Journal des débats 1974-nov-28 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

There are 120 students of grades 9 and 10 from the Huntsville High School visiting us and seated in the galleries today. I’m sure that the members of all parties will welcome them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Eglinton.

Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, I know that you and other hon. members of this House would like to join with me in welcoming visitors to our gallery today. In the west gallery there are several students from Glenview Senior Public School, along with their teacher, Miss Pritchard, and two of the parents, Mrs. Woodruff and Mrs. Palmer.

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

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I may; I wonder if you would make a ruling. What I would like to know is: Does a member of this House have immunity against being charged criminally as a result of a speech in this House? More specifically, I’m referring to the Invasion of Privacy Act, section 178(2), which states that disclosing the existence of certain wiretaps is an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for two years. Do we have immunity against this legislation?

Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding that you have immunity for anything you say or do in this chamber. What you do outside --

Mr. Shulman: In this chamber?

Mr. Speaker: Within this chamber, yes.

Mr. MacDonald: Criminal as well as civil?

Mr. Speaker: I’m not sure what you have reference to. If that doesn’t answer your question, you had better consult a lawyer about outside the chamber.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I’m asking, do we have your protection?

Mr. Speaker: That is my understanding.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): He’ll look after the member.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Just how valuable is your protection?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege --

An hon. member: The member for Grey-Bruce is protected too.

Mr. Sargent: -- that not only concerns the privileges of all members of the House, but the basic and fundamental privilege of the House to grant access to files pertaining to public business and the public interest. Obviously, if those rights are taken away, the House does not exist. It is not so obvious that the House does not exist, except in shadow form, when the right to information is emasculated through the abuse of the rules of the House and the contempt of the ministers in refusing to supply information.

In my questioning of an overpayment of about $3 million for land in the Saltfleet development, the minister will not provide the files, but rather he retains the right to pick and choose, Mr. Speaker, information from the files to substantiate his position that everything was above board.

Without going into all the details at this time of the serious mishandling of moneys in this department, I raise this matter because I believe that if a member of the Legislature cannot get information, then we have come to a dangerous point in our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, if it is acceptable to you I move, seconded by the hon: member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy): That the subject matter of this question of privilege be referred to the standing committee on procedure and organization, or the appropriate committee, and that from here on the ministers provide the files requested by the members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: May I just say to the hon. member that I know of nothing in the orders which has to do with requiring the ministers, or anyone else, to open their files to anyone, within or without the House; so I don’t see that the hon. member has a basis for that part of his argument.

If he is not satisfied with the answers to any questions which he has asked, there is a procedure to seek redress on that, as you know, I think it is in order 27(a) and (g), although I could be corrected on that. If he is not satisfied with an answer there is a procedure which he can follow.

If he is not familiar with that I suggest he consult his House leader, or failing that the Clerk or myself later; it has to do with the debate at the close of business on Tuesday evening. Of course, you must give notice in writing before 4 o’clock of the same day on which the answer with which you are not satisfied was given. It seems to me that would answer the hon. member’s problem.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I respect your opinion on that, but I do say that the whole operation of a member not being able to secure the information defeats the purpose of the House.

Mr. Speaker: You may bring that up if you wish to go through the procedure which I outlined.

Mr. Sargent: Well I wish to put that motion that I have given to you, because I think the government should either say “yes,” or “no” we haven’t access to the files. If we haven’t, then our being here is useless.

Mr. Speaker: I consider the motion out of order at this time.

Statements by the ministry.

The hon. Treasurer?

LAND PURCHASES IN HALDIMAND-NORFOLK

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House during the debate on my estimates last month, we are pressing forward with a development strategy for Ontario. In conjunction with this we have been assembling a number of large parcels of land throughout the province which will be used to implement the urban requirements of this strategy. The members are already familiar with the Townsend site near Jarvis, in the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, which we began acquiring in May of this year.

Since the initial block purchase of 10,740 acres at an average price of $1,936 an acre, we have acquired approximately. 2,500 additional acres through open market purchasing from local landowners at an average price of $2,100 an acre.

The Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow) has now advised me that they have purchased all the freely available property on this site. As a result we have discontinued active purchasing there, although we will consider any reasonable offers of privately- owned property which could be useful to this development.

We are now discussing development of this project with officials of the regional municipality and we plan to have the first housing available on this site within 30 months. This new settlement will absorb much of the growth we foresee from industrial development in Nanticoke during the next 10 years.

In the development at Townsend site, we will look for ways to integrate agriculture, industry and commerce to preserve our foodlands, protect the environment and meet the aspirations of future generations for a different, more habitable, kind of community. We must do this, Mr. Speaker, and I am excited about the potential of this site. I will have more to say about it when we present our development strategy to the House.

While the Townsend site is being developed, Mr. Speaker, we will proceed with the design of another community on a second site which we are in the process of acquiring in Haldimand-Norfolk. Over the past several months a real estate firm has acquired, on our instructions, options to purchase parcels of land in excess of 12,000 acres in the former townships of South Cayuga, Dunn and Rainham. The average price of these options is $1,861 an acre plus real estate and legal fees.

We have not determined the ultimate size of this community, or the amount of land which should be acquired by the province to initiate its development. Because the Townsend site will meet the immediate needs of the Nanticoke development, we can take more time to develop the second community. It has the size, location and potential to experiment with new concepts in housing and land use on a site which does not encompass our prime foodlands.

While we are planning these new settlements, however, we intend to keep all the existing arable land in both sites in food production. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), will work directly with the Ontario Land Corp. to achieve this.

Mr. Speaker, it has been necessary to advise the House of this project now so that we can take over and exercise the options which were obtained for us. As we did with the Townsend site, I will table a list of all the options and their cost in this House at an appropriate time in the New Year.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy.

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, at an appropriate time I will be introducing an Act to establish the Ontario Energy Corp. It is rather interesting, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on the fact that this is the first piece of legislation which has emanated from the Ministry of Energy since its birth a little over a year ago.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Conception.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In summary form it might be said that the particular Act today will create a government-controlled corporation to invest or otherwise participate in energy-related projects. At the same time, it will have a structure that is distinct from any ministry, and, as far as possible, it is intended that the corporation will ultimately progress into a financially self-supporting and commercially viable enterprise.

In the report that, as parliamentary assistant to the Premier (Mr. Davis), I delivered on June 1, 1973, I anticipated that a step such as this should be examined in the light of the interests of the people of Ontario. At that time -- in proposal No. 12 -- I proposed that the government of Ontario “should establish an energy development fund which would be authorized to commit provincial resources for projects which are deemed to be potentially of importance to this province and which are not being adequately dealt with at the present time.”

We have moved beyond the conception of a “fund” to an actual corporation that will be a continuing and active participant in the assurance of adequate and secure supplies of energy in Ontario. The increasing seriousness of the concerns related to adequacy of supply clearly call for increasingly positive action by Ontario and, indeed, by all parts of the nation.

This, again, was made clear to hon. members in my Sept. 4, 1974, statement on natural gas. I commented in that report as follows:

“We propose that this corporation, to be controlled by the government of Ontario, will provide the initiative and support required to get large energy projects under way on time and in a sequence that we perceive to be in the public interest. The corporation will participate directly or indirectly with private industry or other governments in projects which enhance the availability of energy to the province and. which encourage wise use of the essential resources.”

The share structure of the corporation is divided into two million common shares and 20 million special shares that may be issued for such consideration as the board of directors may determine. Limitations will be placed on the extent of individual ownership and non-resident ownership of equity shares. The Minister of Energy, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, will at all times hold a majority of the outstanding shares of each class of equity shares of the corporation.

The corporation will be given powers to borrow money and make investments by a wide variety of financing vehicles in order to allow it maximum flexibility in operation.

As far as possible, this corporation will adopt the structure of a normal corporation and will be a normal business operation in the sense that, for example, Ontario Hydro and Air Canada are normal business operations. But the corporate purposes will be rather different than those of a private company: Its primary objective will be the assurance of energy for Ontario users, rather than profit.

In order to assure that the corporation accurately reflects the aspirations and interests of the people of Ontario, the corporation is required to make an annual report to the Minister of Energy and this report will be submitted to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and to the assembly.

I do not suggest that the role of the corporation should be a narrow one, although it will be limited to projects in the energy field. Its role will be a gradually developing one as the circumstances change and initiatives are seen to be necessary. Initially we propose that the minister be the only shareholder in the corporation.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That’s called blue socialism.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: At some stage in its development we anticipate the corporation may attract capital from other investors, whether institutions or directly from the public, for which a reasonable return on investment should be properly expected. Such investments would be related to the corporation itself, or more likely to subsidiary interests and joint ventures established to carry out specific projects.

Within this framework the goals will be as follows: To enhance the availability of energy in Ontario by stimulating resource exploration and development and expanding production capability throughout Canada or elsewhere; to encourage investment in energy projects and the effective use of financial, human and other resources in energy projects; --

Mr. Sargent: That’s what is called giving them a piece of the action.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- to encourage development of processes and equipment which avoid wasteful use of energy and minimize environmental damage to improve the security of energy supply to Ontario through acquisition, participation, guarantee and long term commitment of resources.

I made it abundantly clear in my statement on natural gas that there is no disposition for the Ontario Energy Corp. to undermine the activities of the private sector, quite the reverse

Mr. Sargent: What’s the motivation then?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is not in Ontario’s interest to further exacerbate the tensions between private energy corporations and government or to increase the uncertainty that afflicts the industry. The purpose of this corporation is to secure the interests of Ontario in the matter of energy supply, and this will not be accomplished by prejudicing the circumstances of those corporations, public or private, that currently contribute toward this end.

The Ontario Energy Corp. will, in a sense, stand between the public and private sectors of our community. It will reinforce the contribution of both, but it will not rush about attempting to displace private activities in those many areas where activities are efficient, appropriate, timely and relevant to the real needs of Ontario.

Indeed, it is proposed that, in terms of the regulated gas companies, there will be a broadening of private sector involvement in the assurance of secure supplies of energy. In my report to the Premier in June of last year I made the following proposal:

“Regulated utilities should be encouraged to invest in the exploration for and production of natural gas; and further, the government of Ontario should consider the inclusion of approved investments in the cost of service or rate base of such utilities.”

Up to this time the Ontario Energy Board has, generally speaking, only approved the inclusion in rate base of investments already made in Ontario for the distribution of gas and not investments related to exploration, production and transportation unless also made in the province. Because of our dependence on gas supplies produced outside Ontario, it is our view that the category should be broadened to include investments made beyond the borders of the province.

In this connection I am now tabling, for the information of members, the order in council directing the Ontario Energy Board to examine, and after a public hearing to report on, the question of the appropriate limitations, conditions and procedures to govern approval by the board of investments or expenditures by Ontario gas distributors for the purpose of securing additional future supplies of gas for Ontario.

In brief then, sir, I am asking the Energy Board to report on an appropriate mechanism by which the gas utilities can become more involved in investments which will improve the availability and security of long-term supplies of energy for Ontario.

Faced with an uncertain future with respect to natural gas supplies for the province I had expected, and so stated on Sept. 4, to present to the House in this session amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act with respect to the hearing procedures and to the transfer of authority for the allocation of natural gas supplies from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to the Ontario Energy Board and to provide for powers for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations relating to systems of priorities of natural gas use. This is a matter which we have concluded will require more extensive study in consultation with other ministries and co-ordination with various parts of the federal government including the Energy Supplies Allocation Board and the National Energy Board.

It is our intention to proceed with those amendments as soon as practicable in the spring session of the Legislature.

ACCESS TO CONDOMINIUMS BY MUNICIPAL CANDIDATES

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that some candidates running for office in the forthcoming municipal elections and their representatives have been refused access to some condominium developments, and that this has resulted in an inability on the part of these candidates to canvass thousands of potential voters.

I have been advised by members of my legal staff that, in their opinion, condominium corporations do not have the authority under the Condominium Act to refuse reasonable access to political candidates. I am also advised that condominium bylaws that purport to prevent candidates or their representatives from campaigning in condominium developments are not valid under the Act. The Landlord and Tenant Act, Mr. Speaker, specifically provides that a landlord cannot restrict reasonable access in these circumstances and I am giving consideration to a similar amendment to the Condominium Act to clarify this matter, as follows:

“No corporation or servant or agent of a corporation shall restrict reasonable access to the property by candidates, or their representatives, for election to the House of Commons, the legislative assembly, or any office in a municipal government or school board for the purpose of canvassing or distributing election material.”

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Let’s pass that today.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): First the minister said it was illegal; now he is amending the Act.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

LAND PURCHASES IN HALDIMAND-NORFOLK

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you. I would like to put a question to the Treasurer, further to his statement on new community development in Haldimand-Norfolk: Can he now clarify for the Legislature where the planning authority will reside for the development of these new communities? Will it, in fact, stem from his own position as chief planner or will the people presently living in the area, who have stood for public office and have responsibilities in the municipalities as they now stand, have a role to play in the planning of the future community?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, I have communicated four options to the regional council. The member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Allan), and I are going to be meeting with the regional council, I think a week from tomorrow at 4 o’clock, at which time we are going to invite their comments and their advice on the options available.

One of the options is to use the Ontario Planning and Development Act. Another option is to use the regular mechanisms of municipal planning and regulation. A third option is to have a project corporation, which would have on its board six local citizens among the 12 members on the board, and to have the regional council’s planning committee, that being comprised of elected persons, as the advisory committee to the project corporation. A fourth option would be a variation on one of those.

As soon as the regional council has given us advice and a decision has been made, I’ll be glad to announce that decision to the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister can make it clear under what authority he is purchasing these lands. Ii it a special minute of cabinet that permits him to go out this way, without any consultation with the community concerned, to buy up these large parcels of land which evidently will fit into a scheme which he may or may not present to us in the weeks that lie ahead?

Hon. Mr. White: Well sir, the authority is provided under statutes for which the Minister of Government Services is responsible; and the decision of cabinet is certainly reflected in a minute of cabinet, yes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wonder if I could have a further supplementary. Is there a limit to the purchases authorized by cabinet? Or has the Treasurer a free hand to purchase under the authority he has described instructing his colleague to buy on his behalf?

Hon. Mr. White: The limits are the estimates voted by this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He has all the money he needs to buy that.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary: What effect will the development of this new town, city or whatever it may be, have on the ongoing corridor study that is currently under way and supposedly to end by the end of February of this coming year? How will that possibly be integrated and how do the corridors that are being proposed fit into this overall plan?

Hon. Mr. White: This site in Cayuga was one of the potential sites delineated in the “Threshold of Change” report which was published a year ago or thereabouts. In that report, the relationship between the alternative city sites and the transportation corridors was described. So the selection of this site and the acquisition of it are perfectly consistent with the planning contained in that document.

And if I may say so, perfectly consistent with all of the planning principles and policies announced -- starting with the TCR in 1966 -- in that these sites lie beyond zone 2, where we are attempting to stimulate industrial development and increase population densities and in the process protecting the scale and style and humanity of the communities in the Toronto-centred part of the province.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. What kind of an impact does the inclusion of some tens of thousands of persons who are likely to move into the area if it develops as you imagine it is likely to develop, have on the ability of the area between Hamilton and Nanticoke to absorb that number of people and to provide adequate transportation routes in order that they will be able to traverse back and forth, or to wherever they have to go?

Hon. Mr. White: I do believe, sir, that I have answered the question. There are transportation corridors depicted in the “Threshold of Change” reports.

Mr. Deans: But they are all roads.

Hon. Mr. White: And these transportation corridors are shown in juxtaposition to potential sites. The site which we are acquiring is one of the best potential sites.

If I may take another moment, Mr. Speaker, this is the most glorious city site imaginable, with the broad reaches --

Mr. Deans: In the world? Is that in the world, or just in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. White: -- of the Grand River across the top, and with Lake Erie across the bottom.

Mr. Sargent: The Treasurer has also got Maple Mountain.

Mr. Foulds: It surpasses Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires and Vancouver.

Hon. Mr. White: My hope is, it being within commuting distance of the Niagara Peninsula, that it will take some of the development pressures off those unique soft fruit lands.

Mr. Roy: Is it four-star or three-star?

Hon. Mr. White: By the same token, one would hope that the Jarvis site might relieve certain of the pressures in the Hamilton area, in addition to providing for the enormous build-up of population that is going to be experienced there. And I’ll remind you, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time, or a short while ago, the population of Haldimand-Norfolk was 87,000. Estimations of population in the year 2000 -- now that is not very long away, that’s 25 years from now and we graduated; well I don’t know about my hon. friend but I graduated more than 25 years ago from college --

Mr. Deans: It shows.

Mr. Roy: That is obvious.

Mr. Singer: The Treasurer doesn’t believe that now.

Hon. Mr. White: By the year 2000, not very long from now, estimates range up to a population of 900,000 people.

Mr. Roy: I was going to say he graduated in 1950.

Hon. Mr. White: That, by the way, was from Canadian Bechtel. Now we can do nothing, and allow the existing communities -- which I know very well: Port Dover, Simcoe, and others -- to be absolutely ruined by overdevelopment; we can try to take the strain off by locating these two new city sites to accommodate maybe a quarter of a million people each, and this is the route we are taking, I am absolutely positive this is the way to go on.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions by the Leader of the Opposition?

