Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. P. C. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to the members of this august chamber a number of bright young students from Ledbury Park Junior High School in the sovereign riding of Armourdale, which I don’t represent now, although I do hope to represent them in the near future -- but the member is absent today. They are here under the tutelage and able leadership of Miss Sandy Winter and Mr. Lloyd Howes. They are here to see the proceedings of the House and to learn all about how the legislative assembly works. We are very happy to welcome them here, and I hope that the members of the chamber will express their welcome to these young people from Armourdale riding.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure of introducing to you and members of the Legislature, a very distinguished group of students whom we have visiting us today. Last September, a group of our young people from the region of York went over to Germany from September to December on an exchange student basis. Today we have the pleasure of welcoming 51 students from Germany who are in the region of York for the next two to three months on an exchange basis. They are accompanied by 50 more students, who are the host students from the region of York to this distinguished group of young people, and also by members of the administration staff, teachers, and Mrs. Elliott, who is head of the parent group that is looking after this group of students whom we welcome here today in our Legislature and to the Province of Ontario. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE TO FORT SEVERN

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House -- and perhaps especially the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) -- of an event which should give us all a sense of pride. Within the last few days the most remote outpost of Ontario, the community of Fort Severn, has become linked to the outside world with reliable long-distance telephone service.

Fort Severn has a population of about 250 people, most of whom are members of the Cree Indian nation. It is located on the coast of Hudson Bay, just 80 miles from the Manitoba border. Until now, regular communications have been extremely difficult and unreliable. Co-operative action by Bell Canada and the government of Ontario changed this situation.

Bell Canada has installed a Telesat Anik satellite receiving station in Fort Severn so that the company’s 25 telephone customers can connect with the outside world by full-time, reliable satellite communications. Electrical power for the communications service is being provided by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications through the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.

The service via satellite in Fort Severn joins a similar service provided a year ago by the ministry and Ontario Northland at the Hudson Bay coastal community of Winisk, and by Bell Canada at the community of Big Trout Lake. During the next three years, we plan to connect all of the 28 communities in remote northern Ontario to the outside world as part of a joint ministry, ONTC, and Bell Canada programme.

The members will also recall that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has a programme to build airstrips at many of these remote communities. An airstrip was built at Fort Severn during the last two summers and is maintained by a local resident employed by the ministry.

One of the first calls made to Fort Severn via satellite was to the airstrip office. When we suggested, “It is good to be able to telephone to Fort Severn,” the immediate response was: “Yes, and after all these years.”

Mr. Speaker, I bring this to the attention of the House to remind all of us that there is still a great need to provide even the most basic of reliable communications to a great many Ontario communities. May I stress that not all of these communities are as remote as Fort Severn, Winisk or Big Trout Lake. Many are in parts of Ontario we frequently consider to be “developed.”

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): How about Shining Tree?

JAMES BAY COAL DEPOSITS

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, with the current worldwide shortage of energy resources, it has become essential that Ontario make a thorough assessment of all its own sources of supply.

Ontario depends on hydrocarbon fuels for a large part of its energy supply and imports large quantities of coal from the United States for this purpose and for its metallurgical industries. In view of the world supply situation, further dependence on foreign supplies should be held to the lowest practical minimum by the use of these domestic sources.

There are valuable deposits of coal in Alberta and Nova Scotia winch warrant consideration. Within Ontario, at Onakawana in the James Bay lowlands, there is an extensive lignite or brown coal deposit, which is now being studied by the government as a possible source of thermal electrical power.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): They made a study of that last year and the year before.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): George Wardrope used to study that from time to time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is a reasonable probability that other equally large deposits exist in the cretaceous sediments to the west of Onakawana. However, knowledge of the cretaceous basin is limited because of the heavy overburden of the glacial debris and swamp. There are only a few widely scattered exposures of bedrock along the river channels. This limited knowledge militates against the selection of target areas for exploration which might reduce the cost to a reasonable level. Thus, little work has been done, or is now being done, in the basin.

However, a comprehensive geological study is essential if the potential of the basin, and areas for more detailed investigation, are to be assessed. Because of the scarcity of rock exposures, conventional surface mapping would be of little or no value. To be useful, any study would require test drilling at widely spaced intervals, supplemented by seismic and other geological surveys.

The Ministry of Natural Resources will carry out a preliminary survey of this nature during February and March of this year. It is hoped that some important geological data will be obtained by this survey. In addition, the effect of the limited study on the environment will be closely studied in order to determine what, if any, hazard to the environment might result from further or more extensive exploration of the same nature. Local residents, including the native people of Treaty 9, have been advised of this programme.

The NORT committee has arranged for the rehabilitation of 30 miles of existing winter road from Smokey Falls north to Hambly township and the construction of a new winter road from Hambly township toward Jaab Lake for a total distance of about 75 miles.

