is the right way for us to go. I think the government should move on the issue of seatbelts for school buses, perhaps waiting a fairly lengthy period for proclamation, one or two years, to give the operators of school buses time to equip their vehicles with this particular equipment. When our children are sitting in these buses, especially at the back of the bus, if there is a sudden stop or an accident, the kids fly a very long distance before hitting the objects there, usually the windshield, a post or something in the vehicle. There is tremendous potential for injury. I invite the minister to give this some thought. I mentioned this last year, and he probably remembers my raising it, but I wanted to bring it up again.
Like many of my colleagues, I drive quite a few miles in a year as well --
Mr. Mancini: Times 24.
Mr. Boudria: Times 25 now. I drive a very small car, a Chevette, 50,000 to 55,000 kilometres a year, 1,000 kilometres a week on average. Driving such a small car, I find it very difficult to pass large trucks. A small car, especially that brand of inexpensive small car, is not particularly peppy in passing other vehicles. It usually takes quite a bit of time to achieve that.
On occasion when I have tried to pass one of these great big trucks, I have bitten my fingernails and wondered whether I would make it. The minister is probably thinking that does not say much for my driving, but one always estimates according to one's judgement and it is difficult to estimate that kind of thing; especially when driving at night, as most of us are called upon to do quite often.
A problem we have in my riding and elsewhere is a lack of passing lanes, and I bring that to the minister's attention again, especially the stretch of Highway 17 between Rockland and Orleans. It will be very difficult to pass anything, let alone trucks, on that stretch of highway until we get some passing lanes. I invite the minister to give that some thought in his budgets over the next few years.
I want to raise one or two more issues. There is the business of the advanced or extended green lights in this province. We are probably the only jurisdiction that has those lights. They are very confusing for tourists from outside the province. My riding is along the Quebec border. We share some 70 miles of border with that province. Many people coming over do not recognize what those flashers are for. Unless someone has given them a manual when they cross the Perley Bridge in Hawkesbury saying, "The flashing green lights mean you can turn left without somebody hitting you coming across the other way," how could they possibly know what those things are for?
Most other jurisdictions use an arrow that indicates where one can turn. I do not know of other jurisdictions that use lights. Perhaps there are, and the minister could explain that to us. They do confuse a number of people from out of our province. Sometimes they have asked me, "By the way, why does that green light flash?" I have to tell them it is in order to make a left turn without being run over. For the average person from Toronto who has seen them all over the place in the city, it is no bother. My riding is a little to the side of the centre of the universe, being at the extremity of the province, and we do find that difficult.
There is another issue I want to raise. The federation of agriculture in my riding is quite concerned with the proliferation of the use of the farm implement triangles. I am not sure of their correct name.
Mr. Nixon: Slow-moving-vehicle triangles.
Mr. Boudria: Whatever. They are not upset about farmers using them, but they are increasingly concerned about people using them for various other purposes, which tends to downgrade the importance of the triangles. Ontario Hydro is now using them for the tops of their poles in my riding so helicopters can find them. Some people put them at the end of their culverts so they know where their driveway is. There are all kinds of uses like that.
I wonder if the minister has given some thought to banning the use of them other than for slow-moving vehicles. They are very valuable. I do not know who designed the triangle or where it comes from, but it is now a very good and accepted symbol. It works well, but if we allow everybody to put it everywhere, then it will not have any value. I would encourage the minister to give this some thought.
Coming from the part of the province I do come from, I happen totally to dislike front licence plates on vehicles. Many jurisdictions no longer have them. Quebec, of course, does not have them and many of the states of the union do not have front plates. I find the numbers on my own vehicle keep wearing off. The bugs hit them, etc., and I can hardly see what is on the front plate.
Car washes tend to remove them all the time because the cars are not really designed to have front plates; they are merely bolted on. They are sort of an added-on feature on the car and they do not really stay on properly. In car washes, parking lots and everything else, the first time you hit any minor thing or anything your car rests upon, that front plate falls off.
It is just a total mess. I frankly do not understand why we still have them in this province when so many other jurisdictions have given up on them. Perhaps there is a very important reason why we must have them. I am not sure what it is, especially now that we have only the sticker on the back plate anyway, so one kind of wonders what the front plate does. It is some sort of identifier of the vehicle, I suppose, but when one does not even know whether that number is valid or not because it does not have the sticker on it or anything else, I tend to think its value would be very small, if it has any value at all. I wonder if the minister would tell the House whether he ever intends to do away with the front licence plates we have.
I have just one more item. I agree with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk about the speed limits. I think we should make the speed limits realistic in this province, and then let a speed limit be just that -- a speed limit. At the present time, maximum speed really means minimum speed. If one has ever tried driving at anything less than the speed limit on Highway 401, I think some members have previously described what happens.