FUNDING OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A further question of the Treasurer: Is he aware of the financial stress, which may result in fiscal stress on the province, that the universities are experiencing as a result of the statement a week ago by the Treasurer’s colleague, the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld)?

Is he aware that the president of the University of Toronto stated the following in a university publication named the “Bulletin” and dated Nov. 22? I quote:

“I believe the university must accept a major deficit in 1975-76, rather than further sacrificing the quality of its programmes.”

Does the Treasurer not believe the deficit incurred by provincially-assisted universities are essentially our deficit, and therefore that there should be a statement of policy in this regard before the universities go forward with the type of financing envisaged by the president of the University of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. White: What the member says is correct on first glance, but in fact these are self-governing institutions.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Oh, no, no; that doesn’t slough off responsibility.

Hon. Mr. White: And therefore their deficits are not our deficits in a more correct and meaningful sense. If the implication of the hon. member’s remarks is that we should incorporate them into some government ministry, I’d like to hear him say so.

Now dealing with the problem itself --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is a good idea.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is exactly it.

Hon. Mr. White: We are going to provide 16 percent more money to the universities next year --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: An effective 7.2 per cent.

Hon. Mr. White: We have to deal with an enormous increase in health costs; we are providing 13 per cent, plus $80 or $85, for the secondary and primary schools; we are faced with heavy demands from the CSAO; and there is only so much money in this pot.

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. White: Now the universities, when I last saw the figures --

Mr. Sargent: And the Treasurer squandered it all.

Hon. Mr. White: -- had a staff-student ratio of 1 to 12.9. The staff-student ratio of Mexico, where the university has more than 100,000 students, where the library is open 24 hours a day, where they have more than 10,000 medical students, and where their degrees are accepted around the world, is one to 80. When I was in France last weekend on my way back from the Middle East, I was talking to two university professors and I said: “What’s your staff-student ratio?” And they said: “We can’t get the exact figures. It is between one to 100 and one to 150.”

I don’t think deficits are the answer in the university community. I think the answer lies in increasing the staff-student ratio, as indeed the Premier pleaded with them to do six or eight years ago. At that time the staff-student ratio was one to 14. When I took over that ministry, it was one to 12.9. That’s not my idea of progress in that area.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Surely the Treasurer would agree that if the University of Toronto enters into a substantial deficit it is going to have to borrow the money on some collateral. Now is it going to be the collateral of the ownership of Hart House?

Mr. Bullbrook: Right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Or is it going to be the credit of the province? Don’t listen to the former Treasurer, because he got into problems this way too.

Mr. Bullbrook: What are they going to do, mortgage Convocation Hall?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Now surely the Treasurer must accept, in the long run, that any deficit entered into by a provincially assisted university is our deficit.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Your question?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If we are going to go into those arrangements, we should surely have a policy statement.

Hon. Mr. White: Well I don’t agree with that, sir. The president of York University, who is known to the members here, has embarked upon a $10 million fund-raising campaign, and I would like very much if the U of T contemplated that instead of a deficit --

Mr. Breithaupt: Those days are over and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. White: -- although I must say that the aside from my colleague, the Minister of Energy, was they could always mortgage the John Robarts Library.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s very funny.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary: In recognizing that these grants as announced, of 16.9 per cent, when translated into true value to the universities are 7.4, do I understand the Treasurer’s response to the Leader of the Opposition to be that this government now is prepared to adopt as a policy the right of a university to enter into a deficit financing position? Is that correct? Is it adopting that policy? If so, it is the first time in the history of secondary education throughout the world that a government has allowed that.

Hon. Mr. White: Well in fact that isn’t correct. There have been deficits before and they have been managed.

Mr. Bullbrook: They have not!

Hon. Mr. White: The powers which the University of Toronto have are those powers, no more and no less, that this Legislature gave to them.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. White: If there is something defective about that Act, of course we would contemplate a change.

Mr. Bullbrook: So the Treasurer’s answer is that the government is prepared to have them deficit finance?

Hon. Mr. White: I am asking them to sharpen their pencils and find other economies --

Mr. Bullbrook: The Treasurer’s answer is “yes.” He is not asking them that.

Hon. Mr. White: -- as a preference to deficits.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary to the minister’s answer. Did he have any planned alternative when he suggested this 16 per cent; which works out in fact to about seven per cent according to the universities? What are the government’s alternatives for the universities? Is it to increase the staff-student ratio or is it to cut the number of students in the university? For instance, Carleton University has a $1.1 million deficit. What is the government’s alternative to that university to solve that problem?

Hon. Mr. White: My hon. friend will deal with certain of these matters. These are self-governing institutions. I don’t run them; nor does the Minister of Colleges and Universities. They run themselves using income from several sources, the major source of course being the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Roy: Eighty per cent.

Hon. Mr. White: Now if one looks at the campuses in this province and sees the high quality of buildings, the high quality of courses, the high repute in which these degrees are held throughout the western world --

Mr. Breithaupt: Oh, yes.

Hon. Mr. White: -- one has to come to the conclusion, as I do, that we have provided appropriate sums of money. Of course they would like to have twice as much, but they are getting hundreds of millions of dollars and they can provide a high level of education for every man and woman who qualifies and who can benefit from that further education.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): The government put them there.

Hon. Mr. White: If the members don’t accept what I am saying, walk across the street and look around.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Treasurer if he is contemplating any reaction to the information that came from the president of the Canadian Real Estate Association yesterday predicting a 10 per cent across the board increase in the cost of housing, probably a 22 per cent increase in the next year in Metropolitan Toronto. In this connection is he giving consideration to removing or reducing the provincial sales tax on the cost of building materials and construction materials?

Hon. Mr. White: Well now, sir, I don’t know this gentleman and I don’t know much about that association. But I do know if I were trying to sell watermelons one of the things I would say is, the price is going to be higher tomorrow or a week from tomorrow.

Mr. Breithaupt: What happens if the Treasurer is selling universities?

An hon. member: What happens if an election is coming?

Hon. Mr. White: If somebody in the brokerage business selling stocks and bonds came out with this kind of claim, first of all the newspapers I suspect wouldn’t print it; and second I suspect that person might find his licence in jeopardy. I see time and time again the media, here in Toronto in particular, accepting every prediction about higher prices --

Mr. Breithaupt: Sounds like the member for Fort William (Mr. Jessiman) to me.

Hon. Mr. White: -- which thereupon forces potential buyers into the market when they don’t want to go. I think that’s a very great mistake. I’m not suggesting there be legislation passed, I think that’s not the answer; but I do think a little more self control on the part of the media about some of these outlandish claims --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: They must be getting to him.

An hon. member: Don’t blame the press now.

Hon. Mr. White: -- which no doubt on occasion at least are for the purpose of stimulating this month’s business, would be very much in order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is this the senator from Georgia?

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Putting aside the --

Mr. Breithaupt: They’re going to have to sharpen their pencils too.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Putting aside the personal views expressed by the Treasurer, which are critical personally of the president of the Canadian Real Estate Association and the press in Metropolitan Toronto, surely he does accept the fact that the costs of housing are enormously high, and in fact out of the reach of the ordinary wage earners in this city and in this province. Why would he not now at least consider following the initiative from the government of Canada in removing at least part of the sales tax on building and construction materials?

An hon. member: Which this government increased.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): We thought the Treasurer was going to take it all off.

Hon. Mr. White: I heard these predictions last June. All kinds of real estate salesmen were saying, “Buy now because you won’t be able to afford it later.” The fact of the matter is that last May the average house in this city sold for $57,000, and the last numbers I saw were that the average price had decreased to $54,000. So there are some predictions down the drain.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: People have enough to do to live. So the Treasurer’s not prepared to do anything?

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary; the hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Given the nature of the real estate business and the fact that they work on commission, which in itself makes it more desirable for them to attempt to inflate prices, is there any action contemplated by the government to somehow or other alter the method of the sales of realty to reflect other than simply a commission arrangement based on the sale price of the product?

Hon. Mr. White: No, sir.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): What does the member suggest?

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition. We’re straying away from the original question.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Doesn’t the Treasurer think that would in fact be beneficial in bringing prices down?

Mr. Roy: Supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: You may place a new question in a few moments. Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

The hon. member for Wentworth is leading off?

Mr. Roy: Are you ignoring my supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I said you could get around to a new question in a few moments.

Mr. Roy: But this is a supplementary, not a new question.

Mr. Speaker: The last one wasn’t really a supplementary, so --

Mr. Roy: Oh yes, but I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The time is passing. The hon. member will be able to ask a question.

Mr. Roy: Yes, well time is passing because he’s being voluble, or whatever.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Wentworth.

FOOD PRICES

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister for Consumer and Commercial Relations. Given the statement of the food profit study and the agreement of the minister that further profit increases in the food industry would be undesirable, what action does the ministry plan to take to ensure that the goal as set out by the president of Dominion Stores of a 100 per cent increase in return not be permitted in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I think that the statement that the hon. member refers to in part two of the food study, and which has been referred to by his leader on previous occasions, should not be really attributed to me. It was an observation --

Mr. Deans: The minister said he agreed with it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It was an observation contained in that particular part two of the study. The member’s leader asked, and has asked over some days, perhaps two or three weeks ago, referring to interim reports -- quarter-annual or half-annual reports -- of various food companies, what if anything were we prepared to do; and would we entertain the possibility of communicating with these various food companies.

I advised him that I would entertain communicating with these food companies. I also pointed out that interim statements per se are not the be all and end all, that one has to look at a breakdown, in terms of increase in sales and whether capital assets have been sold and fallen into the profit for the period involved, to get the proper picture.

So I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that we are watching this thing. We are concerned. We feel an obligation to draw these things to the attention of the public insofar as they relate to the sale of food. I can’t make a definite statement right now as to whether I have signed a letter to all of them, but I know I have written to one or two in the past few days asking for further clarification on the interim earnings reported in the press pertaining to their particular firm.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Notwithstanding the interim earnings, which appear to be reasonable and satisfactory, what does the minister plan to do about the statement attributed to the president of Dominion Stores, that it is the goal of the Dominion chain to increase its profits from one per cent on dollar sales to two per cent on dollar sales, and that it has revised its return on equity from what was once 12 to 15 per cent to its present 15 to 20 per cent as being desirable and attainable?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Number one, I have not seen the statement attributable to the president of the particular chain referred to by the hon. member, but I would welcome any suggestion the hon. member might put across the floor of the House at this time. What would he suggest?

Mr. Speaker: This is not the time to suggest it. Does the member have further questions?

Mr. Deans: I will give the minister a suggestion. I am glad he asked for it. Why doesn’t he call in the president of Dominion Stores and tell him that as a result of the food study, it was agreed that the return on investment was adequate -- in fact more than adequate -- that there is no need to rook the public any further by increasing the profit-taking of the company in the operation?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Why doesn’t the member check out the returns from the co-op food store in Oshawa?

Mr. Speaker: Apparently there is no answer. Any further questions?

Mr. Deans: Is the minister happy with the answer?

Mr. Lawlor: Does he have the fortitude?

HIGHWAY 6 CORRIDOR STUDY

Mr. Deans: May I ask a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications? Will the minister revise the study currently under way for a transportation corridor from Nanticoke to Hamilton and enlarge it to include a study of the transportation needs of the city of Hamilton to ensure that an unwise choice is not made, given the capacity of the city of Hamilton to provide arterial roads to carry the heavy load of transportation the Treasurer just told us today is going to be coming back and forth?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, if a wider study is required in order to find the most proper routing for any additional highway facilities, then certainly that study will be expanded.

Mr. Deans: May I ask a supplementary question? Is the minister aware that the utility portion of the study which is currently being undertaken must be completed by the end of February, 1975, by his own ministry officials’ statement; and that there is not sufficient time between now and then for a comprehensive study, both of the route from Nanticoke to Hamilton and the capacity of the city of Hamilton to provide interior routes for the traffic to use? Will the minister then move to expand the study now so that we won’t end up in February having to make a choice which will prove to be disastrous for the overall growth of the total area?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that if more time is needed to find the proper routing and the proper highway location, we certainly will expand that study. We are not bound by any specific time limitations on these studies. The desire is to pick the route that will best serve the needs of the communities that will be involved, and we will carry out all the studies that are required.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can take this opportunity to reply briefly to a question the hon. member for Wentworth asked me on Nov. 25 concerning these studies, and specifically indicating that the council of Glanbrook had not been contacted by our planners. My information is that the ministry team had met with the municipal technical staffs. Meetings had also been held with the regional government officials as well as the elected representatives of the various municipal councils, and Mayor Jack Hyslop of Glanbrook and one alderman attended the meetings.

Mr. Deans: Well, the mayor was there as a member of the regional council, and so was the alderman.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, the member will agree then that the representatives of the municipality referred to in his question were there?

Mr. Deans: No, of course, I don’t agree they were there.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, is the mayor not a representative of his community?

Mr. Deans: Does the minister think that the lower tier of the regional government is of no consequence?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If the member is suggesting that the mayor is not a representative of his community, I am sure he will be interested to know the member’s feelings.

Mr. Deans: He knows me better than to allow the minister to twist it around that way.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

INJURED WORKMEN

Mr. Deans: I have one final question of the Minister of Labour. Is it the intention of the Minister of Labour to meet with the injured workmen who have been in the building consistently for the last week, or close to a week? Does he know whether the Premier has either acceded to, or denied the request which I made to him to meet with these people in conjunction with the Minister of Labour?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I’m not certain of the Premier’s intention. I, myself, am prepared to see them again if they wish to see me. I understand that they have four main requests. One of them is 100 per cent compensation for lost wages.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Right on.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Another is that they want their own physicians to be the final arbiter. They are seeking greater safety, with which we concur, of course. They also want the pensions they are receiving to be indexed to the cost of living.

All of these are government policies that apply to the entire number of people who are receiving workmen’s compensation benefits. So unless we are changing the policy for everybody I don’t see that any special compensation will be made to the present group that is picketing on the main floor.

I will be prepared to see them again. I have seen them once, and I am happy to see them again. But in view of the requests that they are making, I think their requests concern all workmen’s compensation recipients rather than just themselves.

Mr. Deans: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: As recently as last June the government made its statement on all these positions and it’s always under review. I will be pleased to see them again but I can’t see any immediate answer to their request -- that is by immediate action.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Martel: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Surely, in view of the minister’s answer, it’s time that we, as a province, considered compensation based on the destruction of a man’s ability to earn rather than on the degree of physical disability suffered.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions? The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth first of all.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I gather that was a statement.

Mr. Martel: No, I stated, “Surely, it’s time this province,” and “is it not time?”

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question?

Mr. Martel: If it’s too difficult for the minister -- is it not time?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to that is, as I said earlier, we haven’t taken a position for all time on this. We made changes in June. I assume that at some time we will make some changes again, so our position is flexible for the next time we make changes. All I’m saying is that I can’t see any immediate changes.

Some movement in the direction that the member for Sudbury East requested was given in June. His position is that we didn’t go far enough. We are reconsidering that, Mr. Speaker, for the next time we make changes in workmen’s compensation benefits.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

CARLETON UNIVERSITY

Mr. Roy: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I would like to ask the minister for his proposal, or what he has advised Carleton University in the light of his statement a couple of weeks ago. Carleton University is apparently facing at present a $1.1 million deficit and it would appear, and I would ask the minister to confirm whether there is any truth in it, that Carleton will be forced to eliminate St. Patrick’s College, which has existed now for some 40 years?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, I know that Carleton has made some proposals or some requests to us. I was just looking for it. Carleton has a problem, as I understand it, with the operation of St. Patrick’s College. I haven’t yet found whether the original agreement between Carleton -- or when Carleton was formed and included St. Patrick’s College -- included the continuation of the entirely separate staff of registrar and so forth, as I understand it, which is in the college. When I have further information on that I will be able to discuss it with Carleton and I will be glad to keep the hon. member informed.

I might just say, though, that along the lines of what was discussed a few moments ago in the House with the Treasurer, the House would be interested to know that various institutions have anticipated deficits as far back as 1971, according to figures which I have.

To give an example, though, of how accurate their predictions have been, in 1973-1974 the budgets which the provincially-supported universities put forward anticipated a total deficit of $13.5 million. In fact, at the end of the year when they had their books complete, the total deficit for those 14 was $1,018,000. So sometimes the original predictions are somewhat more gloomy than the final result.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister saying in his answer that in fact he does not believe that the universities will have the deficit they are presently predicting? Second, is that one of the options that has been discussed with Carleton University -- the elimination of St. Patrick’s College?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have not discussed any options specifically with any of the institutions, Mr. Speaker, but I am concerned about that particular one because I had an inquiry about it. When I’m a little better informed I’ll be able to perhaps discuss something with Carleton and I will keep the hon. member informed.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that a number of universities are predicting financial problems, will the minister reaffirm his statement of Nov. 18 that tuition fees will not be increased for students in Ontario in 1975-1976, despite the lobbying that’s being done from within the university community to the Council of University Affairs, and in particular from the president of the University of Toronto, Dr. John Evans?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will read my statement in the House about two weeks ago I think it’s pretty clear, and I haven’t changed my mind since then.