It is planned to drill 10 vertical test holes at eight-mile intervals along the access road. In all, about 5,000 ft of drilling will be carried out. Chip drilling has been selected as the most reliable and economical method of recovering samples of the unconsolidated cretaceous formations. Materials of possible economic importance would be peat, silica, lignite and fireclay.

A seismic survey is planned to establish the depth and the character of the sedimentary basin and an electrical resistivity survey will help in establishing continuity of any beds of lignite. Ground survey control will be provided for location of the drill holes and for geophysical survey stations.

Field observations and a preliminary report will be followed by laboratory studies and a final report will be released later this year.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The Leader of the Opposition.

ATHABASCA TAR SANDS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier if he can explain to the House a situation involving our commitment to the Syncrude corporation: Are we in it for five per cent of the total cost or are we in it for $100 million?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): And what is it?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we, the shareholders of the Province of Ontario, have five per cent of the equity of Syncrude. The estimated total cost, with some allowance for contingencies, is around $2 billion; but we are equity participants.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Can the Premier assure us this is not going to be something like the Bricklin, in which his colleague in New Brunswick is involved, where the total cost tends to escalate the closer you get to the conclusion of the project? How carefully did his experts examine the commitment so that we are not into some sort of an open-ended rat-hole down which the $100 million would go as just the beginning?

Mr. Lewis: Oh, oh; the Liberal Party has changed again in 24 hours; a remarkable change.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the companies and the government of Alberta prepared certain documentation. As was stated to the House here, this was available to us. I was asked whether this would be tabled and I said this would be done if it were tabled in Alberta; it’s their documentation.

This material was assessed. I can only say to the hon. member I don’t know anything about a rat-hole, but I will leave that for him to determine.

Mr. Lewis: Last week they liked it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: They applauded it. They were congratulating the Premier.

An hon. member: The member for Scarborough West should, too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say to the hon. member, as I stated here when I made the announcement, that we are going on the best information, the best estimates available. We are doing this along with the government of Canada, which is in the same equity position except for a larger percentage, as well as the Province of Alberta which is also in for a larger percentage. While I can’t personally guarantee the Leader of the Opposition that it will be exactly $2 billion, I do say to him that in our judgement we have invested in something that is important, both in the interest of the people in this province and in the national interest.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): That’s not the question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, since there hasn’t been another asked just at this moment: Would the Premier not agree, however, that one of the dangers in this -- and quite removed from what he has said the justification is, which in fact is a very impressive justification -- is that he, as the principal negotiator for this province, has committed us and future governments to paying five per cent of whatever the cost would be? Was there at least no attempt to negotiate some sort of a terminal responsibility or some limit beyond which our treasury would not be called upon to pay?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Donald Macdonald committed all of Canada -- with our money.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there were discussions. I think every government -- the government of Canada and the government of Alberta, along with ourselves -- would like to be totally sure that the total cost will be $2 billion and that the investment in equity didn’t carry with it the responsibility of being an equity participant. I’m quite prepared to acknowledge that there are some possible hazards, I guess, in these terms.

I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition there have been very few projects of national significance in any jurisdiction where one could have guaranteed in advance the total outcome. I would go back to the days when this country was put together; and if the same people then had had the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition of this province, Confederation probably would have never been accomplished.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Why doesn’t the Premier just answer the question?

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): There’s a big schism over there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that the people responsible for the building of the railways in this country were able at the time of the concept, at the time decisions were made, to give a totally accurate estimate as to the cost. I hate to think what might have emerged if some decisions of that kind had not been made at that particular time in our history.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why is the Premier so defensive about it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am saying very simply here that we are relatively satisfied that the estimates are as accurate as they can be. We have an equity participation in something we think is without question in the national interest and will be, of course, of benefit to the people of this province. It’s the kind of thing that government should do in this day and age, particularly in a country like ours.

Mr. Speaker: A further supplementary question?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your allowing a further supplementary from me. Would the Premier not agree that there is nothing narrow-minded nor irresponsible in simply asking about the facts in a deal which commits the taxpayers to $100 billion? I hope to God the Premier asked about some of those facts -- and did he?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have answered the Leader of the Opposition with the facts as we know them at this time.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Yakabuski: Where’s the $300 million coming from?

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

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Since he felt relatively certain about the facts as he garnered them from the last conference he went to, only to find he was wrong on almost every count --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Who advises him?

Mr. Lewis: -- can he tell us how, on the basis of 24 hours -- because that’s all he had, as I understand it, when the Lougheed report was secretly given to Donald S. Macdonald and himself -- they satisfied themselves on $2 billion; on a commitment, without having it in writing, of machinery from Ontario equivalent to $250 million; on a price which wouldn’t extort money from the Ontario consumer; and on a total level at the end which would secure us at roughly a $100 million equity investment rather than is what more likely to be a $150 million equity investment?