I think we should have realistic speed limits that reflect the current use of our highways. Then afterwards we should ensure they are respected. The present situation is that maximum speed really means minimum speed and that totally confuses the sense of logic of what it should be.
I fail to understand, for instance, why we have to drive 50 kilometres an hour on Highway 7 from Kaladar to Ottawa. That is just a snail's pace; nobody drives at that speed.
Mr. Nixon: The Chevette will not go that slow.
Mr. Boudria: The Chevette will not go that slow, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk says.
I usually drive about 10 kilometres faster than that and everybody passes me. It does not reflect the current use of that highway or of any other highway. I would invite the minister to comment on some of those things.
Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable members for their comments on Bill 45. Rather than try to respond to each of the individual members, I probably should respond more to the issues that are included in the bill. I do not know what to do about the ones that are not included in the bill.
Obviously, the greatest concern of the members is the provision of section 7 of the bill, which does provide for a longer overall length of a commercial vehicle. But I have to point out that this change in length does not give one extra inch in length to the actual truck's body or the trailer.
In this case we are responding a great deal more to the safety aspect than to the trucking industry. In fact, I cannot say whether there were any representations, but certainly there were no strong representations to me by the trucking industry for this amendment. The trucking industry has been asking for double-45 trailers and things of this type, which I have totally refrained from considering.
10 p.m.
We are responding to Dr. Uffen's report on truck safety, which is an excellent report. We have had a tremendous amount of comment on it. The report has been distributed across Canada. Dr. Uffen recommends that the overall length of commercial articulated vehicles be increased in Ontario to allow the use of cab-behind-engine tractors but that a suitable kingpin restriction or trailer combination length should be established.
That is exactly what we have done in this bill. We have allowed a longer overall length of vehicle, but we have put in a restriction as to the length of the trailer component in two ways, from the kingpin to the rear of the most rear trailer and from the rear of the cab to the rear of the most rear trailer.
The whole purpose of this is to allow a trucking company, when purchasing new equipment, to purchase a tractor that has a longer wheelbase, that has the engine out in front of the cab rather than underneath the driver's seat. He has a much more stable vehicle. There is much less sway on the road. It is much easier on his back and his kidneys if he is bobtailing down the road.
I followed a car in from the airport tonight, coming down Highway 427, which is a pretty fair piece of road. There was one of these very short tractors with no trailer right beside me. He was just bouncing along. That poor guy must have back problems, weak kidneys and everything else if he rides very much that way.
Dr. Uffen recognized this problem. He went right across this province and held hearings at which truckers, drivers, shippers and motorists appeared before him. In making these recommendations, he came out with some very well-thought-out material in his report.
In the drafting of this bill, we have allowed for the provision of the longer, more stable tractor but we have not increased the length of the trailer. That still does not get away from the argument that we do have a slightly longer overall length. It is a move I certainly have no problem supporting. We will have safer vehicles on our roads.
It is important this bill be dealt with one way or the other, either approved or not approved, because since I have introduced the bill a great many of the people who are interested in buying new equipment are not placing orders for new trucks because they wish to buy the more stable vehicle. Naturally, in economic times such as these, they also do not wish to lose any load volume by having to shorten their trailers.
A number of truckers tell me they are ready to place orders for new equipment as soon as the bill is passed, and that will help the industries that are relying on those orders.
I have to respond to the little exchange I had with the member for Essex North with regard to axle loading. I still cannot understand him. He must have misunderstood the driver or the driver must have misunderstood the law. He talked about putting the bulldozer on the tractor and once he got off the scales having to move ahead to get any weight on the front wheels. Basically, it is the other way around.
I get complaints from truckers that under our axle weight regulations, they have to put weight on the front axle to get their maximum weight. The truckers like to have more weight on the rear axle, especially on the logging trucks, so they can get more traction. What the member is telling me is exactly opposite to the arguments I have been hearing for a number of years from both truck drivers and owners.
The axle weights are working. They are being well recognized now. We had problems at the beginning. There are still some truck drivers having problems getting the load properly distributed. To do that, they have to get that weight on the front axle; that gives them their steering.
If some driver says he is running down the road with no weight on his front axle and cannot steer properly, there is something terribly wrong with the engineering of his truck or the way his trailer is hooked up. He must have the fifth wheel totally out of whack or out of place when mounted on the truck.
The member for Algoma asked about the administration fee for the reinstatement of a driver's licence that had been suspended. We are thinking about that. We will be recommending a fee of $25 to the regulations committee. According to my staff, that is the average cost of the administration of the suspension and reinstatement of a licence. Some will cost more because there are more warning letters and more registered letters sent out and so on. Others will cost less.