Mr. Laughren: I read it. All I am asking, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister not renege on that statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the minister of --

Mr. Stokes: He is out of order. The last question was from --

Mr. Singer: He is not out of order.

Mi. Speaker: No. The member for Nickel Belt had the last new question.

Mr. Stokes: That was a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: It was announced as a supplementary, but it was not a supplementary to the original one.

Mr. Foulds: Yes it was.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The question of the member for Nickel Belt had to do with student fees and that had nothing to do with the original question. The member for Carleton East.

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP.

Mr. P. Taylor: I’m glad to see who is really in charge of the business of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy mentioned the new Energy Corp. and he said it was to be run on a non-profit basis. However, he also said that investments from non-governmental sources --

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): What is the question?

Mr. P. Taylor: -- may be welcomed in the future, at an appropriate rate of return. My question is: If the corporation is to be non-profit, where would the appropriate return for private investors come from?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I did not say it would be non-profit -- I’m looking for the exact words here -- what I said was that “the primary concern would not be profit.”

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: At what point are we in the consortium, with regard to the private interests? Are American concerns taking part in this; or what place are we at now?

Mr. Bullbrook: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: The original question had to do with profitability of the corporation.

Mr. Sargent: In regard to the question from the member for Carleton East, I ask: At what point are we now with regard to the consortium of the private interests? Are American firms to be part of this?

Mr. Speaker: That is entirely a new question, if I may point out with respect. Does the minister wish to answer it and we’ll skip this?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m afraid I don’t know what the hon. member is talking about.

Mr. Sargent: The consortium in the hydro-electrical nuclear power programme; the private sector.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Perhaps the member could get his question in order before we get back to him. The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, just a moment. He knows what I am talking about. He doesn’t know the answer, that’s all.

Mr. Speaker: No. Order please. It was not a supplementary question.

Mr. Sargent: What a dummy.

HAZARDS ON HIGHWAY 17

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: In view of the representations that I made to the minister several weeks ago about the hazards on Highway 17 immediately east of Schreiber, which has checkerboard signs and 45 mph speed restrictions, is the minister now prepared to do something more than install a flasher on a newly constructed section of Highway 17 where two young people lost their lives over the weekend?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, first of all I’d like to thank the hon. member, who did advise me that he would be asking this question and gave me an opportunity to get some information. Immediately east of Schreiber, as I’m sure the hon. member knows, Highway 17 skirts a severe rock outcrop. Whereas the normal Trans-Canada standards include maximum horizontal curvatures of three degrees, this section of Highway 17 skirting the rock outcrop is a six-degree curve. Reducing this curve would involve cutting into the rock outcrop for approximately one-half mile. Based on an estimate prepared in the spring of this ear, the cost would be $800,000. The rock outcrop is some 100 feet high.

The eastbound traffic approaches this portion of the highway from a 40-mile-an-hour zone established in Schreiber. Hence there has not been as much difficulty there. However, westbound traffic -- and I understand that this is what caused the accident that the hon. member referred to -- approaches at much higher speeds. If the warning signs are not heeded, this traffic will experience difficulties. The curve is posted with 45-mile-an-hour advisory speed signs with checkerboards and advance curve warning signs.

I have simply presented that information to have it on the record. I would like to say to the hon. member that I do not consider that sort of situation sufficient for a Trans-Canada Highway standard and I have asked my officials to look into clearing up that situation.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Stokes: In the interim until the ministry has had the engineering studies done will he ensure that there are flashing signs put on it, prior to any engineering or realignment?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will install a flashing amber light on the advance curve. There will be a warning sign facing westbound traffic.

We’ve had some delay. The problem was to get power out there, and so we are going to put in the battery operated flashers until such time as the power line can be brought out.

Mr. Stokes: Prior to realignment?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you.

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

USE OF DRUGS IN SPORTS

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. In that great think tank up on the fourth floor, does she have any people looking into sports matters as they relate to the use of drugs in sports, such as hockey and football and specifically matters such as cross-Lake Ontario swimming, so that guidelines can be laid down for these things?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully request my hon. colleague to direct that question to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) when he is in the House?

Mr. Roy: Yes, but he’s not here.

Mr. Speaker: Any questions from the New Democratic Party? The hon. member for Stormont.

LAND ASSEMBLY IN EDWARDSBURGH TOWNSHIP

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the comments made this week by reeves in Dundas and Stormont counties regarding the land assembly in Spencerville, could the minister inform the House of the exact role being played by his department in the land assembly in Spencerville?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): I didn’t hear the last part of the question.

Mr. Samis: Could the hon. minister inform the House of the exact role being played by his ministry in the land assembly in Spencerville?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: None, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We will allow the member one supplementary.

Mr. Samis: Will the minister consult with the reeves, the city council of Cornwall, and the township councils, regarding future plans for the development of Spencerville? Will he consult them?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if it should be the wish of the council, if they have a problem we are always open and ready to meet with them and discuss the possibility of industrial expansion.

I toured eastern Ontario, Spencerville and that general region this summer, and met with the mayors, reeves and their industrial commissioners, even in cases where some of them happened to be members of the local council. We have clearly indicated to them, both through the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs and through my ministry, that we are in the process of putting together an industrial development plan to service municipally-owned industrial parks, that will help them to exploit and put on the market, much more rapidly than usual, lands for industrial purposes.

I have indicated very clearly to those mayors right from the Brockville area, Spencerville area and so on, that we are prepared to meet with them if they believe they have a specific problem prior to the announcement of the programme of industrial development.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

POLICE RAID ON HOTEL

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General. Could the Solicitor General advise whether or not he has as yet received the report from His Honour Judge Pringle, inquiring into the Landmark incident? If he has not, when does he expect it; and if he has it, when will he table it?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): No, Mr. Speaker, I haven’t got the report. I understand that Judge Pringle is working on the final stages or touches of the report with the counsel, Mr. Kellock, and he hopes that it will go to the printer any day now. That is the latest information I have.

Mr. Speaker: Any questions from the New Democratic Party? The hon. member for Windsor West.

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): I have a question of the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker. Will the Ontario Energy Corp. be provided with sufficient funds in order to develop a viable research group or to commission research outside the corporation, so that research and development can take place in the area of hydrogen produced from electrolysis as a supplement in the replacement of natural gas sources?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, that may well evolve over a period of time. This is something for the corporation ultimately to have a large say in determining, but I would not put as high a priority on research projects in the initial stages as perhaps may occur later. In most instances, the policy of the ministry and of Ontario Hydro over the years has been to monitor others’ research and to ensure that in their view sufficient research was being done commensurate with the rewards which might at some point be obtained. By and large I think we are satisfied that within the capability of the country a good amount of research is being done, at the federal level particularly, by some of the universities. We don’t propose, either in the ministry or in my view in the corporation, to get into a large spending programme in terms of research into energy projects at this point in time.

Mr. Stokes: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Stokes: Will the minister advise if it will be the intent of the Crown corporation to get involved in exploration and development of good chances for petroleum products in the northern part of Ontario, particularly off-shore James Bay and Hudson Bay, as Aquitaine is doing?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As joint ventures, perhaps, yes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce has been wanting to get up for quite a while.

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMME

Mr. Sargent: A question of the Minister of Energy. Are multi-national firms being considered as part of the consortium to get into the nuclear programme of Hydro? Who are they; and are we past the point of no return, in that the minister is going to go this route?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The answer to the first question is no; and therefore the other two are redundant, I think.

Mr. Sargent: I asked him who the firms are. I asked which firms are being considered now.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not supplementary to the answer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I made that information available some months ago as to who the proposers were; I believe I answered that question here in the House.

Mr. Sargent: Not to me, he didn’t.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’ll be glad to get it for the member.

Mr. Sargent: I’d like to know who they are.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I made public some months ago the two proposals which were received by Ontario Hydro and which are still being considered by Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Sargent: They are still being considered?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

FLASHING LIGHTS ON SCHOOL BUSES

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. It’s very similar to the question I asked the other day, but I think he misinterpreted my question so I’ll rephrase it somewhat. It regards the flashing lights on school buses.

Is the minister considering changes in legislation to give discretion to local school boards and the local operators of school buses to determine when, where and whether traffic conditions warrant the use of flashers, regardless of speed limits?

An hon. member: He answered that in the estimates.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I believe my reply the other day -- and I believe I understood the question -- was that I think that discretion is already allowed to the operators of buses as far as the turning on of these lights is concerned. I don’t think they are required by law to turn them on when they stop. It is when they are on that traffic is required to stop for the bus regardless of the speed limit. At least that is what we propose to bring before the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. Burr: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I think we have rehashed it before. Time is rapidly passing. The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I had a question of the Chairman of Management Board. I see he slipped out, but in his absence I’ll ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Ask them both.

Mr. Sargent: He is back in.

SEVERANCE PAY TO CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Chairman of the Management Board. When is the government going to come up with a policy in regard to severance pay, for people who are on contracts particularly?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): The subject matter, if it is current, will be within the purview of the Civil Service Commission. I am not prepared to answer it.

Mr. Bullbrook: It has nothing to do with the Civil Service Commission, it’s contract.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am not prepared to answer it anyway, today. I’ll find out and let the member know.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister get the information and report?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is what I said.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside with a new question.

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Energy: Does the minister contemplate in his new corporation any research and, development of solar energy in any of its forms?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well I think I just answered that question. The research will not have a high priority.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville wanted a question earlier.

TEACHER-SCHOOL BOARD PROBLEM

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour: Mr. Speaker, do any of the minister’s officials have an input in an attempt to resolve the problem between the school teachers of the province and the various boards? Apparently approximately 108,000 pupils may be affected before the end of this week.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the mediators of my ministry have been working with these people trying to do their best with them, but so far without too much success. We are continuing .and will be pleased to continue and hold ourselves available at any time either party thinks we can be of service to them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP.

Mr. Martel: Is it the minister’s intention to take over the uranium industry via this Crown corporation?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the investments will be made, of course, by the energy corporation and not by the minister. As its officers have not yet been appointed I really don’t know what their initial intentions might be.

Mr. Laughren: Get it out of the hand of Stephen Roman.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition. The petition, Mr. Speaker, is in relation to certain citizens in the riding of Prescott-Russell pertaining to the rerouting of Highway 17 and the opening of new Highway 417.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is in French and with your permission, I would like to address the petition to the House on behalf of the 50 citizens who have signed the petition from the riding.

The petition, Mr. Speaker, is addressed:

Au Lieutenant-gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative -- in other words, to the Lieutenant Governor and the legislative assembly.

Mr. Speaker, on their behalf, I would like to read the petition:

Cette pétition provisoire des employeurs et employés (ées) et autres personnes frappées par l’impact économique négatif de l’ouverture de la route 417.

Nous les soussignés (ées) résidant sur les bords de la route 17 entre Ottawa et Hawkesbury demandons que les recommandations suivantes soient acceptées pour aider à dédommager contre l’effet néfaste sur notre économie locale.

1. Que les trois sorties sur la 417 à Ottawa (Queensway), Van Kleek Hill et Hawkesbury soient élargies, améliorées et aménagées à un niveau acceptable de sécurité, d’information et d’aise d’accès, afin d’encourager et de continuer l’essor touristique de notre région.

2. Que des panneaux routiers bilingues tels que ci-joints soient installés dans le plus bref délai pour informer les voyageurs et leur offrir un juste choix d’alternative de route.

Toutes les personnes affectées ont donné leur appui entier à cette pétition le 23 novembre 1974, lors d’une réunion spéciale à Alfred, Ontario.

And so the petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by 50 of the citizens and addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the legislative assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes presented the annual report of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 1973.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for certain decisions concerning matters of local concern to be finalized at the municipal levels of government without the necessity of obtaining the approval of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and relieves municipal governments of some administrative requirements.

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP. ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish the Ontario Energy Corp.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have any further statement?

FAMILY BENEFITS ACT

Mr. Martel moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Family Benefits Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to remove any reference to the sex of the parent, thereby enabling either the mother or the father of the child to be eligible for benefits.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 9, An Act to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Bill 82, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

Bill 129, An Act to amend the Moosonee Development Area Board Act.

Bill 130, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corp. Act.

Bill 137, the Community Recreation Centres Act, 1974.

Bill 139, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Bill 144, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Bill 152, An Act to amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

Clerk of the House: The 10th order, House in committee of the whole.

ONTARIO BUILDING CODE ACT

House in committee on Bill 62, An Act to provide for an Ontario Building Code.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Chairman, before we proceed in committee on this bill, I did want to bring to the members’ attention a number of amendments which I have prepared and am putting forward, and which I have forwarded to each member of the House as a reprint of the bill. I would move that the same be an amendment. I don’t know the wording that I should use, but I will require the concurrence of the House, I believe, rather than dealing with each specific amendment, that the various amendments be the bill before the House.

Some of the amendments reflect the wishes, Mr. Chairman, of the municipalities, with whom there has been substantial discussion and consultation through the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee; others stem from suggestions from the members during the second reading; and also as a result of our consultation with members of all the political parties here in this House, over the summer months.

As the members are aware, I communicated with members of all parties during July and invited consultation and dialogue on our legislation before the House, in order to facilitate the passage of the legislation and deal with technical amendments and questions.

Needless to say, Mr. Chairman, I am indebted to those members of the Legislature who took the time and trouble to consult with us. Without naming them, I want them to know that I do appreciate their co-operation over the past many months in connection with this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman: It is the amended bill, I guess, that would be debated.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): I certainly don’t have any objection to it; but I would like to understand what the procedure is that we are following, if this is the method. As I understand it, normally the minister would have had to stand in his place and move each specific amendment to the bill. I just want to know definitively what motion it is that we are being asked to agree to in changing the procedure of the House.

I understood the Clerk to intervene and say that he had been doing it for the past 20 years. I make the same point I have made before. It is a fact that if we have done it for 20 years, and it was incorrect in the first place, it doesn’t make it correct 20 years hence.

As long as we know what the procedure is, we, as always, will co-operate.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, in this matter I believe we are being asked by the minister to accept the bill as reprinted as being the bill approved on second reading, so that each of the amendments, either sidelined or underlined, need not be separately put.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right.

Mr. Breithaupt: Since many of these amendments and suggestions did result, I think from the involvement of certain members of the opposition and others with respect to the suggested changes, we are prepared to accept this reprinted bill, so that each of these amendments need not be put separately. There may be other amendments or matters that can be proceeded with, but we are prepared to save the time of the House by avoiding that separate procedure on this occasion.

Mr. Renwick: If the minister would so move we would support it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would so move with the concurrence of the House. Since the bill is reprinted, the member for Kitchener has put it ably. That is my understanding as to how we could proceed in this fashion, rather than moving each individual amendment which has been put before the two parties.

Hon. Mr. Clement moves that the reprinted bill be substituted.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister, have you anything to say further before we proceed with the bill section by section?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I have nothing further to say at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Then on section 1 of the bill, the hon. member for Riverdale.

On section 1:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, we may as well deal with it at this point. The definition of “building code” means the regulations made under section 18. Would the minister not tell us whether the building code, as such, is finally established, and if there are any significant changes from the draft which was produced for comment and discussion?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, the code which the hon. member for Riverdale has before him and which he referred to in his question is not in the final form, as I understand it. It is substantially in the final form.

I have had some discussions, particularly arising out of two questions directed to me by, I believe, the member for Kitchener and referring to safety devices and screening in high-rise residential dwellings. I am also advised by my staff, as a result of those questions, that the code was silent insofar as screens or securities for screens in highrises were concerned. Something like that will be inserted.

Where there have been any obvious omissions we hope to fill those omissions before presenting the code to the Lieutenant Governor for her approval. But I stress that the code before the members is substantially in the form developed by the various technical committees that contributed to the creation of that document.

What I’m really saying, Mr. Chairman, is that in areas where we have been silent through oversight, we obviously will add those; otherwise, the technical side will be substantially in the form before the members of the House.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I take it then the building code is in the form where it can be promulgated relatively expeditiously. Has the minister any indication as to when he expects this bill to come into force in the province?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman, I’m not going to answer that right now because I want to get some advice from my technical director, who has been dealing very closely with the PMLC and the various technical people who have been working in connection with this. But I would think it would be in the very near future. You might properly ask, “What is the very near future?” I think I would have to indicate that it is probably something within the next three or four months, as opposed to a year from now or something of that nature.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can the minister give us any indication as to who will be the director responsible for the administration of the Act under the minister?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, the director will be Mr. Graham Adams of my ministry who I believe was made the director back in 1970 when the committees that developed the code were created.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Chairman, I notice there was a slight change made in section 1(b), the definition of “building.” I just wonder if the minister could explain why the area was reduced from 150 sq ft to 100 sq ft?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That was reduced from 150 sq ft to 100 sq ft at the request of the municipalities. They pointed out to us the various reasons why smaller buildings should be subject to the code. There are exceptions to the code, as the hon. member for Perth well knows, because we touched on those in our discussions on second reading.