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Answer that!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the member for Scarborough West that he underestimates -- and that’s a great mistake to make -- the capacity of this government --

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): To make mistakes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- to make decisions, when they are in the national interest and the provincial interest, in time to meet a particular situation.

Mr. Deans: Something like the conference in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I might also say to the hon. member that I had asked the people involved to start their assessments as of Jan. 1. I might point out that the Treasurer and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. McKeough) and the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) were in the Province of Alberta about a week prior to the Monday meeting for discussions and so on. I can only assure the hon. member that to the extent that it is possible in any of these situations, the situation was assessed with great care.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Did the Premier and his advisers approach this meeting with any stipulations for leverage on behalf of the Ontario taxpayer in view of the fact that Quebec is not going in? Do we have any special leverage on rates for the price of oil here?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, we don’t have special leverage as it relates to rates. What we do have is an equity participation. I’m not going to comment on why other provinces have or have not involved themselves. This province, I would say to the hon. member with some sense of satisfaction, has always endeavoured to co-operate, to involve itself in things that have meaning for Confederation in Canada, and I think this demonstrates that very conclusively.

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

Mr. Sargent: Then the Premier didn’t drive a hard bargain for our five per cent?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): What is good for Imperial Oil is good for Confederation.

Mr. Lewis: A great commitment to Exxon, that’s his commitment.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

MINING TAX REVENUE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Revenue. Can he give the House the most recent projections as to the revenue which will accrue to our consolidated revenue fund from the new mining tax which has been in effect now for many months, which we expect will be debated some time this week or next week?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): I don’t have it at my fingertips, Mr. Speaker, but I think that I could get a rough estimate of what we would expect to recover from that for the hon. member.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Could the minister give us a rough estimate now and give us a more refined estimate when he looks at the figures?

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, Mr. Speaker, I simply do not have it at my fingertips.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, is it a fact that it is considerably more than the projection that was given when the budget announcement was made?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I do not know.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition -- further questions?

ASBESTOS PROBLEM AT CANADIAN JOHNS-MANVILLE PLANT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he would refer to the very serious charges made by the leader of the NDP in a committee meeting last night and also respond to the concerns expressed by the mayor of Scarborough that the asbestos pollution in the air around the Johns-Manville plant is affecting the community, and particularly the students at the Oliver Mowat school, a matter of a very substantial concern locally and across the province?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I believe tests in the air and around the school have been done by other ministries, not by mine. The inspection of the plant has been done by my ministry. Somebody tells me that some experiments have been done by OISE; I have not heard anything about those except though the media. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) might be aware of some tests done by his ministry in that area, at the school. I am told some were done in 1972 and that’s the only record I have of any.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the minister was quoted as giving very substantial assurances to those people concerned in the plant, would he be prepared to coordinate, let’s say, the information among the other ministries and give a report in response to the matter that was raised?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I qualified some of the statements I made yesterday. I don’t feel all of my qualifications appeared in the press. I am not trying to understate the concerns I have, or the other ministries have, for the conditions in the plant. The data I got on in-plant tests showed they were considerably better, as I mentioned, than the leader of the NDP had said. I can tell the member specifically how many tests on a given day exceeded the threshold level values at this point in time.

Blue asbestos is the one that I believe causes the mesothelioma.

Mr. Lewis: They claim that.

An hon. member: All asbestos is known to.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: All asbestos causes it -- this is another device.

Hon. Mr. Miller: All right, I am not prepared to argue that either because I do not know. I only know what I am told, and I was told mesothelioma is caused by blue asbestos. I am concerned, the other two ministers are concerned, and I am doing my best to channel the three of us together.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And may we expect a report from the minister or one of his colleagues? He said yes, did he not?

NIPISSING SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Can he report to the House as to what action has been taken in regard to his ministry’s application to the Supreme Court re the appointment of an Indian representative in the Nipissing district situation? Is he aware that the schools concerned are closed today and the children are not in attendance?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): I was not aware, Mr. Speaker, that the schools were closed today. I was advised on Tuesday that the notice of motion on the commencement of the application to the Supreme Court was filed yesterday, or was to be filed today, and that is the most recent information I have in connection with it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: In his experience as being learned in the law, could he tell us what sort of a time element we would be facing with the way the procedure is going, since it doesn’t seem to be a matter of great urgency?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It is a matter of great urgency. My opinion would be quite conjectural at this point because the notice of motion would be supported by an affidavit; and if the other side declined to cross-examine on that affidavit, then the process would be expedited. On the other hand, if the other side decided to cross-examine on that affidavit, then it’s only conjecture as to when the appointment might be obtained in order to cross-examine. Ordinarily these matters, on this type of application, would take as much as two months before they would be heard before the appropriate judge.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: since the matter may very well be interfering with the continuing education in the community, would the minister not consider recommending to his colleagues that the statute be amended so that, instead of setting this arbitrary limit of 100 students it would require Indian representation on any board which governed the education of young people coming from an Indian band?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member’s colleague from Nipissing made such a suggestion here some days ago.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He introduced the bill. It could be enacted today.