The intention is to have the person who has his licence suspended from time to time pay the cost of reinstating it, rather than having it paid by the general taxpayer, the law-abiding soul who does not get his licence suspended.
With regard to ambulance speed limits, which was another item raised by a number of members, many ambulance drivers have asked for that. The police, fire departments and so on have this legislation now. The ambulance people have been asking for it. The drivers and operators have been asking for it. The Metropolitan Toronto Police, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Ministry of Health have endorsed it.
What we are really doing to some degree is legalizing a practice that has taken place for many years, because in a real emergency ambulance drivers have been exceeding the speed limit. They were probably not being apprehended by the police because the police understood the emergency. That does not allow them to drive above the speed limit when they are not on an emergency run. I think that is in keeping with our other legislation that allows those types of vehicles to exceed the speed limit under certain conditions.
Of course, that does not allow the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk to exceed the speed limit unless he wants to buy himself an ambulance and have emergency runs back and forth to Toronto.
The member for Nickel Belt wanted to know what kind of a compromise this was. I think I explained that. There was no compromise whatsoever in establishing this length. In fact, the length was proposed by myself and my officials in response to Dr. Uffen.
I have not heard about the big wheels on trucks which was brought up by the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell). I can understand the problem they could create. If the wheels are as large as he says, it would be a funny-looking vehicle, but it is something we should look into. I thank the honourable member for bringing it to my attention. It is not something I have heard about before. We will make a point of looking into that.
The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk mentioned the tragic accident in my home town of Milton where five or six young people were killed a few months ago. I understand the inquest was completed today. I have not had the results. I saw a little about it on the news.
10:10 p.m.
The recommendation about reflectors on the sides of railway vehicles is absolutely top-notch. It is a good one. It should be implemented. We will be putting that forward as a recommendation. It has gone forward before. It is not the first time that idea has been thought about. Unfortunately, I do not have any jurisdiction over the railways. I will have to make that recommendation to my colleague Mr. Axworthy.
I also appreciated the comments of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk in support of the many excellent, courteous, truck drivers on the highways. I cannot agree with the other members who have spoken about them. There are bad apples in every barrel, but I think generally the truck drivers in Ontario are a professional group and do a really good job. Usually if I go along and some vehicle is in trouble, whom do I see stopping to help? It is a truck driver; it is surely not somebody in a Chevette.
Hon. Mr. Walker: The member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) drives a Chevette.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I had forgotten.
The member for Prescott-Russell had his say about seatbelts on school buses; rather than take the time of the House, I refer him to last year's answer.
The orange triangle, which is the slow-moving vehicle symbol, is not restricted to use by farm vehicles; it is for any slow-moving vehicle. I certainly have not heard of or seen them being used or abused in any other way. If they are, I have not heard from the federation of agriculture of Prescott-Russell. In any case, I would be happy to look into that.
Front licence plates have been discussed many times. From a personal standpoint, I see very little use for them. We have considered that, but I have to tell members that my colleague in the Justice policy field, the Solicitor General, the police forces, the Ontario Police Commission, the Ontario Provincial Police and everybody involved with law enforcement has continuously requested that we maintain the two licence plates.
I believe I have answered all the issues, except about the weigh scales. It seems my colleague the member for Erie and I get each other agitated every year discussing the Highway Traffic Act. We are not building more weigh scales, I do not believe, in any case.
Mr. Ruston: The ministry is making them bigger. It is taking land from farmers at half price.
Hon. Mr. Snow: The scales on the Queen Elizabeth Way are replacement scales; the new scale in Oakville is replacing the one at Dixie, which will be closed down. They are modern, automatic scales to deal with the volume of traffic we have today. The two new scales being built on Highway 401 at Milton are to replace the old ones down the road at Winston Churchill Boulevard.
Mr. Haggerty: Are they Canadian-made?
Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, they are Canadian-made. I am sure they are Canadian-made. Everything we buy is Canadian-made.
I am not saying there are no new scales. We built new scales on Highway 402, and I think there is one other, but I just cannot think where we are putting it. Basically, we are trying to cover the highways where there is heavy traffic to be able to enforce the laws of Ontario. We check not only the weight but also licences, safety and many other things when the trucks go through those truck inspection stations. They are not just weigh scales as they were perhaps 20 years ago. They are very modern, sophisticated pieces of equipment, keeping up with the times and the technology of the day.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
House in committee of the whole.
MILK AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 67, An Act to amend the Milk Act.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves subsection 13(4) of the Milk Act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by deleting all the words after "the Public Service Act or" in the fourth line, and substituting therefor: "notwithstanding the provisions of the Public Service Act, the minister may empower employees of the ministry, board or agency of the government of Canada to exercise such powers and perform such duties."
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I think I gave copies of this amendment to the minister and the critic for the official opposition.