In answer to the member for Riverdale as to when it is hoped to be implemented, I’m advised by the director that the date is April 1, 1975.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: We’re still on section 1. The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Within the concept of the building code and the changes made, could the minister stoop to giving me a detailed rendition as to whether sound-proofing of buildings, particularly condominium buildings and, secondly, the installation of central air-conditioning, particularly again in those buildings and in apartment buildings generally, now are adequately covered under the ministry’s building code?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I cannot reply. I don’t know if they are adequately covered technically. I would presume that they are, but I would point out to the hon. member that I have no technical expertise in the construction of buildings. Perhaps if he would bear with me, I might receive the advice of my officials as to whether these things are adequately covered.

I presume that the member means adequate in the sense that the occupants of those premises will have comfort under reasonable circumstances so that they won’t be subjected to noise from people next door and that sort of thing.

Mr. Lawlor: But you know the existing conditions in many of these buildings, particularly the flimsy ones being put up now. You can hear everything that goes on six doors away.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I’m aware that in some buildings this problem exists. Insofar as whether that has been remedied or whether the technical advisory committee has stressed more in terms of safety and in terms of ability to support stresses and strains in weights, I just don’t know, but I’ll have the information for the hon. member in just a moment.

Mr. Lawlor: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m advised that sound requirements are already in the code. That is airborne sounds. Impact sound requirements are not in the code at the present time. The code is silent insofar as temperatures of rooms are concerned. I think you did say temperatures; dealing with heating or air-conditioning. Temperatures, of course, are governed by the Landlord and Tenant Act insofar as the period from Oct. 1 to the end of April is concerned. Air-conditioning is not mandatory within the code; it’s optional. That is the only advice that I have from my officials on it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I have one question. I’d like the minister, under item (b) of clause 1, to indicate to me the extent to which the authority of this Act will extend with respect to mines. I notice that at the end of the definition of “building” there is an exclusion that it does not include a structure used directly in the extraction of ore from a mine. It seems to me that that probably leads to some confusion, as to the dividing line of the authority of the inspectors under this Act and the responsibility of those charged with mine safety.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Chairman; it is my understanding that the technical requirements for buildings used in the extraction of ore and I’m thinking of -- I don’t know the technical name --

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Head frame.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Head frame -- that those things are set forward in the mining legislation, or the legislation pertaining to mining, and therefore have not been included in this particular piece of legislation. This does include residential buildings in the area, of course, but the head frame and the particular, peculiar type of buildings used in the mining industry are already covered in other legislation.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, my only point is that I think the regulations should be quite clear as to the extent to which the jurisdiction of this Act applies and the extent to which the jurisdiction of the corresponding Mining Act applies, so that there isn’t some physical area that’s not covered by either of the Acts because of a misunderstanding of the point at which the two jurisdictions meet.

It seems to me that it may well be advisable to provide by way of an amendment to the clause dealing with regulations, power to make such a regulation to determine which of the structures used directly in the extraction of ore from a mine are excluded from the operation of this Act, so that the persons responsible for mine safety and the construction of those structures will clearly understand it. I think I’ve made the point. It just seems to me that perhaps an amendment to the regulatory power would be worth having.

Technically I don’t understand the definition of “unsafe.” I certainly understand it down to the word “used,” but I don’t understand “or otherwise unsafe.” What you are saying is that unsafe means two things: one, “structurally inadequate or faulty for the purposes of which it is or is likely to be used.” I don’t have a problem there; that part of the definition is clear.

Part two seems to me to be almost tautology and not to make sense because it says unsafe means “otherwise unsafe.” If the definition had said it means “or otherwise inadequate or faulty” then I could have understood the definition. But your definition is in two parts and the second part is a tautology and doesn’t say anything. It simply says unsafe means unsafe and I don’t think that is a very helpful way to define “unsafe.”

Hon. Mr. Clement: You are referring, I take it, to paragraph (m)?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, the actual definition.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We added the word “structurally” in that section, Mr. Chairman, to modify “inadequate or faulty.”

Mr. Renwick: That is fine; I understand that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We felt that this was the better way of carrying out the expression of intent contained in section 9 for that purpose. I am also advised by my staff, Mr. Chairman, the same terminology now apparently is used in the current Planning Act.

Mr. Renwick: I agree with that. I just find a bill which states that unsafe means unsafe doesn’t add anything to my knowledge of the bill nor does it assist anyone charged with the responsibility of interpreting the extent of what “unsafe” means.

As I said, if it had read “or otherwise inadequate or faulty,” then perhaps one could give some meaning to it. But right now, it says if it doesn’t fall within the structurally inadequate provision, then the question of whether it is unsafe falls to be decided as to what the word “unsafe” means. When you look at the definition, of course, there is no definition of “unsafe,” apart from “structurally inadequate or faulty.” Well, that’s a semantic argument and I leave it to the minister and to the courts to solve that one.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on section 3, the minister may recall that on the second reading of the bill I expressed some immense concern about this establishment of a so-called province-wide building code and then the delegation of the responsibility to each of the municipalities throughout the province, leaving only a residual authority to the province in those areas which are not organized for municipal purposes.

Can the minister, under this clause, give us some idea of the extent to which the councils of the municipalities are going to be obligated to incur additional expense in the number of inspectors they will be required to have for the enforcement of this code? To what extent will the ministry, through the director, enforce standards on the qualifications and other aptitude of persons going to be appointed as building inspectors?

I take it from what the minister said on second reading, rather cursory discussions have taken place with the Treasury as to the additional financial impact to be imposed on municipalities, having regard to the varying nature of municipalities and their resources and financial abilities to enforce a code like this on a uniform basis across the province. I think there were, therefore, basically three questions I put to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: As the member, of course, is aware, the municipalities already have building inspectors. Our discussions with the municipalities and their submissions to us would indicate that they will not require any additional inspectors to carry out these inspections at the municipal level because they are carrying them out now.

The PMLC advised that it did not anticipate any additional expense insofar as the municipalities are concerned, because the fees charged for the inspections, in their opinion, will offset any increase that might be experienced. We have authorized in the ministry an additional complement of 12 in order to carry out our obligations under the legislation. The anticipated expense, as I recollect it, was about $260,000 for the ministry to cover the salaries of the individuals involved, training, travel, publications, equipment, and this sort of expense.

I think, Mr. Chairman, in spite of the submissions made by the municipalities to us -- and we have every reason to accept their submissions and their opinions -- I think there might well be some expense; but I don’t think it would be substantial. Because of the multitude of tasks that the building inspectors are performing now, if there is ever any transfer of one building inspector from a municipality who obtains employment in another, I don’t really anticipate any large expense. A person knowledgeable in one geographic area will automatically be knowledgeable in the other, because the same specifications or requirements will apply, whereas today, different requirements under the various bylaws apply to each and every separate municipality in the province. I don’t anticipate that there will be any substantial expense at all insofar as municipalities are concerned.

Mr. Renwick: The second part of my question was with respect to the endeavour to have a uniform standard of qualification for those who are now building inspectors and those who will join the building inspector staff. It may well be that one would have to have some kind of a grandfather clause in operation; but it must be surely the intention of the minister to make certain that, just as in the manner in which assessment has been taken under provincial jurisdiction and the endeavour made to make the standard qualification for assessors uniform, that there must of necessity, in a field equally as important, be responsibility on the ministry to establish standards of training and qualification and background and experience for persons who are going to perform these tasks; not only within the ministry, for the residual area where the province is retaining authority, but also for the other municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I quite agree. The Act, of course, does not set out any requirements insofar as educational basics, and so on, of inspectors at the present time are concerned. But the member is quite right; we will have to develop standards and eventually, I suppose, include a grandfather clause in the legislation to include those who already perform this function.

But I think that this type of progress with this type of legislation indicates that there must be training programmes eventually developed -- maybe at the community college level; maybe at some other level -- in order that new people entering, and those who are already in, may upgrade their knowledge.

There are some courses available, I am advised, at the present time. Our people are in consultation with the universities and colleges to develop the training programme, as referred to by the member for Riverdale. I quite agree; it is necessary.

Mr. Renwick: May I follow up on that just for a moment, Mr. Chairman? It did seem to me, again, that that kind of provision should have been included -- even though I know these things can’t be done overnight -- within the regulatory power provided under the Act. So that you have in the initial instance the power to implement, through regulations, the qualifications and standards to be attained by persons in the field. Again, I make it only as a comment; it seems to me to be an oversight in a bill such as this, not to start to provide now for that kind of standardization of qualifications of persons who are going to perform these functions.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale has finished? The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): On the matter of municipalities appointing the inspectors, I had another representation from a local fire chief on the weekend. In some respects they are not completely happy with the arrangement whereby they must rely on the local municipality to appoint the fire chiefs as part of the inspection team. Does the minister contemplate anything in the regulations which would require a qualified person to pass on the fireproofing or the fire-related aspects of the buildings, or is this simply going to be left to the municipalities to appoint whom they see fit and qualified to express their opinions on the fire safety aspects of new buildings? Is there going to be anything in writing at all?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The definition section, section 1(h), says, “an inspector appointed under section 3 or 4”. That type of inspector undoubtedly will include not only building inspectors, but, as we visualize it, mechanical inspectors, plumbing inspectors, fire inspectors and so on.

I didn’t indulge in the discussions with municipalities with reference to this particular matter, but my officials did, and I am advised that in some instances they are going to appoint the fire chief or the safety officer in the fire department as the chief building official. We are well aware of the contribution that the firemen can make; to argue otherwise is just damned foolishness. But the fire chiefs’ association met with me in early October and they were concerned. There was some indication that perhaps the bill when originally introduced had been read incorrectly or at least misunderstood.

We had an interesting discussion on that occasion, and I undertook with them that when it came to appointing the Building Materials Evaluation Commission, I would see to it that members of their association would in fact be named by the Lieutenant Governor to fill a role on that particular evaluation commission, because I think they must make a contribution.

I would be concerned if they weren’t interested or willing to make a contribution, because their whole purpose would then be somewhat contradicted by their lack of interest in wanting to participate. I also pointed out to them that, secondly, if there was any difficulty in any particular municipalities, we would then consider introducing a regulation to make it inclusive or mandatory.

I got the distinct impression that they were satisfied by that. Their inquiries were very valid, and we had an interesting discussion. They wanted assurance from me at that time, and I gave it to them orally. I did not sign an undertaking, but I suppose my words here in the House could certainly be construed as an undertaking because I think it’s important.

Mr. Good: It will be in the regulations that the fire inspectors will be included?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes. I think it may be almost unnecessary in most instances, because I can tell you that my own municipality wants the safety officer from the fire department on this. They are very interested in having him involved and for very good reason.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. Chairman, may I follow up on that?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kitchener had indicated that he --

Mr. Breithaupt: I was going to refer to that point as well, but perhaps my colleague from Welland South wants to make some comments also.

I would certainly encourage the minister to involve within the regulations a very clear requirement for the fire safety officials to be strongly involved in this whole programme. For reasons, perhaps of misinterpretation or whatever, they did feel rather left out earlier on. The fire chiefs’ association has a strong interest in making sure that new construction and renovations are properly attended to so that the best kind of fire safety is available for all the people of the province.

I hope the minister will make sure, also following the comments of my colleague from Waterloo North, that there will be a very strong position of leadership given to the fire officials in this matter because they are apparently prepared to take it on. If they are prepared to take on this involvement, I think we should certainly encourage it. I hope that the minister’s regulations will ensure that representatives of that association are involved at the planning stage and that the active firefighters, be it the chief or the safety officer in a larger community, are particularly involved in the inspection procedures that take place.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, my recollection of my conversation with the fire chiefs, with whom I met about six weeks ago, was that I said, “I think you should have people on the building materials evaluation commission to make a contribution at that point, and even more importantly, that you should make a contribution initially, so that when plans are submitted to a municipality, to the building department, the fire department, through whoever it selects to do this, evaluates these plans insofar as fire safety is concerned.” I’m quite prepared, if municipalities don’t wish to work in that direction, to introduce regulations that will make it mandatory that they must be approved by the local fire department, if one exists, in accordance with the code itself.

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

Mr. Haggerty: I wanted to add a few comments on this particular section 1(j):

“‘Municipality’ means a city, town, village, township or improvement district or any other municipality having the power to make bylaws under section 38 of the Planning Act.”

My two colleagues have mentioned the matter of the concern of the fire inspectors or fire chiefs of the local municipalities, as to just whose jurisdiction the inspection of buildings will fall in. Perhaps there might be a conflict here sometime, not at the present time but later on, as to whose responsibility it is to inspect the building. Would the minister consider including section 19 of the Fire Marshals Act under section (j) here? Perhaps the minister is not aware of that, so I will read it to him. Section 19:

“(1) Subject to the regulations, the fire marshal, deputy fire marshal, a district fire marshal, an inspector or assistant to the fire marshal may, upon the complaint of a person interested, or when he considers it necessary so to do, without such complaint, inspect all buildings and premises within his jurisdiction, and for such purpose may at all reasonable hours enter into and upon the buildings and premises for the purpose of examination, taking with him, if necessary, a constable or other police officer or such other assistants as he considers proper.” [I think some of that’s in the bill at the present time.]

“(2) If, upon such inspection, it is found that a building or other structure is for want of proper repair or by reason of age and dilapidated condition or any other cause especially liable to fire, or is so situated as to endanger other buildings or property, or so occupied that fire would endanger persons or property therein, or that exits from the building or buildings are inadequate or improperly used, or that there are in or upon the buildings or premises combustible or explosive materials or conditions dangerous to the safety of the buildings or premises or to adjoining property, the officer making the inspection may order,

“(a) the removal of the buildings or the making of structural repairs or alterations therein;

“(b) the removal of combustible or explosive material, or the removal of anything that may constitute a fire menace;

“(c) the installation of safeguards by way of fire extinguishers, fire alarms and other devices and equipment and also such avenues of egress, fire escapes and exit doors” [and so on].

Would the minister consider adding that under section (j) of this bill?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I would not consider adding that, Mr. Chairman, and I should explain why I wouldn’t. That section is already in legislation and imposes certain duties on the fire departments. Therefore, I wouldn’t take it out of that particular statute to duplicate here in this one, or leave it in both. I am aware, not of the wording which the hon. member was good enough to read to me, but that that is an obligation that is there and must be attended to. The responsibilities are fixed under that legislation and I wouldn’t duplicate it in this bill because, in the event that there was any question arising as to an alleged breach of that obligation, which Act polices it? Is it the one Act or is it the other?

I am anticipating really little or no difficulty in this section. The fire chiefs, in my discussions with them, were candid enough to point out that in all the municipalities in Ontario, numbering some 900, they were only aware of about three or four municipalities where, quite frankly, there has been a personality difficulty between someone in the building inspection branch and someone in the fire department of that particular municipality. So while I am anxious to accommodate them and in fact will accommodate them, I am also aware that it really is almost a non-existent problem.

There are all kinds of functions that must be involved here. There is plumbing and there is planning, electrical engineering, fire -- all these functions are very, very important, and four of those functions without the fifth is really a waste of time; you have to have the whole package there. If there is ever any difficulty I am quite prepared to put in the regulations the steps that one must go through if those branches, in fact, exist within the municipal building department.

I think I have covered it. I don’t want to say it over again.

Mr. Haggerty: The reason I brought it to the attention of the minister is that there are a large number of sections in the building code that deal particularly with fire matters and fire safety. I think the fire chiefs and the fire organizations in the Province of Ontario are deeply concerned about this; they feel that the legislation that you have drafted here will override section 19 of the Fire Marshals Act. That is why I suggest perhaps section 19 should be included in there. Just as you included section 38 of the Planning Act, section 19 of the Fire Marshals Act must apply in this instance. That’s all -- you don’t have to go into the detail of it, but it is there. It gives them some guarantee that they have the right to discuss such matters.

For example, a senior citizens’ home was built in the city of Port Colborne. They moved from two floors to four floors. There was no dialogue between the building inspector and the fire chief of the city of Port Colborne -- it is perhaps the same in any community -- to say that they had altered the height of the building. I think above all the fire department, the fire chief’s officials, should be the persons consulted first. In the first place you can overtax the existing fire equipment and I don’t want to get into detail on that; I have discussed it here on a number of occasions in the Legislature. This is of concern to the fire chiefs in the municipality -- that they must have a little more voice and say in matters of buildings and construction in the municipality.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

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

Bill 62, as amended, reported.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I think we want to go on with Bill 154. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) is prepared to go on with Bill 55, but I think by arrangement the Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. White) wishes to go next with Bill 154. I have just asked that he should be summoned to the chamber, sir.

Mr. Speaker: We will pause for a moment until he comes then, at the pleasure of the House.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook: This delay is just inviting someone to rise on a point of order very shortly.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Why doesn’t the minister give up?

An hon. member: Is the minister ready to go?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Sure, I’m ready to go.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Here comes the Speaker. He’s going to lay heavy on us.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Treasurer is not here I would then ask that we proceed with Bill 55.