Hon. Mr. Clement: As we see it, the difficulty is, if we said that if there is any child of Indian parentage in attendance at a school --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, no, with an Indian band in the jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- with an Indian band in the jurisdiction, the problem as I understand it, is that there might be a very small number of children attending that school, many of whom may live in the city and off the reserve. Then the criticism seems to be that there would be double representation for those particular children, in that their ward representative --

Mr. Foulds: It is about time they got representation in this province.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- would be there as well as their Indian representative. So I don’t think it would be appropriate at this time to change the legislation until the court makes a determination of it.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: To the Attorney General: Would the Attorney General not agree that the Act reads that if the band enters into an agreement with the board, then it has the right to make an appointment; that it has nothing to do with where children live outside the area that is covered by the band itself; and that the question of whether they live in another municipality would not affect the question of the appointment if, in fact, the Indian students did not come from the area covered by the band?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I make no comment on the observation offered by the member for Nipissing. There may be alternatives, that’s quite correct. The principle put forward by the member’s leader and suggested is, should we not amend the legislation today, or within this session, in order to compel the placement of a member on that board. I take the position at this particular time that I don’t think that would resolve the matter. It is now going before the courts; I think that is the proper course.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) has brought forward the information to us, and as I understand the solution, there seems to be a difference as to the count, as to the numbers of children attending that school. That’s the gist of it. The information that the Minister of Education has, is that there are 103 children. It’s a mandatory obligation on the board, once there are 100 or more children. The nominee has approached the board and asked to be seated. The board, for its own reasons, has refused to seat that person, and therefore I think it is up to the courts to make the determination.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary on this.

Mr. Roy: To an answer given to my leader about that, what is the returnable date on the motion? That was not mentioned. The minister said the motion might be deposed before the Supreme Court tomorrow, and he mentioned the fact that there might be cross-examination on the affidavits. But could he tell us what the returnable date is on the motion -- when the motion is to be heard -- and is there any demand in the motion for an interim injunction pending the cross-examinations on the affidavits, seeing that this evidence is so overwhelming?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I am unable at this moment to tell the member the return date on the motion. I can make a phone call and find out before the question period ends this afternoon. I have not personally seen the pleadings so I don’t know what the return date on the motion is. I would imagine it is probably five or seven days. It will have to be adjourned if notice to cross-examine is served on us.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions? The member for Scarborough West.

ASBESTOS PROBLEM AT CANADIAN JOHNS-MANVILLE PLANT

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to confine myself exclusively to questions relating to asbestos. My first is to the Minister of Health. How can he possibly say and, even more extraordinarily, how can Dr. Tidey possibly say that the Ministry of Health has found things to be safe in Johns-Manville when he has a report, dated June 20, 1974, from C. S. Rajhans, an engineer with the occupational health branch, which enumerates area after area in the plant with the following illustrative comments, and I will use one or two as descriptions:

“In my last report dated April 5, 1973, it was shown that the local exhausts at this drill were improperly designed and hence were considered to be inadequate. A direction to improve the exhausts was suggested. No changes were found during this visit. A comment was made in my previous report that the face velocities have gone down considerably and also that the counts are high. The company apparently paid no attention to my comment” --

And so it goes for location after location through the plant from within the minister’s own ministry. How, then, can it be said that the levels are safe?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have reports from the same engineer in my hand right now. I asked for them to be brought to me. I got them after the question period began today. Therefore, I can’t say I can quote them verbatim or with great depth.

I can only tell the member that mine are dated considerably after his, Jan. 17, 1975, and that I have data on each of the locations within the plant where he has been doing testing procedures. In the final remark, apart from all the technical data, the most important word is what has changed since the last time he was there.

There are words like “a considerable increase,” that is, in flow of air. Basically, if the member recalls, most of his recommendations on an individual basis dealt with the improvement of mechanical ventilation at specific locations without the factory and/or means of cleaning up the dusts that accumulate in the factory during the course of a day.

I can go through the various points but at least in this report a number of the areas are showing considerable improvement, a few are marked as “no change,” and one, I see, is not as good as it was before. Following that, he gave nine specific recommendations to the factory which we, in turn, I understand, have given to the Ministry of Labour, and which I assume are being dealt with at this point in time by that ministry to see that they are being enforced.

I have to say that we are working much more closely with Labour at this point to see that recommendations made by our ministry are acted upon. At the same time, the data I have shows that in June, six locations out of 22 were above the threshold levels that we felt were acceptable. In an earlier report four out of 21 were above the threshold level.