I spoke on this section of the bill during second reading and I am not going to spend a great deal of time on it now. I understand its purpose as that the minister wanted changes in this section of the bill by adding the words "or may otherwise be appointed for such purposes by the minister." Perhaps I should read the section as it exists. It is subsection 13(4) of the act and section 3 of the bill:
"Such officers, field-men and other persons as are considered necessary for the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties of the director may be appointed under the Public Service Act or may otherwise be appointed for such purposes by the minister."
I think everyone here knows the present section ends at the words "Public Service Act." The argument is made by the minister that in some instances there are or would be duplications of inspections etc. if the provincial Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the federal Department of Agriculture were to have separate people doing the job. Therefore, it would be advisable for the province to be able to name these inspectors from the federal Department of Agriculture to do this job for them.
This is a very reasonable request. However, the act as it reads is very broad. It means anyone under the director could be appointed outside the Public Service Act. The minister had indicated this is not the intention. At the present time I do not doubt what he says. However, I do not see why we should pass legislation that would give that very broad power of appointing people outside the Public Service Act in a very general way.
If my amendment does not go far enough to cover what he has stated he wants to do, then I am willing to consider a rewording of it. However, I and this party are not prepared to give that blanket authority for the appointment of people outside the Public Service Act, as would be the case if no amendment is made to the section we have before us.
10:20 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think the amendment offered by the honourable member is unnecessary in that the intention of the section is clear. However, I will acknowledge that after reviewing the construction of this section, it could be subject to some misinterpretation. I have some difficulty with the wording of the amendment proposed by the member.
I have discussed it with the staff of my ministry and I would like to offer him the opportunity to withdraw his amendment, if he would be satisfied with the following wording which we have devised. Basically it is a matter of legal draftsmanship. I think it meets his concerns and certainly meets the intention of the original wording. It would read as follows:
"Such officers, field-men and other persons as are considered necessary for the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties of the director may be appointed under the Public Service Act or, where they have been appointed or designated as a grader or inspector under the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, may otherwise be appointed as a grader or field-man by the minister."
It is a matter of legal construction. I believe it is consistent with what was intended in the original wording. While I think any amendment is unnecessary, in order to allay the member's concerns about any possible misuse or abuse of the wording as it is constructed, I ask the member to withdraw his amendment and I will propose this.
Mr. Swart: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to withdraw that amendment and have the minister move his because it accomplishes exactly the same thing.
While I am on my feet, I should say it is not only my concern, but also the concern of the employees of the ministry and of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. With that comment, I will withdraw my amendment and be pleased to vote in favour of his.
Mr. Chairman: I thank the member. Mr. Swart has withdrawn his amendment.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, I will move this. I figure you would like a copy. You will have to take it from the material I have here. Shall I read it again?
Mr Chairman: It might be an idea.
Mr. Riddell: Have you got copies of it?
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sorry. I have no copies with me.
Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Timbrell moves that subsection 13(4) of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"(4) Such officers, field-men and other persons as are considered necessary for the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties of the director may be appointed under the Public Service Act or, where they have been appointed or designated as a grader or inspector under the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, may otherwise be appointed as a grader or field-man by the minister."
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be amended by adding thereto a new section 3 as follows:
3. Subsection 8(1) of the Milk Act be amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"16a. determining from time to time the maximum and minimum prices that shall be paid at the wholesale and retail levels for fluid milk products or any class, variety or size of fluid milk products, determining different maximum and minimum prices for different parts of Ontario, and prohibiting the sale of fluid milk products at prices above or below the applicable maximum or minimum prices."
I also move that the present section 3 be renumbered section 4 and subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly.
Mr. Chairman: With all due respect to the member, his proposed motion is out of order.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Before you make that official declaration, I might ask for unanimous consent of the House to introduce this amendment. I suspected you might rule it out of order, even though there may be and are very sound reasons for having it in the bill.
Could we have unanimous consent of the House on such a very important issue as setting the price of milk? In Manitoba they have knocked the price down and in Quebec the price is substantially lower than it is in this province. We have no authority, as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) has said over and over again. Perhaps I could ask for unanimous consent of the House to introduce this amendment and then we could proceed to debate it.
Mr. Chairman: I think most honourable members heard the member himself admit he recognized it was out of order. The question has been put. Do we have unanimous consent?
Interjections.
Mr. Chairman: We were asking the committee whether there was unanimous consent --
Mr. Nixon: No.
Mr. Chairman: I do not hear that; so I do have to abide by my original comments. The proposed amendment is out of order.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
On section 4:
Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Timbrell moves that subsection 20(2) of the act, as set out in subsection 4(2) of the bill, be amended by inserting after "mark" in the ninth line, "packaging."
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended to correct one small omission we discovered in the subsection.
Motion agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Timbrell, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.