Clerk of the House: The 11th order, second reading of Bill 55, An Act to prohibit unfair Practices in Sales to Consumers.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, some of us in this House have a fair load of work to do. We’re told to be on deck with respect to building codes, unfair practices, condominium legislation, sales tax requisitioning, Ontario pensions, and we’re told a certain order of business. I assure you that it’s impossible to keep all the various bills one has spread out in one’s mind at one time. Each one of them is very complex. Why can’t the Conservatives and the House leader over there see fit to bring these things on in due order, giving us adequate notice so that we can prepare for them, instead of placing the whole opposition at an indisposition with respect to handling these matters?

Mr. Sargent: Right.

Mr. Lawlor: If he’s incompetent to do this job, if the Management Board is too heavy for him, why don’t they get somebody who can look after the business of this House?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: That is a valid point of order.

An hon. member: A great big fat one.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair suggests that we continue with the order of business that has been called.

Mr. Lawlor: Will the Speaker communicate my thoughts in this matter to the powers that be around here?

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker will.

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, my instructions were originally that Bill 55 would be called next, and that is the one that I have announced.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s right. You called the 11th order.

Mr. Lawlor: Here comes the Treasurer.

Mr. Sargent: He’s the money banker; just back from the east.

Mr. Speaker: The 11th order has been called, on second reading of Bill 55.

Mr. Bullbrook: Right, let’s go.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the order was called but I did not move the bill. So that the House understands, insofar as my role is concerned, an opposition member for reasons known only to himself has to be away for the next three-quarters of an hour. I have conferred with one of his colleagues, who pointed out very candidly to me that he was going to keep the matter of business open until his colleague returned.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, I’m not trying to breach any confidentiality, but I’m trying to point out to the House that if we proceed with the Treasurer’s bill -- because I haven’t moved Bill 55 yet -- it might well expedite both pieces of legislation before the House at this time. That’s the only reason I tell it. I’m not trying to breach any confidence. Mr. Speaker, if I told everything I knew about the member I’m talking about, he wouldn’t be able to leave this chamber ever again.

Mr. Speaker: Would the acting House leader like to withdraw the order?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the acting House leader is happy to do what the House requests and wants. I think, at this point with the Treasurer here, that we should proceed with Bill 154, the Town of Wasaga Beach Act.

TOWN OF WASAGA BEACH ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 154, An Act to amend the Town of Wasaga Beach Act, 1973.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, this bill simply deals with the correction of a deficiency in description of lands with respect to the township of Sunnydale that were annexed to the newly erected town of Wasaga Beach. We presume that the description is now correct, and on the Treasurer’s guarantee that it is, we’re prepared to support the bill.

Mr. Ferrier: Triple-A rating.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): Sir, the late, great Harry Allen, who was MPP for Middlesex South, used to say to his electors during a campaign: “In the last election I promised nothing and I kept my promise.” I can’t offer any such promise. If it is found to be deficient sometime in the future, we will repair it again.

Just as a matter of interest, if we were not to repair this the town of Wasaga Beach would extend through all of Ontario and, maybe, the entire universe. I will have to ask my friend from Sarnia about that.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion.

Bill 154, An Act to amend the Town of Wasaga Beach Act, 1973.

ONTARIO PENSIONERS ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 131, An Act to repeal the Ontario Pensioners Assistance Act, 1973.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, since this bill simply regularizes a matter resulting from the annual provision of the $50 Christmas payment of some years ago, which is no longer needed since we now have the GAINS programme, we are prepared to accept the bill and to repeal this earlier Pensioners Assistance Act of 1973.

Mr. Speaker: Any further discussion on this bill?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion.

Bill 131, An Act to repeal the Ontario Pensioners Assistance Act, 1973.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, that brings me back to Bill 135, if the Minister of Colleges and Universities is prepared to proceed.

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moves second reading of Bill 135, An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, 1971.

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): I have found it.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some short comments in connection with this bill, if we are all assured that it is in order to do so at the present time.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It is a little confusing.

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t want a promise from the House leader, just an unequivocal commitment that it’s in order so to do.

In any event, this bill on the face of it is not contentious. It’s an extension of an ability to regulate capital grant structures under the Act under which the Minister of Colleges and Universities operates. I think though, sir, that it requires some comment today in that it’s more than coincidental that a statute of this nature comes before the House that deals with the ability of this minister to control, at least peripherally, the capital programmes of universities and colleges in the Province of Ontario, as he has the right to do, in essence, to control the operational programmes of college and universities in Ontario under this statute that he’s now amending. It is not just an ability to control capital appropriations but an ability that he has, since he funds colleges and universities operational expenses to the tune of 80 per cent each year, in effect, to control the budgetary requirements and abilities and responsibilities of colleges and universities in Ontario. There is no doubt in that respect.

We, on this side of the House, are prepared to accept the traditional concept of autonomy of post-secondary institutions. We’d never want to do anything at all either to erode or fetter that type of autonomy. The fact of the matter is the predecessor of the present minister, the present Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis), began a programme of capital availability and a programme of off-year financing under the basic income unit programme that led the universities and colleges in this province to a rightful feeling of some independence and autonomy. And the fact of the matter is, I want to say for one, that I take strong issue with the statement that was made several days ago by the Minister of Colleges and Universities. He stood in his place, and with some expansive appropriation of largesse to the government of Ontario, talked about the 16.9 per cent increase available for operational costs to the colleges and universities in the Province of Ontario. That is just a charade.

The 16.9 per cent figure, of course, as has been said by the president of the University of Toronto, translates itself into an effective rate increase of 7.4. And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, how it does that.

First of all, at the University of Toronto they have some non-formula faculties over which they have no control. For example, the bar admission course, which effectuates to them a cost of approximately 0.7 per cent increase this year. That of itself reduces the appropriation and grant to 16.2 per cent.

In addition to that, as President Evans has pointed out quite rightfully, the minister in his pronouncement on the grant structure was pleased to say on page 2:

“In the guidelines I have given to the two councils, I have indicated there will be no increase in student tuition fees; that our policy of accessibility should be maintained; that institutional autonomy should be preserved; and that the global sums I have mentioned should not be exceeded.”

The key words there were that there should be “no increase” in student fees. About 20 per cent of the income available to the universities in this province comes from student fees, and, therefore, if you have an income restriction with respect to one-fifth of the budget requirements of a university, that translates itself into a reduction of about four-fifths of the availability of use with respect to the minister’s 16.9 per cent grant; and that meaningfully reduces his grant structure to 13.6 per cent.

In the University of Toronto alone, President Evans points out that under the system of population equating, as of December of 1974 there will be an approximate average increase in university population in the Province of Ontario next year of 5.9 per cent. That fact, of course, means that they will have approximately a larger population responsibility of 5.9 per cent, and that reduces the 13.6 per cent of true grant availability down to 7.4 per cent and this is what my leader was talking about in questioning the Treasurer this afternoon.

Now, you’ve got the situation, Mr. Speaker, where a president of a university has stood up -- in my knowledge for the first time in the Dominion of Canada -- and said to his board of governors: “We’ve got three alternatives. We’ve got three alternatives available to us under the present grant formula assistance programme that the Minister of Colleges and Universities announced.” And these are the three choices that he makes amply clear in his public statement written for the University of Toronto Bulletin. He says these are the three choices:

“We can maintain quality as much as possible. And we can pay equitable salaries. And we can incur a huge deficit.” That’s the first choice.

The second choice: “We can pay equitable salaries. We can balance the budget. We therefore can incur massive layoffs and reduce quality.”

And the third choice: “We can balance the budget. We can maintain quality and we can pay the lowest possible salaries.”

And what they have decided to do in their budgeting at the University of Toronto is opt for the first one. They have decided it is in the best interests of the post-secondary responsibility that they undertake to maintain that quality as much as possible, to pay equitable salaries if they are able so to do, and to incur a huge deficit. I am very much interested in the response of the Minister of Colleges and Universities to see whether he concurs in the response of the Treasurer of Ontario that, notwithstanding their statutory right under the University of Toronto Act to take a position with respect to deficit financing, he is prepared to accept that as a matter of philosophy.

That is extremely important from the point of view of this party. We are not prepared to accept it. We are not prepared to permit universities to say to the minister, “All right, fine, notwithstanding the strictures you’ve placed upon us, we must insist that for the recognition of our responsibility as far as the maintenance of quality education in the province is concerned, and in fairness to our teaching and non-academic staff, we have to incur a deficit.” That’s anathema to us; it wouldn’t be accepted by a Liberal government, I can say that to the minister now. At no time would it be accepted.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon. member is straying from the principle of the bill.

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, the principle of the bill, as I understand it, is to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act to permit the Minister of Colleges and Universities to grant to the Ontario College of Art the same capital grant availability and restrictions upon their capital programmes as he has under the statute with respect to other post-secondary institutions. Therefore, the principle of the bill, as I understand it, is an amendment to the Colleges and Universities Act with respect to the grant structure and the rights and responsibilities of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities with respect to the purveying of grants to post-secondary institutions in the Province of Ontario. That is what I am talking about; that is exactly what I am talking about. I might be talking about operational grants, sir, I appreciate that, but I am talking about grants.

I want to say to you, sir, that you are quite right, that maybe I am not on capital grants. I say to you, that we are asking for an amendment to an Act that deals with grants to post-secondary institutions, and that is all I am talking about. I am talking about the attitude of this government with respect to grants, because I tell you this, frankly, Mr. Speaker, we are coming to a crunch in the Province of Ontario with respect to this minister’s portfolio -- an absolute crunch. The crunch is a financial crunch, that the government is feeling.

We must take a completely new approach to the responsibility of this minister with respect to grants in this province. There is absolutely no doubt about it. If the minister takes these figures he has given to the University of Toronto, and if he extrapolates these figures in connection with the responsibility for equitable increases to the non-academic staff of the University of Toronto, he leaves to that administration approximately $1 million available with respect to the academic staff of the university in connection with the extension of benefits and salaries for the next fiscal years. Their present budget is $52 million. So he is leaving to that administration approximately a negotiating realm of two per cent with respect to their budget.

I say it is unrealistic and I say it is stupid. I say the fact of the matter is that the government has got to recognize that the then minister some 10 years ago, decided it would be politically advantageous to undertake a community college programme in the Province of Ontario. I say, for one, that the community college programme in its concept is a valid programme, but the government cannot continue to finance universities and colleges in the same formula and with the same responsibility.

The fact of the matter is a university is not just a teaching institution; scholarship has to be, must be and absolutely is a collateral responsibility and requirement with respect to universities. The first thing that the minister is going to do, if he restricts them the way he is under his new formula, is to invite them in effect to do away with scholarship, which is of course the cornerstone of a fine university and the cornerstone of the recognition of the province’s universities in the academic world, because community colleges don’t have that responsibility.

I tell you frankly, Mr. Speaker, to emblazon and exaggerate, that I for one, as a member of this House, don’t regard the chairman of the medical faculty of the University of Toronto in the same light as those people who have a responsibility, professorial or otherwise, in the community college programme. Come December, there will be full-page ads in my local newspaper inviting people to come to Lambton College to take courses in basket weaving, in the dispensing of alcoholic beverages and the like.

Mr. Speaker, I can recall standing here some six years ago and telling you about the advertisements in the Globe and Mail with respect to Lambton College. Do you remember those bedposts of post-secondary education that they emblazoned at a cost of $3,600 in the Globe and Mail? “Come to Lambton College -- miles of sandy beaches -- 60 miles from Detroit -- no compulsory attendance -- no final examinations.” Those were the four invitations to come to Lambton College.

Does the minister think for one moment that we are going to stand for treating the community colleges in the same way as we treat the University of Toronto under a basic income unit formula that equates one with the other? Let’s pull ourselves together. Let’s be realistic.

The fact of the matter is that we have got to take a look at the money being spent at the community college level and how realistically, having regard to our budget-rated programmes, the Council of Regents and the local boards of governors are undertaking their fiscal responsibility. I don’t want to get down to picayune details, but the minister should have been in the public accounts committee two weeks ago when they were questioning the hiring by the chairman of the Council of Regents, who lives in Markham, of a suite of rooms for two nights in a row for the after-hours use of the Council of Regents. Now, suppose that is $60 a night. I don’t think that’s a great deal of money, having regard to the total budget responsibility of this minister. But I am saying to the minister that there has to be a beginning.

We are not going to vote against this bill per se. There is nothing to vote against. But we wanted to be given the opportunity today to place on the record of this House that we completely, unequivocally, without reservation, take issue with the attitude of the Treasurer of Ontario that any university should be able to undertake deficit financing. That’s improper. It’s an invitation to disaster as far as our academic responsibility is concerned. The very concept of issuing a debenture on the assets of a university is an anathema and reprehensible.

Doesn’t he realize for one moment that if universities begin to get into deficit financing, they know full well when they don’t have the capacity to repay that it’s the public purse that will repay in any event? Doesn’t he full well know that if he’s truly undertaking a programme of fiscal responsibility as far as his own budgeting is concerned, then that responsibility is being eroded if he permits the universities to undertake deficit financing?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome this opportunity to debate the expenditures of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

I have also expressed concern in the past, and I continue to feel concern, about the way that money is being spent within this ministry. However, I disagree fundamentally with the member for Sarnia -- not that I think that will bother him very much -- in terms of his concern about the expenditures of the colleges. I think the argument that they should not offer courses of a diversified nature, and that they are wasting money when they do that, is not a good argument. I think we have reached a stage in Ontario, and in other advanced societies, where learning is a life-long experience. That’s a principle that most of us believe in today, and I do not think that necessarily implies frivolous spending on the part of the colleges and universities.

I don’t condone the advertisements extolling the beauties of the Sarnia area, the miles of beaches and the lack of compulsion for attendance; not for a minute. I am concerned, though, about what has happened within the colleges in particular. I would go back once again to the basic documents of those colleges, in which it was stated that there was going to be created in Ontario a new kind of education, the kind of education that would not be walled in within institutions but would, indeed, be inseparable from the community in which they were located.

They then proceeded to build the institutions and the campuses across the province with no thought to the principle of those basic documents that they’d be inseparable from their community. That’s where the mistake was, and once that course was taken it seemed to be irreversible. Then several years ago when the ministry announced the freeze, or the moratorium as it was called, on capital spending, the colleges in particular were aborted in the middle of their development, unlike universities, which had matured as institutions. Then the ministry wonders why they cannot get by without more buildings.

Once that route was taken, once that direction was set -- by the ministry, not by the institutions -- then there was no turning back and they, indeed, had to house their various programmes. If the enormous sums that were poured into the buildings in the colleges had been put into programmes and put into sending people out into the field and had been concentrated on making the institutions at one with the community, there would never have been a need for a moratorium. Indeed, the minister could have started the colleges with a moratorium and allowed them to develop in the community and to utilize facilities that were already there.

It’s really strange that, at a time when we are talking about increased utilization of our educational facilities in the province, the colleges are building more and more, in terms of making the institutions larger, and at the same time there is an enormous number of unused facilities. And the government has not seen fit to make it mandatory for boards of education, for example, or for post-secondary institutions to make those institutions or facilities available to the public. I think most of us could point out cases where school boards in our own communities just plain and simply do not co-operate with the community. That’s as true today as it was 10 years ago. Well, I shouldn’t say that. I think the attitudes are changing somewhat, but certainly not nearly as much as they should be.

I’m wondering whether or not the minister would be prepared to talk about that for a moment when he talks about this particular bill, in terms of the expenditures of these institutions and also in terms of allowing places like Ryerson and the Ontario College of Art to diversify their locations somewhat in the province, and to shed a little light on whether or not we can hope that in the years to come, regarding this kind of post-secondary education -- and it really, truly is education and I believe it belongs in this ministry, whether it be a museum or an art gallery -- he’s prepared to ensure, through his allocation of funds to these institutions, that they do become more diversified in their locations throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, it’s been interesting to watch a certain sequence develop this afternoon with respect to post-secondary education within the province.

Members will recall, first of all, that our afternoon started with a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) that followed certain comments made by the president of the University of Toronto. Those questions, of course, dealt with the concerns of that gentleman with respect to the financing of universities in the province.

Second, we’ve heard alluded to the various problems which all the university presidents now find they are sharing as a result of the financial crunch that they are now facing. And, I might add, the newly installed president of York University, now that he is on the other side of the financial fence, realizes as well the plight the universities have been put into because of the operations of this government.

The next step in the chain is the response made by the Treasurer to the questions which were asked by my leader. His response was in several areas. The first one -- and it was rather more interesting than some of his comments -- was that, as he views the situation, things are much better here than they are in Mexico. That, I am sure, is of some consolation to certain of the minister’s supporters. But the next point that he raised was that the University of Toronto, as are other such institutions, is completely independent. They have their own statutes; they have their own boards; and, of course, the government would not interfere in their financing.

Then, finally, we come to this debate. And we see in this bill, in an amendment made to this Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, 1971, the final point; and the point is that the buck stops on that minister’s desk. There is where the responsibility lies.

We can talk about the student-teacher ratio; whether it is better here than it is in Mexico or not. We can talk about the problems that universities are facing, and the alternatives that are open to them. Then, of course, we can talk about the response that the Treasurer has made as to the independence of universities and our desire not to interfere with them.