I have told the member I am not minimizing the problem. I am not. My job is not to protect Johns-Manville in any way at all.

Mr. Lewis: That is what is happening.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am there to protect both the men working in that plant and the people who live near that plant. As Minister of Health, I intend to do just that.

Mr. Lewis: I believe the minister. It is what he is not realizing, perhaps, because one always misses the contents of these reports. By way of supplementary, in the same document the minister just read from, Mr. Rajhans says about the previous survey, and I am quoting: “Thus only five counts are truly considered to be safe.” That is out of 22. In the December survey, on the same basis that he uses, only eight counts are considered to be truly safe out of 35. How can the minister be so blessed sanguine about a plant which year after year continues to violate the threshold limit value which his ministry has set? Why does he treat them with velvet gloves?

Hon. Mr. Miller: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen those words that the member refers to but I will be glad to look. There is an argument as to --

Mr. Lewis: Well, they are right here. We should show the minister the reports.

Hon. Mr. Miller: What is the member calling the threshold level that he referred to?

Mr. Lewis: I am calling the threshold level the level that the ministry recommends, which is one fibre per cubic centimetre. Never mind for a moment. If one takes it on the basis of two fibres per cubic centimetre, more than 50 per cent of the plant in each case was still unsafe. No matter how one looks at it, it is an unsafe work place -- and nothing happened.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is developing into a debate. Is this a question for information --

Mr. Lewis: You’re right, it is. And I’m not going to be cut off by you on this one.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Answer the question.

Mr. Lewis: Answer the question.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Always a speech.

Mr. Speaker: Actually, this is a question period to elicit information from the minister. It’s not meant to be a debating session. That procedure has been well established in this House for several years, and that is all I was pointing out to the hon. member. Does the hon. minister have an answer?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That is precisely what he was doing.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West with a supplementary.

Mr. Bounsall: What information does the minister have, if any, on equivalent lung-problem health hazards from fibreglass particles manufactured in plants similar to Johns-Manville?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Do you deem that a supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry, I didn’t get the content of the question.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It was on a different material altogether.

Mr. Bounsall: This is plants similar to those of Johns-Manville, making the same type of product and insulation materials -- the same kind of product.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member can, in his turn, ask it as a new question.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is there a filter system on the exhaust going out of the plant, or is that asbestos-laden air just being pumped into the neighbourhood?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I can’t answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I assume there are some types of cyclone separators, I don’t know.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West, further questions?

Mr. Lewis: I have a further question of the Minister of Health. Does he recall explaining to me some little time ago why it was necessary to have much tougher standards outside the plant than inside the plant, because it was a more general population outside, susceptible to contamination over a longer period of time? Am I right in that recollection?

Hon. Mr. Miller: He may be.

Mr. Lewis: Okay. May I ask of the Minister of the Environment what standards has he for the emission of asbestos fibres into the air from a plant like Johns-Manville?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, back in 1970 or 1972, the guidelines for asbestos at the point of impingement -- that was the indicator we had on the school -- were 50 micrograms per cubic metre of air. At that particular point in time, when we were doing the testing, all tests indicated that we were within those guidelines.

I think it was last June in this House that I brought in new guidelines regarding impingement of asbestos and other materials, and we reduced the impingement point for asbestos to five micrograms per cubic metre of air over a half-hour period.

As a result of our new standards that we brought in, we went to Johns-Manville in this particular case. We did work out a programme with them to fix their bag houses, to improve them, to get outside maintenance so that they were looked after on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, they contracted out this work.

They are recycling some of their bag house filtration now; and, of course, they are cooperating with us on the monitoring we are now doing in the area. We have a contract with the Ontario Research Foundation to do some further testing, I believe, in April of this year.

So, at this point in time, we have taken samples with these improvements done; but we do not have the final analysis at this point in time. We expect to have it shortly.

Mr. Lewis: The minister will concede, I take it, that in the ease of vinyl chloride or lead, or any of the other dangerous contaminants, the levels that are set outside a plant are much more stringent than the levels that are set inside? He has already acknowledged that through his own announcements. Does the minister recognize that the levels recommended outside the plant are one one-hundredth of a fibre per cubic centimetre? In this 1972 Ontario Research Foundation study which I have, every single reading was above that. This means the kids at Sir Oliver Mowat are in danger. I dare say every reading he now has is above it. Would he table those readings?

Hon. W. Newman: Does the member mean the new readings that we have? That’s what I said -- that in the next few days we will have the necessary information -- and if the House isn’t in session, I will be glad to release them.

Since we’ve been back in with the company, they’ve done considerable work in the bag house and the filtration setup there. The guidelines that were used in 1972, I assume, were set up by the appropriate medical people -- of 50 micrograms per cubic metre of air.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is just playing games with us.