But it all comes back to haunt us when we debate a bill like this that actually puts the financial strain where it is obvious to everyone within this province. And that strain is put when there is an amendment adding another institution to the list which the minister has for determining the amount of capital expenditures. Because when the determination of capital expenditures -- just as the determination of the contribution for current expenditures; which is some 80 per cent or so -- comes back to the desks of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, then we certainly know where the obligation is to set the guidelines and the patterns in the first place.

The Treasurer cannot escape the responsibility which this government has. The minister, as well, in bringing forward an amendment like this, regularizes what properly should be the case, the matter of approval of certain debentures and the completion of the list of those institutions for whom that approval may be sought. But let’s not pretend that this amendment does anything more than complete the enclosure in which the universities, the colleges of applied arts and technology, and these other institutions herein mentioned, must operate. Their operations are, in fact, circumscribed by the ministry. The funds which they have are, in fact, circumscribed by the policies of this government. To pretend otherwise is to court disaster in higher education.

Certainly this amendment will pass, Mr. Speaker, because the addition of this institution properly should be on the list of those institutions for whom this kind of financing may be approved from time to time.

We are all aware that there are certain financial restraints which are facing this government, as the Treasurer stated today. You see, Mr. Speaker, the problem is that over these last few years the government has been able to promise everyone almost everything, and now those rather overfed chickens are coming home to roost. They are coming home to roost in the civil service; they are coming home to roost when it comes to capital expenditures at the university level; they are coming home to roost when we talk about the new requirements for highways; they are coming home to roost when we talk about transportation generally.

Throughout every ministry these problems are now starting to come to the fore. And the reason they are coming to the fore is because the ministry in its wisdom -- or what I would think more likely, its lack of wisdom -- has not kept a proper financial control over the expenditures of the government. We see it in the deficits which we are going to be burdened with in this province this year.

So, we can go on, as we have done in the budget debate and in the Throne debate that many members have entered into, but the point that I want to leave with respect to this debate, Mr. Speaker, is that this is where the buck stops. It stops with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. It doesn’t stop, as the Treasurer has pretended, with the independence of the post-secondary education institutions within the province. They have very little effective control over the financial plight in which they find themselves. I suggest that for the government to pretend otherwise will be a very sorry passage in the future development of universities and other post-secondary institutions.

We certainly cannot allow, as my colleague from Sarnia has said, the distinguished programmes of universities which we have to go into disrepute. We obviously can’t allow Convocation Hall to be mortgaged because, eventually, the people of this province will have to pay to get institutions out of their financial difficulties. What we must do, and what the minister’s responsibility is surely, is to make sure these difficulties do not arise to overburden the other work which the institutions must do in the first place.

We will support the bill because, of course, it simply adds one item to an otherwise complete list. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the facts behind this bill and the attitude and circumstance in which we find ourselves, as we debate a bill like this, are going to he a very interesting pattern for the minister to live with over the next few months.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, the last time I was in Mexico City visiting Quetzalcoatl, I think it was, to Teotihuacan, the buildings had fallen into ruins. They were scaling; the paint hadn’t been put on them for an enormous number of years. As compared to the universities in the Province of Ontario, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, the bull ring was much better than anything we possess. I think the squash courts had much to commend them. The swimming pool was perhaps the largest in the western hemisphere but the student-professor ratio of 100 to one just boggled the mind.

If you’re going to get any sort of qualitative education, then surely, the universities ought not to be the focal point of that purblind, boneheaded, quantitative analysis in terms of the students over against the number of teachers.

Mr. Laughren: More scholars per dollar.

Mr. Lawlor: The last time I was over there I used to sit all day all alone with a single professor. He never did understand me, nor I he, but we exchanged notes and I thought it was to our mutual benefit. Light bulbs went on from time to time.

Mr. Bullbrook: They didn’t speak to each other?

Mr. Lawlor: I thought this was what the idea of education was. The price to the public purse, for our little tête-à-tête of an afternoon, I suppose, was simply astronomical. But, as we both emerged, we shook hands and we said we thought it was bloody well worth it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Not entirely objective.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister can make a judgement of that himself. That’s a subjective judgement, if he wishes to push it. This devolution of responsibility on to the heads of universities, arts colleges and others is going to have a devastating effect. What can they do? If they go off on debentures, in order to pay on the debentures obviously they’re going to have to raise fees. It would become unconscionable the levels to which they will go.

The hon. member for Sarnia mentioned the disappearance of scholarships in this particular instance. They become money-hungry. Their sole purpose is concentrated on that single goal which is, and must be, the last consideration of the scholar. If the minister is going to produce people of any brightness in this province and give them the sustenance they need to get through right to the furthest levels, he simply can’t bring this particular kind of hard-headed, I admit, but purblind nevertheless, policies into being in the province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as I think you pointed out some time ago, what we are discussing is the addition of the Ontario College of Art to the Ontario universities Capital Aid Corp. I am inclined to think that we have wandered somewhat from that principle which we are discussing.

Mr. Lawlor: Did the minister know that was what we were discussing?

Mr. Bullbrook: It’s worthwhile wandering.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would say, in the capital field, which I think is in order and relevant, there is no prohibition for universities to build if they have their own funds. In fact, not so long ago I attended the opening of a new structure at Queen’s University which they had financed, I believe, with the assistance of their alumni.

As far as the levels of operating support which I announced a couple of weeks ago are concerned, as I indicated at that time I had asked the Council on University Affairs to meet with the universities, to take a look at the present formula and to see what the reaction was and what economies can be made. I don’t propose this afternoon to go into that in detail, but I’ll be delighted to once the universities themselves have constituted with the council.

I would simply mention to the hon. members that according to the figures I have from 10 of the 13 universities -- there are three universities to hear from -- the total assets in terms of reserves for capital expenditure, operating expenses, endowments and other funds total some $200 million. Let me hasten to add that there are great variations in the assets. There have been periods in the past where some of the emerging universities ran into deficit for several years until they were able to reorganize their operations. I believe that the figures that we have set for both the colleges and universities will be adequate, even if it takes one or two years of deficit financing for the universities to make some of the adjustments that they would have to do, and I think they can do it without decreasing the quality of their programmes.

As I say, the point today is the addition of the Ontario College of Art to the Universities Capital Aid Corp. I’m delighted to know that all parties support the amendment.

Mr. Laughren: The Treasurer tipped the minister’s hand today.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion.

Bill 135, An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, 1971.

UNFAIR SALES PRACTICES

Hon. Mr. Clement moves second reading of Bill 55, An Act to prohibit unfair practices in Sales to Consumers.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Perth.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I might make just a short opening statement prior to the member for Perth offering his observations.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that is in order. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Before we start with second reading, I would like to make a few comments as to what has occurred since the bill was introduced initially on May 9, 1974. Perhaps before we enter the debate, Mr. Speaker, the members who are going to participate in this discussion would reread the statement I made at that time, since the philosophy behind the legislation is most important to it, in providing us with the tools to eliminate unfair and deceptive business practices.

The members have been provided with reprinted copies of the legislation which contain the amendments which I will be proposing in committee. While this is not an ordinary way to deal with amendments, Mr. Speaker, I did ask legislative counsel to distribute the amended bills prior to second reading to make the members aware of changes we propose and to facilitate the debate. I must make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I’m not assuming that the passage of the legislation through the House will follow the form of the amendments which I propose. I won’t be presumptuous in that way, but I thought this kind of disclosure might be particularly useful to the members.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank those members who have had dialogue with us since the introduction of the bill last May, since I personally feel that a great deal of the valuable time of the Legislature can be saved through this type of consultation.

We’ve also met with a large number of business and consumer groups and have had what I believe to be very positive discussions that have led to improvements in the legislation. As a result of our discussions, I am pleased that such organizations as the Better Business Bureau, the Canadian Advertising Advisory Board, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Consumers’ Association, to name only a few, have endorsed the principle of the Bill.

There is no doubt that some questions will still exist in the minds of the members, Mr. Speaker, but we are confident that this legislation will aid the consumer and the honest businessman and give us the tools to attack those who use unfair or deceptive business practices in the Province of Ontario.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments by the minister. I received, of course, a copy of the proposed amendments which will come before committee of the whole House. I feel that this is quite an appropriate way of presenting these suggested amendments to the members prior to discussion and I hope that it will probably speed up the process.

I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to be able to make a few comments on Bill 55, An Act to prohibit unfair practices in Sales to Consumers, because -- from the comments that have been made in the past by the minister and many others -- I have to support the intention of this legislation.

I know the minister has discussed this with many groups and many individuals and I also have received copies of briefs and individual letters from such organizations as he mentioned in his opening remarks; such as the Canadian Advertising Advisory Board, the Ontario branch of the Canadian Consumers’ Association, the Ontario Furniture Manufacturers Association, and so on down the line.

I wondered about this legislation, and I state this because I recall the opening remarks of the minister, I believe it was May 9 of this year, in his statement in the House. The minister stated: “This Act will provide the Ontario consumer with broad protection against deceptive and unfair business practices.”

Then he went on to outline many aspects of the bill. He also intimated that the Act would not be costly to administer. I rather doubt this because, from my experience, the more legislation we have the more the cost of administration seems to increase. Then, in the last sentence of his statement on May 9, he said:

“Finally, this Act will hopefully act as the basis for the development of a commonly accepted code of business practice which both buyers and sellers can respect and trust.”

Mr. Speaker, that word “hopefully” makes me wonder if the minister is certain of the final effects of this legislation and if it is right for the conditions in Ontario. I hope that he didn’t rush into introducing this legislation because British Columbia had already done so a few days prior to the introduction of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Clement: One day.

Mr. Edighoffer: One day is right. I also understand that some of the other provinces are considering similar legislation, which possibly could lead to some confusion for consumers as well as business people right across Canada.

I feel that the uncertainty in this legislation falls more heavily on the small businessman, since he cannot absorb the resulting costs as easily as large corporations. The small businessman cannot afford the legal costs involved in interpreting the regulations to avoid civil actions or criminal prosecutions. Nor can he afford the cost of fighting law suits which will be based on broad wording not yet defined by the courts. He is particularly vulnerable to resulting high costs if consequential damages are allowed.

On the other hand, large corporations, while not happy with the prospects of increasing government regulation, will allocate the necessary resources and people to meet the problems created by the government, and such costs will be passed on to the consumers. Small businessmen, on the other hand, do not have and cannot afford the specialized advice and assistance required in meeting the increasingly complex, confusing and stringent requirements of government legislation. In addition to many problems inherent in the survival of small- and medium-sized businesses, government regulation often places a burden on them which may be the straw that finally breaks the camel’s back. In reference to section --

Mr. Lawlor: Is the member against the legislation, then?

Mr. Laughren: Is he against it?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): It is hard to tell, isn’t it?

Mr. Edighoffer: I told the member at the first; wasn’t he listening?

Mr. Laughren: No, I wasn’t.

Mr. Edighoffer: Oh, I thought he was. Too bad. Was he here?

Mr. Lawlor: The member is confusing the issue and his position.

Mr. Edighoffer: In reference to section 1(i) I have noted particularly the change that has been suggested in the definition of supplier. In the original bill, which we are discussing at the moment, supplier is very broadly defined.

Under the definition, landlords who receive payment of rent or employees not involved in the transaction, shareholders of companies, or even the retail sales tax department, may arguably be considered to be suppliers who become jointly and severally liable to the consumer for money and damages along with the original seller. Under the new definition of supplier, this is much more refined and appears to apply only to the final seller or the retailer.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to place on the record a case recently brought to my attention by a retailer in my area. This case would assist, as I stated earlier, in breaking the camel’s back. In the original definition of supplier, I believe, this might have been covered. I’d just like to, if I might, Mr. Speaker, read very briefly. It’s just a couple of paragraphs from a letter from a constituent who is running a very legitimate business. He brought it to my attention. I quote:

“I ordered hockey equipment from a firm, an excellent plastic equipment manufacturer. Their catalogue offered equipment bags at a competitive price, compared to other, suppliers.

“Since I was purchasing equipment to be shipped, I requested some bags to be sent along as well. The shipment came promptly and in order, except the equipment bags were of a plastic nature, rather than canvas, as per description, but not any larger in size and still numbered with the same number, No. 261.

“A few days later the invoice came listing the bags at $1 more than the catalogue stated, making the product quite a bit more expensive than a competitor’s price. I wrote the company requesting permission to return the bags if they were not priced as quoted on the price catalogue. This is their reply:

“‘The price of our No. 261 sport bag was increased by our supplier by 50 per cent. Therefore the price of $315 is correct as billed. If you wish to return the bags to our warehouse, there will be a 20 per cent restocking charge of $6.30, making the credit note $25.20. If these terms are acceptable, please return the bags prepaid at your earliest convenience.’”

I wanted to place that in the record to show that it may appear in many cases that this legislation will protect consumers, but in cases such as the one I have just put on the record, I can see that many consumers will be forced to buy inferior merchandise and the retailer will be held responsible.

Mr. Speaker, this is very new legislation, setting up a new principle; but in looking at section 2 of the Act, it seems to wrap a very protective cloak around every buyer, which I suppose is the intent of the legislation, and section 2(a) in particular now seems to be covered by the federal Combines Investigation Act or the proposed changes which are now before the Parliament of Canada.

While it is arguable that the federal officials should be prosecuting more vigorously, it’s difficult to see why additional legislation is necessary to cover the same ground, particularly when it creates duplicate legislation, more government regulations and, of course, it will allocate the necessary resources and people to meet the problems created by the government.

We could spend many hours discussing what is laid out in this legislation as an unfair practice but, if I might, I would like to put on the record part of the information that was probably supplied to the minister as well as a number of other people by Mr. Bronstein. I feel that this shows some of the errors in draftsmanship and the possibility of legislative overkill. To quote from his comments:

“Under section 2(a)(vii) the repeat sale of a popular item becomes a criminal offence, since the true representation by a retailer that an item has been sold before and will now be sold again becomes an unfair practice. This could not possibly have been the intention of the minister and is simply an example of good intentions gone astray.

“Section 2(a)(viii) appears to be aimed at retailers who do not have adequate stock of an advertised item. No reasonable standard is provided. It is not clear if the test will be subjective or objective, thereby creating special problems of interpretation. The federal legislation covers the very same problem and allows a rain cheque. Why is this section needed?

“Section 2(a)(xiii) concerning representation using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity, contains language hitherto untested in the courts. Since the law will usually construe ambiguous wording against the party using it, a severe onus is placed on the seller. The ‘credulous man’ has become the standard used by many judges in connection with misleading advertising. If the ‘credulous man’ test is combined with an onus against the seller when words are used that do not have precise meanings, a severe handicap will be placed on creative advertising.

“The section also creates an offence when material facts are omitted, so that it may become impossible to use short commercials, thereby increasing costs. We wonder what facts are material in describing an apple. Or, for that matter, how does one give all the material facts about a new car in a one-minute commercial?

“What method will be used to prove the purpose or intent of any solicitation or communication in section 2(a)(xiv)? This section is open to abuse, as it allows a consumer to argue that there has been misrepresentation and walk away from an otherwise valid contract.

“The foregoing examples indicate the considerable confusion arising from the tests, which are essentially subjective rather than objective, inherent in the wording of many of the subsections. Legislation which intervenes on the marketplace should set objective standards so that generally acceptable community and legal norms guide judicial and administrative decisions, rather than the unpredictable thoughts which may be in the mind of an individual.

“Section 2(b) seems to create a unique checklist of offences that will create fear and uncertainty in the ranks of legitimate businessmen when they attempt to work within the specific wording.

“Section 2(b)(i) appears to require a literacy test to be given by a businessman before he may complete a consumer transaction. To be completely safe, one should give IQ tests as well as a language test to consumers before completing a transaction.

“The section also creates an offence when consumers are unable to understand the language of agreements. Legal terminology has, for centuries, provided certainty in contractual relationships. Since many credulous consumers will not be able to understand even the very simplest legal terms, the advantages of certainty in dealings will be lost. considerable confusion as to the actual relationship that comes into being between buyer and seller will be seen for years to come.

“Section 2(b)(ii) seems to be an unnecessary intrusion in the workings of the free market system. A businessman who does not try to maximize his profits should not be in business. How is one to decide when one price grossly exceeds another price? If a 50 per cent markup is unfair, is a 49 per cent markup fair? How is one to decide when goods or services are similar? What is the time frame relating to the transaction?”

Mr. Lawlor: This is why the Tories are further ahead than the Liberals are. It’s early 19th century malarkey!

Mr. Edighoffer: Is that right?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, that’s right. The member should be ashamed to stand there talking such nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

An hon. member: He’s got a lot of business experience.

Mr. Lawlor: Go right ahead. I’m enjoying it.

Mr. Edighoffer: I’m glad the hon. member for Lakeshore is enjoying it.

“If the government wishes to ensure that consumers are informed concerning prices, it would seem appropriate to promote consumer information and competitive price advertising.

“What constitutes a substantial benefit? Under section 2(b)(iii) who is to decide the substantial benefit involved in a modern art painting or a rock record? You can say this about many things. Is the test subjective or objective? We feel that there is no substantial benefit provided to the workings of the marketplace by this section.