Hon. W. Newman: The ones I brought in last June -- if the member would just listen -- are reduced to five micrograms per cubic metre of air --

Mr. Lewis: Over five.

Hon. W. Newman: -- over a half-hour period.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: One last question of the Minister of Labour: Why were no charges laid under the Industrial Safety Act when the minister was informed on a regular basis that Johns-Manville was not, in fact, complying with the inspector’s directions as set out?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the business of measuring these things is a pretty difficult task. The count is so low that very many things can upset it. I am just passing on some information that I got at noon today; that is one reason I was a little late in the House, I was having a crash course on this matter. I understand that the count can be upset by somebody shuffling his feet, by somebody shaking out his clothes, or doing a number of things. It is a very finite thing they are dealing with.

We are keeping a very aggressive eye on Johns-Manville; we know the risks, and we will continue to keep that aggressive eye. But as far as laying charges on the evidence that we had and on the counts taken, there was not sufficient supportive evidence to be successful in any charges. At the same time, this could have been a very temporary situation -- a matter of hours or a matter of five or 10 minutes.

As for these levels -- and I want to keep clear of getting into the health problems -- I understand that these are conditions that one must be exposed to for a great number of years before they are a health danger.

Mr. Lewis: That is not so.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: So if this condition existed for a half an hour, or even for a day, the kind of counts that our survey showed would not in themselves be a health risk. Over a period of time they would be.

Mr. Shulman: Not a risk? That’s not so.

Mr. Lewis: There is collaboration here with the company.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I should not be getting into the health field and I have got into it.

Mr. Shulman: He sure shouldn’t.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I will stop my answer at this point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: I have one last question of the minister. Does the minister, in his health expertise, realize that once an asbestos fibre has entered the lung it is indestructible and it is never emitted? Was the minister given that information at noon?

Does the minister also recognize that there is nothing temporary about the pattern of Workmen’s Compensation Board claims and lung-cancer death statistics which are presented to him? Why isn’t he taking this company on frontally? Why is the minister playing such games with this?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, we are not playing games. We are in dead earnest, we are serious and we are going to keep after it. But at the same time, regarding the health conditions that we are discovering today, it is my understanding that they were caused some years ago.

Mr. Lewis: It is not so.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: After that point we have stringently tightened the regulations --

Mr. Lewis: How is the minister going to explain it 20 years from now?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Of course, we will not know for a number of years whether the regulations that are there today are effective or not, and that is the regrettable part.

Mr. Lewis: They are useless as they are today.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: But all the best knowledge that we have would indicate that the regulations that are there today, and which we are trying to make sure are adhered to, are ample to protect the health of the workers. Now it doesn’t stop at that. This is under constant review.

Mr. Speaker: May I just break in here? There have been over 30 minutes taken up with the questions of the two leadoff questioners, and I think it is time we moved on to the member for Downsview.

LEGAL AID PLAN

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Could the Attorney General tell us how long he and/or his predecessor have had in their possession the report of Mr. Justice Osler dealing with the legal aid system in the province, and why it has not, as yet, been tabled?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I would be glad to, Mr. Speaker. We haven’t had it in our possession yet. It is at the printers, I am instructed, and we are anticipating receipt of it about the middle or end of next week.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, even though the minister hasn’t had a printed copy, has he or his predecessor seen an advance copy? And is it true, as I understand it to be, that it is highly critical of the present system?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for my predecessor, but, no, I have not seen an advance copy of that particular report. Its existence is well known and there is no reason why it shouldn’t be known. As a matter of fact, I had a meeting with representatives of the legal aid group last week in connection with it and they, in turn, were anticipating what might be in it. But I have not seen a copy at all.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: This is the final supplementary.

Mr. Singer: -- did the minister’s predecessor mention whether or not he had seen it, or has the minister discussed it with him?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, but I can ask him.

Mr. Singer: Talk to him now.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, he tells me he hasn’t seen it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

CLOSING OF BURWASH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Government Services. Was his ministry involved until recently with the federal government, Mr. Allmand in particular, in negotiations to sell Burwash to the federal government for a federal minimum-security prison at Burwash?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I personally did not enter into any negotiations with the federal government and I don’t believe there was anything which took place that one would call negotiations. I believe there may have been some notification to the federal government regarding the facility being available.

Mr. Martel: I have a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Martel: Did the ministry put out an asking price for that institution and, if so, would the minister indicate to the House what that asking price was?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no asking price established and I’m sure there has been no price given to anyone, nor have we been asked for one.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the Minister of Industry and Tourism has the answer to a question.

LAYOFFS AT INGLIS

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a question from the member for Riverdale which he asked in the House last week relating to layoffs by John Inglis Ltd.

First of all, I would like to correct his statement when he said that Whirlpool Corp. of the United States controlled John Inglis Ltd. of Canada. John Inglis Ltd. is a Canadian company. The majority of the directors of the company are Canadian and the company is run by Canadians. Whirlpool Corp. is a shareholder of John Inglis but not the majority shareholder.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It controls it with the others it owns.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The company does plan a layoff of two weeks duration at its Toronto and Stoney Creek plants. The reason is the net result of a major turndown in business, coupled with the residual effect of a 4½-month strike which John Inglis experienced between April and August, 1974, at the Toronto plant.

When the strike dragged on during the summer, the company found it had to protect its long-term market position. The Canadian principals made a decision to bring in one Inglis model from their American associate firm. This had been done on the basis of a firm commitment since some modifications of the product had to be made by the American company. With the end of the strike, the company was faced with honouring the commitment it had entered into, and it continued to import the models until it had completed the contract arrangements.

With the turndown of the economy and subsequent reduction in production, the inventory problem has not been eliminated as quickly as anticipated. It is for this reason that the decision was made to close completely both operations for the announced period of time. There had been extensive discussions between the union and management regarding their problem and the anticipated time necessary to correct the situation. Based on the current sales level, the company has stated that it is probably committed for all of the finished products and it will be for some time. I have spoken with the president of John Inglis and he feels that he will be able to maintain successfully the complete employment once the company is back in production.

My ministry has reviewed the situation with the company, Mr. Speaker, and indicated that its experience has been very favourable over the last number of years. The new president in the past five years has turned the company around from a troubled corporation to a very productive one for Canada. I might add that the new president has indicated to my ministry that they intend to maintain full employment at their plant once they are back in production. May I indicate that in the last five years John Inglis has added to the employment of the company 200 additional employees from the Province of Ontario. I believe that we’ll see full production and employment before many weeks.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

OWEN SOUND HOSPITAL

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. In view of the fact that the corridors of our hospital in Owen Sound are still full of beds --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This is the member’s last chance.

Mr. Sargent: -- and that the temporary solution that he is providing will only be a waste of money, I challenge the Premier, at least to have the courage to write my people and tell them that they’re second-class citizens.

Mr. Speaker: Was there a question, please?

Mr. Sargent: I’m getting to it.

An hon. member: Will he accept that challenge?

Mr. Sargent: Write them and tell them that they do not rate the same treatment as they do in Brantford or the rest of Ontario -- Brampton, I’m sorry.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Brampton, yes. We are first-class but we don’t get that treatment.

Mr. Sargent: Or Brantford too. In view of the fact that 170 urgent cases of surgery are waiting and 370 back cases awaiting elective surgery -- all these are on the waiting lists -- how can he, as a chief executive of this province, not give us the needs for our people that they have in other parts of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be more properly directed to the Minister of Health who is totally familiar with the situation. I’m sure he would be delighted to give an answer.

Mr. Sargent: I am asking the Premier.

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

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, this is very important to us here.

Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: You placed the question.

Mr. Sargent: Will he do that?

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the hon. member for High Park.

MONEY FOR HORSE-BREEDING

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier would care to comment on the letter sent out on the letterhead of the Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society, which says that the money that has been voted by this Legislature to improve the breed is being wasted, and which refers to his government as “irresponsible and lacking in good judgement.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m not totally familiar with the problems being suggested at present by that particular organization. Unlike some perhaps, I’m not totally conversant with the thoroughbred industry, its breeding practices, and so on. I must confess I was once the owner of a thoroughbred -- for about 48 hours. I was very kindly given a thoroughbred horse. It was sold at auction very shortly thereafter with the proceeds going to the University of Guelph for certain research.

Mr. Deans: The Premier should have taken up --

Hon. Mr. Davis: That was the extent of my involvement with the thoroughbred industry. I expect I even may be going to meet the writer of that letter. I don’t know who wrote that letter. Of course, I never know who writes letters these days.

Mr. Singer: Or gets them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I was delighted to see the member for Sudbury East had been into his files again and found some more.

Mr. Martel: That’s an admission on the Premier’s part.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I can only say to the member for High Park that if it is the president of that association, I have a feeling that I have an appointment to see him, at which time I hope to be more thoroughly briefed about the industry itself. I’m sure we will have a very constructive meeting with that particular gentleman.

He already has been in touch with the member for York North. They’ve had several discussions. The hon. member from that particular riding is very knowledgeable, having a number of these people as his constituents. He has brought this very forcibly to my attention in the past few days, and I expect he will also be a participant at that meeting. I regret I can’t ask the member for High Park because I don’t think he knows any more about horses than I do.

Mr. Shulman: I could learn.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Revenue has an answer to a question asked previously.

MINING TAX REVENUE

Hon. Mr. Meen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked me if I could give the House any projection of the increase in mining tax revenues to March 31. On a supplementary the hon. member for Downsview asked me if I could give him any guesstimate -- or rough estimate -- at this time for the benefit of the House, and I said I simply did not know.