“Should the Legislature concern itself with misleading statements of opinion? If a consumer knows that a statement is an opinion, he is free to disregard it.

“Section 2(b)(iv) places a duty of inquiry upon businessmen that may be impossible to meet. Small businessmen in particular will not be able to inquire into all the credit background of a proposed purchaser. The intent of the section may well be frustrated, since it will be simpler for a businessman not to deal with a consumer.”

Maybe because he’s poorly dressed, because he smokes a pipe or even because he’s a Tory.

“But since other sections of the legislation allow the consumer to negate the complete transaction if an unfair practice occurs, discretion would be the better part of valour. The businessman would look further ahead not to deal with consumers who look like they are less than perfect credit risks. Where does salesmanship end and where does undue pressure begin? While some high-pressure salesmanship is deplorable, we suggest that it should not become a criminal offence in the manner proposed.”

Mr. Stokes: How are things in the haberdashery business these days?

Mr. Edighoffer: I am never there; I don’t really know.

I really feel, Mr. Speaker, that on looking at section 4, subsection (5), in the original bill, I have some cause for concern. Mind you, it has been corrected to some extent since a similar change has been made. But I notice in the consumers’ association brief that they feel no time limit should be placed on the rescinding of an agreement as shown in subsections 5(a) and 5(b). It now appears to me that particularly in section 4, subsection (5), sub (a), it could become open-ended, since a purchaser could claim to have become aware of the unfair practice at any time.

I would like, in the minister’s reply, to hear his comments to see if I am correct in assuming that this may be the case.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that I wouldn’t want to be the director appointed by the minister.

When you look at section 5 it looks as if it may be an easy duty to perform, but I think the director could cause many hardships to businesses if a wrong decision is made. He may also find it difficult to check unfair business practices, as has been learned under similar legislation in the United States. If a businessman agrees to a cease and desist order, it may be difficult for this new branch of the government to check out the complaints; particularly where many of the listed unfair practices are of a verbal nature.

Going further in the legislation, I am not in full agreement with section 17(1)(c), which allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to add to the list of unfair practices. I see no reason why this should not come before the Legislature, even though section 17(2) allows these regulations only to be in effect for a short space of time.

Mr. Speaker, much more could be said about this legislation, and I am sure that many of my colleagues will have further comments. But because the legislation is supposedly designed to protect the consumer from the unscrupulous businessman, or the fly-by-night operator, I feel we must support the principle of the bill. I would hope that there would be very little use made of this legislation in the future; which would mean that the consumer and the businessman would be doing business at the highest ethical level.

You noted, Mr. Minister, that you have met with many groups to discuss this bill following its introduction; but I would like to suggest, because of the new principle that is being established, that this bill, before being rushed through the Legislature, should go to a standing committee.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker: The first matter I would ask the minister about is what his intentions are with respect to the subsequent progress of this bill. Is he intending to send it out of the House to committee or is he going to keep it in committee of the whole House?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Could I make a deal with the hon. member?

Mr. Stokes: If the price is right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Could I trade it for the committee in order to have it move along right now?

I intend, Mr. Speaker, to take it before probably the administration of justice committee. I quite agree that criticisms and queries have been received. Over the past summer when we met with the various groups and my officials met with them and when they realized what the alternatives were to this type of legislation, they perceived very quickly that this is a new concept insofar as Ontario is concerned in this type of legislation. I think it was an educational thing for them to meet with us and understand what we were trying to do, and it helped us to get their views. So I really think it would be in the best interests of all concerned if we went before a standing committee of the House as opposed to the committee of the whole House.

Perhaps the member for Lakeshore --

Mr. Stokes: No deal.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- being so happy to receive that information, might be able to reciprocate in some way when he gets upon his feet for the short period of time he intends to discuss it.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): The minister means not to make a speech.

Mr. Lawlor: My reciprocation will take the form of basically commending the minister on the legislation before us. Not a great deal is wrong, although we shall go on for some period of time with the central facts of the thing. In detail, it’s questionable. What I find really questionable about the legislation is what it doesn’t contain and what it doesn’t do.

The legislation is framed basically on the basis of the American uniform consumer sales practices act which has been in effect for some time. Then the British Columbia legislation has come about. I make no bones about it. The British Columbia legislation is, by and large, a good deal better than the minister’s. In this one instance, in breaking new ground, the member is not able to puff himself up and bloat, saying that for the first time in the universe he is giving gestation to a wholly new creature. In this case, it’s simply not true. It’s defective from the point of view of what it lacks. As to what it has substantially, the minister is aware of the fairly lengthy Prof. Ziegel article back on May 23 of this year, outlining some salient features wherein the legislation was defective and could be strengthened, in accordance with the two pieces of legislation which I have previously mentioned.

What is the background and history of the legislation? Where does it fit in? There are five pieces of federal legislation covering areas similar or adjunct to the stuff we have before us today. Sections 36 and 37 of the Combines Investigation Act have to do largely with deceptive advertising but don’t deal, as this legislation deals, with unethical trade practices per se. In that particular Act, the prosecution is the only method available. There is no recovery in terms of damages to someone afflicted, and the concept of mens rea, or intention to deceive, or certain kind or quality of intention, is abnegated from that.

As far as this legislation is concerned, the minister has received a good deal of flak, as I read the briefs which have come into my hands, with respect to the criminal features written into the legislation. Nevertheless, I think he should retain them. They have been given greater accord with English criminal law than the Combines Investigation Act insofar as the word “knowingly,” which imports this element of mens rea into the thing, is inserted. While they are saying that the government ought to make it clear that it must be “fraudulently” or “deceitfully” or some other type of wording, I think the use of “knowingly” adequately covers the situation in the context in which the offence was committed. There shouldn’t be too much difficulty with that.

The second area under which we’ve got coverage is the Canadian Criminal Code, sections 337 to 384, which involve fraudulent transactions of all kinds, particularly arising out of contracts and trade operations. But many schemes which we are seeking to cover in this legislation don’t amount to outright criminality. Though they may be immoral or even deeply unconscionable, that would not be sufficient to be caught within the umbrella of the Criminal Code. Therefore, again, the legislation before us has validity.

The Food and Drugs Act has a circumscribed range, only dealing with what it says, food and drugs. In that area this legislation is infinitely broader. I think the minister will agree with me that insofar as the federal Food and Drugs Act is operative it supersedes any legislation he may hope to introduce, any charges that may be laid under this particular legislation arising out of such matters, or any cease-and-desist orders, injunctions and all the rest of the panoply of weapons written into the legislation in front of us. Again, in these specific regards I’d like to hear from him on the constitutional issue.

The fourth area is the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, 1971, of the federal government, which deals again with false and misleading advertising re prepackaged products. Again, many bad selling practices do not contain anything to do with descriptions or illustrations. They are apart from that, although again this legislation does cover such contingencies and such a width of matters. Nor are services caught within the terms of that legislation, whereas they are specifically caught here. I don’t want to pre-empt the bright words of my colleague, the member for Thunder Bay, but he wonders whether my beloved, legal profession is to be garnered in and made a butt for this vicious piece of legislation. No doubt he will address himself to that particular issue.

The fifth area is the new Competition Act, which has been long present before the legislators up at Ottawa. I understand it’s gone through second reading now and that it’s into the finance committee of the House of Commons. I think many features of it were found to be unpalatable and have probably been carved out of this.

The business of a credulous buyer -- I notice the member for Perth used that term -- was interesting because it was in that legislation, and still may be for all I know. But certainly the business community found that very questionable, indeed, as even the briefs that came into our hands indicated.

So those are the areas which presently are effective in the overall law picture. Our own Consumer Protection Act has largely to do with the compulsory bonding and registration of door-to-door salesmen with respect to unsolicited goods. It prohibits referral selling. It has something to do with the cutoff clauses in promissory notes, nullifies disclaimer clauses and has some area with respect to advertising. But this piece of legislation before us is infinitely more searching. It finally fills an enormous lacuna. To the extent that it overlaps -- and I think it’s a very prodigious extent indeed -- with the federal Competition Act, it is probably again invalid and will not be operative. Again I ask that the minister give us his best thoughts on that particular area; that a great many things that have been covered here in anticipation and running in advance of the federal counterpart will now be rendered -- as the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Allan) always used to say -- nugatory. It will have no meaning or effect. In that way maybe the legislation hasn’t got all the verve and impetus that the minister was able to accord to it last spring when it was first brought before us.

Now the minister’s most recent amendments have, in effect, occurred before the Act gets read for the second time. I think it’s a perfectly legitimate procedure that he uses, to clue us in in advance and even have the bill printed. After all, he has the numbers over there. That’s what he wants and he is going to get it through. So the printing job has already been done.

There are two types of practice or offence set forth here, quite separately and distinctly, both in the British Columbia legislation and that which is before us. The first has to do with deceptive practices as such; that is false representation. And 2(b) has to do with unconscionable practices as such.

Previously we didn’t discriminate. Now the minister has gone to some length, in line with the British Columbia legislation, to set up what those unconscionable practices are as a distinct category, and he outlines them. And may I say -- to give the devil his due; don’t turn purple -- that this criterion and outline is better in my opinion, than that of British Columbia in the same area. I think it has more definition, and I think it has more scope.

They use “harsh and unconscionable,” and terms of that kind.

When one starts dealing with “unconscionable practices,” I think not only is it sufficiently vague to deter possible offenders, but is sufficiently determinate, too, to catch them once they are deterred. It catches, like the wings of the butterfly, both motions in the wind -- the up-draft and the down-draft -- and manages in this way to perambulate over the meadows of this world. To that extent, it’s a valuable thing that is being done here.

It is said under this head by Prof. Ziegel that: “The business objections to date have been focused on the broad criteria of unconscionable practices,” as set forth in section 2(b) of the bill. They are indeed wide. If the director were the judge of unconscionability in a particular setting, there would be cause for concern. But he is not; the tribunal is. And from the tribunal there is a full right of appeal to the regular courts. The courts have long been accustomed to dealing with issues of unconscionability.

One of the things the member for Perth took exception to was the phrase: “That the price grossly exceeds the price at which similar goods or services are readily available to like customers.”

While the Unconscionable Transactions Act of the Province of Ontario doesn’t deal with price as such, it deals with interest and the extraction of the pound of flesh from individuals. It has used the term “grossly”; and in legal decisions, in any event, the gravamen, what the legislation is after, is well known to the judges of the province and has been for 50 years, I suppose, engraved into previous and other legislation of this House. And therefore I don’t think it should give us all that pause.

But to continue with Prof. Ziegel:

“From the tribunal there is a full right of appeal to the courts. The courts have long been accustomed to dealing with issues of unconscionability. One of the earliest functions of the Lord Chancellor in England was to grant relief against harsh bargains in the name of equity and good conscience.”

Now they said that this particular relief that he gave was as long as the chancellor’s foot. And this was the way the common law lawyers felt about it. When we are placed at the baptismal font and a little holy water sprinkled on our brow down there at convocation at Osgoode Hall, we become something different from a common lawyer. We become also an equity lawyer, which means precisely that conscionability enters into the whole thing.

Somehow or other, in the old days they were separated and divided, until about 1853. Then we kind of joined ourselves; we came out of our schizoid condition and became everything. In that way the overriding possibilities were in the direction of good conscience. That is the role that all the courts play, so we no longer have that division.

This process [Prof. Ziegel says] “was temporarily arrested in the 19th century in the face of laissez-faire economics....”

When I heard a bit of the acrid breath of that old dung-heap-on-fire quality about 19th century economics a few moments ago in this House, I felt that I might have to put on an oxygen mask just to continue to breathe.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: To continue:

“This process was temporarily arrested in the 19th century in the face of laissez-faire economics, but has resumed its career during the present century. Increasingly the courts have appreciated that there is no genuine equality of bargaining power between the average consumer and the professional supplier of goods and services, who relies on a standardized contract in small print, whose contents the consumer cannot be expected to understand and would be powerless to change even if he did.”

That is the social condition. It’s nothing to he regretted. Standardized or what are called contracts of adhesion are the universal feature. You can’t get on a train or a plane without one. You can hardly buy any goods on the market, including television sets, which are not denoted in this, where they don’t have universal terms.

If you don’t like them, forget about it. “You don’t have to buy our product. We are not going to alter.” The same thing is true with every contract in connection with the stock exchange, and all the way through. This is the way modern business is done.

Mr. Stokes: Who draws up the contracts?

Mr. Lawlor: Lawyers draw up those contracts.

Mr. Stokes: Oh!

Mr. Lawlor: Watching the court cases like hawks, having drawn the contracts up in the first instance, and finding that a court decision in any way disturbs their beautiful writing, they immediately seek to redraw them the next day and wipe out the court decision by sleight of hand. They are paid to do this. The day after, they say, “This is the contract. Take it or leave it.” “But what about the court decision?” “Forget that. We have changed all that. Take it or leave it in this particular way.”

“Once again it will be seen that the bill does not innovate. It merely sets its stamp of approval on a doctrine which the courts have long sought to articulate, sometimes directly and more often indirectly. Moreover, it’s a doctrine which the Ontario Legislature, in common with the other provincial legislatures, embraced as early as 1912 when it empowered the courts to open lending transactions if the court found that the cost of a loan was excessive and unconscionable.”

That is the general background and the focus, I think, in which we should see and feel this legislation as it comes through this House.

There is area after area where a great deal should be done. In one clause -- I think it is clause 4 -- the minister gives a power to the consumer which, curiously enough, is not embodied in the BC legislation at all. We give them the power to void the contract, or at least to make it voidable, which meant he had a choice as to whether to accept or reject within certain time limitations. Now the minister has moved to change that, at the behest of the Consumers’ Association of Canada in their brief, and he has changed it to “is rescinded.” Nevertheless, he retains the same time for limitations.

My feeling is that whether it is rescinded or voided, it really doesn’t matter all that much over against what the consumers’ association has to say about the time features written into the legislation. They say:

”Bill 55 provides short limitation periods for rescission by the consumer. In the case of deceptive practices, there is the three-month period; for unconscionable practices there are six months. We fail to understand this provision.”

I want to join them. I fail to understand it too. I wouldn’t be reading it otherwise I suppose.

“The bill was premised on the belief that there are certain practices which are manifestly unjust to, consumers and that these must be prevented and consumers compensated. A limitation period that is so far shorter than those usually obtained seems hard to reconcile with this underlying premise.

“We feel that if a consumer has entered into a contract based on a practice listed in section 2, he should at all times have at least the right to rescind the contract [The minister has given that now.] subject to his obligation to absorb losses corresponding to his or her usage of the goods if they were, in fact, usable and used. In British Columbia, we note that the unconscionable acts bar the right of a supplier to enforce the contract.”

They say they don’t feel that that should be necessarily the case, but I wonder just how flexible the minister is with regard to these limitations, even with the imposition of the rescission aspect of the matter, and taking into account, secondly, that rescission isn’t always feasible or possible to a consumer for many reasons. He may have used the goods. He may use them up. He may have turned the goods over to some other person and therefore is not in a position to rescind in the circumstances.

Nevertheless, he should get some kind of compensation or recognition. Nor does the legislation in this regard write abatement clauses into the purchase price in circumstances where rescission isn’t efficacious. Ought it not do so? Ought the minister not to cover that a little more thoroughly than it presently is?

As to class actions, what is the hangup, what -- Oh Lord, emerge out of the cloud and tell me, because the minister won’t -- is the secret motivation and the real destitution of the Tory party in all its aspects about something called class actions; well accepted in every other jurisdiction on the face of the earth; recently introduced into Tanganyika with great acclaim they changed the face of the country. Every jurisdiction in the United States has it. In the government’s environmental law it refuses to permit it. In this minister’s area, and he is one of the brighter ministers, believe it or not; all these things are relative in this world.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Right on.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): They’re just stalling until the member for Riverdale gets back.

Mr. Stokes: That is faint praise.

Mr. Maeck: The member is starting to grasp at straws.

Mr. Lawlor: No, not where class actions are concerned. That is one of my bugbears; not a straw. By God, I can choke on it.

What’s wrong with this government? Why can’t we have a few class actions kicking around? Mr. Speaker, the problem there is that an individual may be a member of a class, he may be the one who is hurt in the same way. as hundreds of others -- thousands of others, with respect to the misrepresentations in connection with goods, but he has to go before the courts and prove that in some special way he is out of pocket in a way that the others aren’t out of pocket. It is highly specialized, in order to get himself into what is called a class action, to bring others in with him so that he can represent whole hosts of people at the same time with respect to the same improper practice.

That’s only the beginning of it. I mean the courts and the rules of the Law Society are so great in this regard, are so circumscribing, that no one is able to conduct a class action easily. In environmental law, one poor fellow took issue on the sand dunes and government completely reversed its position the day after he was hit with the costs. His costs were $4,000 for having the temerity to do it. As I say, the next day the government reversed its position -- going to buy up the sand dunes to give away for $1 or $100 million whatever they are going to charge them -- and this fellow has to pay through the nose because he has a social conscience and a public will and went ahead with the action; and it was called provocative and meaningless, or something, by the judge in the particular case.

We simply have to institute them. This is the minister’s golden opportunity to do that. It’s supposed to have been bedabbled with the morning dew. It’s new legislation. The minister is breaking new ground -- conceded -- along with a number of others. The others, thank God -- in the United States under their code and in the British Columbia legislation -- have gone the other mile. Well, the minister hasn’t gone three inches in this regard. They went a whole mile. And in the terms of the legislation he could have written in these clauses just as easily as he wrote in half their other clauses. I don’t know why he ignores this particular one; these are fruitful.

At 16(2) of the British Columbia legislation:

“In any proceeding under subsection 1 [that’s enforcing the rights] any person, including the director or a person designated for the purpose by the director, may apply on his own behalf and at his option on behalf of all other consumers in the province or a class thereof, or on behalf of designated consumers in order to proceed with an action before the court.”

And while I’m on this particular point, it goes further than that. In section 24 -- and this is another thing that ought to be here and ain’t -- the director, the man the minister appoints and who has general overall supervision under this legislation, has the power to sue on behalf of the consumer.

Sometimes the costs, the intimidation, the time consumed is just too great for an individual citizen to take up the cudgels either on his own behalf or on behalf of a whole class. And in this legislation the government, the director himself, recognizing how monstrous the practice is and knowing that nothing will be done or can be done because of lack of money out there, moves into the situation.

He can move in under two terms. He can initiate it or, if a consumer starts the action, he can come and place himself in his shoes and carry on the action to fruition, and relieve the whole burden from the citizenry at large who ought not to have the main responsibility for enforcing public legislation of this kind.

It should devolve upon the minister’s head and his ministry and be his responsibility. The minister has inspectors on staff; he has legal counsel at his behest. There is no reason in the world why -- in selected cases admittedly -- he ought not to have the power to conduct the proceedings himself and take them to the court and relieve the general public. The minister does it in terms of prosecutions, but why can’t he pick up the cudgels with respect to the civil side of the actions in order to bring them to a head?

Is it an ingrained conservatism? Is it a fear of the marketplace? What does motivate him in these several regards? It seems the strangest hedging and hanging back over against the possibilities of his office. And in terms of having the ministerial responsibility -- not just the possibilities but the actuality of the present day -- in most other jurisdictions with legislation of this kind, he shucks it off, he won’t move into the area. There is a temerity that approaches pusillanimity about the whole thing --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Approaches what?

Mr. Ferrier: How does the minister like that one?

Mr. Lawlor: -- and we can’t give him any accolades on that particular one.

The class at Osgoode Hall -- well, it’s a brief submitted to the Hon. J. T. Clement, way back when, from the students up there, “Aspects of Consumer Protection in Ontario.” I won’t go into it at this stage, but there’s a whole section on class actions far more widely drawn, far more perceptive than what is contained, if I may say so, in the consumer association brief, as to the ramification of class actions, the considerations pro and con and there is quite an impulse there to get you moving in this particular regard.

In the consumer association brief they mention the case of Farnham and Fingold, where procedural objections had people jettisoned from the court. In that particular case they permitted a class action because the class as a class was being represented; the money was owed to them across the board. But the action would not have been appropriate, so the Court of Appeals said, if the money were owed to the class as individuals; they would have to sue, individually, every one of them in this particular regard. And that is a nice, subtle, almost evanescent distinction between two kinds of things, Mr. Speaker -- money owing to a class as a class, and money owing to you and me because it happens to be owing to you and me, although it is the same money, arising out of the same technical transaction.

I don’t think we can go on very much longer in that particular regard. The costs are too great, the multiplicity of actions that the court takes because they have to sue individually is too great, and the burden on the whole judicial establishment is too great. The minister would relieve that.

The truth about that is, curiously enough, that the minister may fear an inundation of court proceedings if he opened up those gates. Well, they are not sluice gates. After Michigan introduced its class legislation, which is very much broader than anything we know, with respect to environmental impact, the most cases they have had in 18 months is 37. The fear of the courts and the judges, and the reason they didn’t want to pass it for years and years, was that they couldn’t stand the burden of the number of actions that would be launched -- the courts couldn’t bear it. But it is not true. When it is tested, it is not the way things come out.

All right, next item. There are a number of things that we will have to take up in the committee. A point was made by the consumers’ association with respect to section 16(2), which says: “A regulation ... may be made when the assembly is recessed or not in session and expires with the prorogation of the resumed session ... ” would have the minister take under advisement what they say. I won’t read into the record at this point what they have to say precisely on that objection. I think, nevertheless, it is well taken.

The powers of investigation are a pretty broad range, and this kind of legislation I find, in some of its aspects, questionable. Again, I don’t think time should be taken up at this particular point in second reading to go into them.

The cease-and-desist orders of the minister deserve some comment. The consumers’ association -- yes, that is a point that I had made previously, but let’s see what they say.

“Although a consumer may request an investigation, he or she has no right, if the director refuses to issue a cease-and-desist order. This is improper, as the business party has the right to require giving it at the tribunal level. There should be parity of relationships in this particular regard.”

I would like to know from the minister why there isn’t.

Back to the brief. It says:

“We feel that this should be equalized, and could be by allowing the person presenting the complaint to the director the right to appeal to the tribunal against the refusal to grant an order. The tribunal would then provide a hearing to both parties.”

The BC Act makes such a provision, why doesn’t the minister’s? Is there some special reason? Is it going to some way upset the apple cart or in some way dislocate his legislation? I think not. I couldn’t see how it possibly would have that effect.

Well, there are the basic things. There should be a provision with respect to restitution arising out of the injunctive power. Why not, again?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Pardon me. I missed the member there, and I want to get this -- a consumer cannot compel the director to do what?

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, that was earlier. I was saying that --

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, just a few minutes ago. The member said it two or three minutes ago.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, it is in the Consumer Association of Canada brief at page 5 that -- I am sorry. I said first of all the director ought to have the power to take over and sue in place of, in the shoes of, the consumer. That is No. 1. That’s fine. All right, the next one is on page 4 of the consumer brief. I will read it:

“Although a consumer may request an investigation, he or she has no right if the director refuses to issue a cease-and-desist order. This is improper. As the business party has the right to require a hearing at the tribunal level, we feel that they should be equalized, and it could be by allowing the person presenting the complaint to the director the right to appeal to the tribunal against the refusal to grant an order. The tribunal could then provide a hearing to both parties. The BC Act makes this provision.”

Mr. Speaker, they are the highlights, the basic lines and the chief principles contained in this legislation. I hope and trust we will have a ball in committee. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill before the minister sums up? The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Yes. I want to speak very briefly on it, Mr. Speaker. Like my colleague from Lakeshore, while I agree with the basic principles embodied in this amending legislation, I too have difficulty with it for what it doesn’t say rather than what it does say.

My colleague wasn’t being facetious when he said he was troubled with the fact that it had nothing to say about the shortcomings in transactions between lawyers and their clients, or insurance adjusters and their sort of clients. I realize that there is a Solicitors Act which does provide a client with the opportunity to submit, or have his solicitor submit, a bill to a tax master in the event he is unsatisfied with the nature and the amount of the bill tendered by the solicitor to his client. There are a good many people who aren’t aware that they have the right to do that under the Solicitors Act.

I’ve had any number of problems as the result of either the inability or unwillingness of many insurance adjusters to go to bat for those who are the purchasers of protection by way of various insurance plans. I suppose the minister can point to some kind of legislation that would make it mandatory that insurance adjusters, insurance agents and, indeed, insurance companies act in a way that would be generally acceptable, using good business practices and fair trade practices, where the consumer is getting a fair deal.

Those are some of the things I would have liked to have seen embodied in this Act, because it’s obvious that if there is other legislation that is designed to take care of some of those shortcomings, obviously it isn’t working from the kind of problems that I’m getting across my desk.

I want to get into other things that I consider to be a shortcoming under these, amendments. I’m going to use a specific example just to illustrate more indelibly what I’m talking about, and that is, where you get someone who sells propane. It’s usually sold in 100 lb metal containers or bottles, where the price in one location -- to use round figures, and I’m fairly close in these figures -- is $10, while 50 miles down the road the same product in the same amount from another company is $15.

I had occasion to write to one of the major companies, I suppose it’s the major company in Canada which carries on this kind of business, and said: “Why is it necessary for you and your retailer to sell this product for $15 when, if somebody drives 50 miles down the road, he can buy the same product for only two-thirds of that amount or $10?” The reply that I got back from this major supplier in this field was: “We have our own price structure and we can justify it right down the line; and if your constituent can do better by driving 50 miles down the road, we suggest he do that.”

I don’t think this is acceptable. I think that, all things being equal, competitors usually know the kind of business they are in. I don’t think there is an added expense of doing business, vis-à-vis different companies. I think that if there are inefficiencies in the matter of supply, they should be made to shape up and provide that product at a price that is competitive.

I don’t think it should be necessary for somebody to have to drive 50 miles down the road, particularly in northern Ontario, just to effect a fairly substantial saving. I think that whatever they are doing it should be called into question and we should say: “We think that you should be able to do much better.” Make them come up with reasons or some kind of excuses as to why they should not do it.

That’s just one instance that I want to bring to the minister’s attention. I have two others. One of them involves the unavailability of particular products -- something that one can normally purchase. But in many instances; for whatever reason, either the major supplier or the retailer doesn’t think it’s in his interest to supply it. Therefore, certain individuals in certain places throughout the province just can’t buy these things that people take for granted down here.

I want to refer to two specific items. The first one is unleaded gas. We have the Ministry of the Environment, telling us the advantages of burning unleaded gasoline; how much it improves the environment; how much cleaner the air will be; and how much better it will be for all of us. The authorities who are responsible for placing controls on automobile manufacturers have lowered the boom on these manufacturers of automobiles and have said that as of a certain time the emissions must be down to acceptable standards. The 1975 models have installed in them something that they call a catalytic converter, which will permit people to use unleaded gas.

I have communities in my riding where the population runs 2,000, 2,500, 3,000. They are purchasing new automobiles and it is absolutely mandatory that you burn unleaded gas due to the kind of pollution abatement equipment that is standard on these models. Yet, because of the unwillingness of the major companies -- and I’m talking about Esso, because it’s the one that I know about -- Esso has said to its dealers in these communities along the north shore of Lake Superior: “We are not going to supply you with unleaded gas.

They really don’t give any rhyme or reason other than to say: “You must have brand new tanks and you must flush them out. If the tank that you are going to dump it into has been used for another kind, another grade, another octane, then we are not going to dump it in.” Of course, this isn’t a reason for not doing it; it is just an excuse why they don’t. They like to sell in volume, and whatever excuses they give are certainly not acceptable.

When one buys a 1975 car where it is absolutely essential that one have unleaded gasoline, why should he be penalized just because of the whims of some large company like that? If the government is asking the automotive industry to get down to acceptable standards, and if in so doing they have to install these types of pollution abatement equipment which necessitate the use of unleaded gas, somebody in this government over here, and I think it is this ministry, should demand this on behalf of the consumers in those areas where they are being denied this service.

Why should somebody have to borrow somebody’s car, drive 75 miles down the road with a bunch of empty cans, load up with unleaded gas and drive back? This is what is going to happen. There have been substantial number of 1975 model automobiles in which the only thing one can burn is unleaded gas and it is unavailable.

I want to get the minister’s attention. Will my colleague from Lakeshore take his seat please?

That’s one of the bad ones. But the worst one of all, I just found out this afternoon. One of the communities in northern Ontario is having a particularly difficult time. We all know which it is; it’s Armstrong. I got a call from there shortly after the question period. It’s impossible to buy coal oil in Armstrong. Coal oil is what people down here refer to as kerosene. One may think that is funny and inconsequential -- I see some people under the gallery snickering about it -- but Armstrong happens to be a place where they don’t have something as elementary as electric lights.

In the west end of Armstrong, we have a significant number of people who don’t have any electricity because the Canadian National Railways, which generate some of their power by diesel generators, won’t provide it to them, and the old abandoned radar base will no longer supply anybody other than its traditional customers at eight cents a kilowatt, which is roughly 2½ to three times what you and I pay for it down here, Mr. Speaker. They won’t supply it. We have a significant number of people living in the west end of Armstrong who have to use kerosene for lighting purposes, and they can’t buy it.

One might say it’s an isolated incident, but this is the Province of Ontario, the province of opportunity, in the year of Our Lord 1974, and we actually have conditions like that prevailing. I suggest to this minister and this ministry that those are the areas where we do have a responsibility to make sure, that those who are in the business of providing a service or providing goods provide those services and those goods at a price that people can afford to pay for them.

As I say, I don’t want to go on at any great length -- certainly this subject isn’t my forte -- but I think that those are the kinds of things that should be in legislation like this and these are the kinds of things I hope the minister and his director will get involved in when this becomes law.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I am quite interested in this legislation. I listened with great interest to the member for Lakeshore pointing out a severe weakness in the bill in that the action must be taken by an individual citizen and that the director has not got permission or is not instructed to take action on behalf of a group of citizens who have been injured, although not to any great significant degree. By the multitudes of them who are injured it does turn into quite a considerable ripoff, as far as the offending merchant is concerned.

I think it would be good, Mr. Speaker, to document for the House one particular case in which a class action should have been taken. The minister is aware of this particular complaint which I registered with him. It has become quite a famous case now. It has got to be known in the city of Sudbury as the big ham caper. The minister will recall that on Aug. 22 I wrote him a letter which was motivated by a constituent of mine who was highly incensed at what he considered to be false advertising and false packaging.

In order to set the stage so that the rest of the members present will understand the situation, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the letter in which I informed the minister of my complaint. I wrote the letter with great detail, so by reading it I think everyone will have the necessary background to understand what is going on. I would also like to say that the case is still not closed. Even as late as today, Nov. 28, we still haven’t got the necessary action that I suspect should have taken place.

I will read into the record, Mr. Speaker, a letter addressed to the Hon. John Clement, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, dated Aug. 22, 1974, and signed by myself. It reads:

“Dear Mr. Minister:

“It is my observation that the situation in the marketplace has not improved during your tenure of office. Even despite the presence of a local consumer affairs officer, I still continue to get complaints from constituents who are offended when they get ripped off by some of our merchants and pedlars.

“It was only after having contacted the provincial consumer affairs office, the federal consumer protection office and the northern affairs office that this constituent came to me in a high state of frustration. He charges that the Sudbury Star and the F. W. Woolworth Co. are guilty of false advertising. I am submitting a copy of an ad which appeared on page 6 of the Sudbury Star, dated Aug. 19, 1974, announcing Woolworth’s $1.44 day. It seems like everything in the store costs $1.44 that day. The case in point concerns the section of the ad I have encircled, ‘meat counter, fine ham, $1.44 per lb.’

“Motivated by this ad, my constituent journeyed to downtown Sudbury to take advantage of this terrific bargain. Upon seeing what they offered him for fine ham, he was sorely disillusioned and left the store without having purchased this product.

“His next move was to go through the routine of contacting several governmental departments, which apparently showed little interest in his predicament. This exercise also caused him to lose faith in the consumer protection services, which he knows he supports from his tax dollar, and, as far as he is concerned, the whole consumer protection system is a farce. As far as the last statement is concerned I can agree. A tiger without teeth is a useless animal.

“After having heard this dismal story of false and deceptive advertising and disinterested government bureaucrats, I was motivated to look into the situation further. I journeyed to downtown Sudbury and entered the establishment of Woolworth’s, located at the corner of Elm and Durham streets, which is the heart of our downtown business district. As I approached the meat counter apprehensively, I was bombarded by placards which announced ‘Fine ham, $1.44 per lb.’ Unable to resist any further, I strode to the counter and asked for a half a pound of fine ham. To my amazement, the clerk extracted from the showcase an object that looked suspiciously like bologna. She placed this in her electric meat-cutter and sliced off several slices of this product. I paid the 72 cents for this package and proceeded on my way.”

The plot thickens, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is 6 o’clock. Is the hon member about finished with that part of it?

Mr. Germa: Yes. I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That won’t be necessary.

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

28 novembre 1974

LAND PURCHASES IN HALDIMAND-NORFOLK

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP.

ACCESS TO CONDOMINIUMS BY MUNICIPAL CANDIDATES

LAND PURCHASES IN HALDIMAND-NORFOLK

FUNDING OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS

FOOD PRICES

HIGHWAY 6 CORRIDOR STUDY

INJURED WORKMEN

CARLETON UNIVERSITY

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP.

HAZARDS ON HIGHWAY 17

USE OF DRUGS IN SPORTS

LAND ASSEMBLY IN EDWARDSBURGH TOWNSHIP

POLICE RAID ON HOTEL

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP.

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMME

FLASHING LIGHTS ON SCHOOL BUSES

SEVERANCE PAY TO CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP.

TEACHER-SCHOOL BOARD PROBLEM

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP. ACT

FAMILY BENEFITS ACT

THIRD READINGS

ONTARIO BUILDING CODE ACT

TOWN OF WASAGA BEACH ACT

THIRD READING

ONTARIO PENSIONERS ASSISTANCE ACT

THIRD READING

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ACT

THIRD READING

UNFAIR SALES PRACTICES