I’ve been able to ascertain in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, that the actual administration of the income under this Act is under either the Ministry of Natural Resources or Treasury and Economics. I think it’s under Natural Resources.

Mr. Renwick: Natural Resources, that’s right

Hon. Mr. Meen: Either that ministry or the Ministry of the Treasury and Economics would have -- if the figures are available, and I would think they might be -- the projections to March 31.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): This minister should have them.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In my ministry I do get projections monthly on the various taxing statutes that are under my ministry, and I would presume --

Mr. Lawlor: That is a disgrace; spread all over.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- that in a similar fashion the projections for anticipated revenues under the Mining Tax Act would also be made on a monthly basis.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Mr. P. Taylor: Point of privilege.

Mr. Stokes: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: State your point of privilege.

Mr. P. Taylor: The vast majority of this question period has been consumed by ministers running up the clock on long-winded, pointless answers.

Mr. Sargent: That’s true. That’s true.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Sit down.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would merely --

Mr. Speaker: State your point of privilege.

Mr. P. Taylor: I would merely like to ask you, sir --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, if I may comment on that, I drew attention to the fact that there --

Mr. Shulman: May I rise on a point of order, sir?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker has the floor for a moment. I drew attention to the fact earlier that there seemed to be an undue length of time taken up by the two leadoff questioners, and I would suggest that the hon. member, if he has a dissatisfaction with the amount of time spent, should take it up with his leader or the respective leaders.

Mr. P. Taylor: Question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I’ve answered that point of privilege. The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. P. Taylor: Question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please; the member for Thunder Bay has the floor.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Sit down, sit down.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Take that guy to the woodshed.

Mr. P. Taylor: I had a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege.

Mr. Stokes: I have a point of order.

Mr. P. Taylor: A point of privilege supersedes a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I gave the floor to the member for Thunder Bay; the member for Thunder Bay has the floor.

Mr. Shulman: May I speak to this point of privilege?

Mr. Stokes: I have a point of order. I have a perfectly good standard railway watch.

Mr. Sargent: The member for Carleton East has the floor.

Mr. Stokes: At 2:12 o’clock the question period began. We have a 45-minute question period. That means it wouldn’t expire until 2:57. We still have two minutes to go.

An hon. member: All aboard!

Mr. Roy: I have a question. I couldn’t believe it --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I do have it right down here too. I’m sorry, I slipped down five minutes; so the member for -- I admit that.

Mr. Lewis: This happens every day; every day you can’t count.

Mr. Speaker: I humbly apologize. I have the time here too, which coincides. Just a moment now, we’ve wasted about three minutes --

Mr. Stokes: I suspect we should have five more minutes, because we lost three minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Well I was going to say I could see a loss of about three minutes here. We’ll go to 3 o’clock.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, that’s when the little hand is on the 3 and the big hand is on the --

Mr. Speaker: All right. A question from the member for Rainy River.

PUBLIC RELATIONS STAFF

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): I have a question of the Chairman of the Management Board, Mr. Speaker, in relation to my question concerning the public relations staff of the government. I gather this was prepared under his auspices, this information in regard to public relations people in the government. Can the minister inform me, since the information he provided in regard to my question that was placed on the order paper on May 16 of last year was just tabled last week, how he can justify such a delay when there are 145 people on the staff as information officers and public relations personnel? Why would it take eight months?

Further, can he explain why the one person, the public relations officer in the Premier’s office, is, according to the information, getting paid $56,000?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Reid: Why are the 11 employed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food getting, approximately, an average of $60,000 in salary?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Reid: Well that’s the minister’s information, that’s what he gave me.

Mr. Roy: It is embarrassing, eh?

Mr. Reid: Can the minister explain those figures?

Mr. Singer: Yes, explain them.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I think the interpretation of the information is probably very inaccurate. I’ll have to look at the question as it is placed before me and see if I can give the member some more information.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Take five per cent off.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: However, I will say this to the hon. gentleman: Whatever they are doing, whatever they are being paid, he can be sure they are worth it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: One quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker: First of all, I would fire the guy in the Premier’s office, if I were the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question.

Mr. Roy: He’s doing a poor job.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Reid: Would the minister not agree --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Reid: -- that the $10.5 million that is being paid to --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Ottawa Centre.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Is the Premier aware that Algonquin College in Ottawa is making a considered decision not to accept first-year students in the forthcoming academic year? Is it government policy that community colleges should not accept first-year students for a period of a year to solve their financial problems?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of it. I suggest that question should be properly directed to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld).

Mr. Givens: He is never here.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Would the government take steps, if the community colleges have pared their budgets to the bone, to ensure that no first-year student is refused in September of this coming year?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this. As I say, the Minister of Colleges and Universities, I’m sure, would be quite prepared to answer this question.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour has an answer to a question posed previously by the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell).

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BOARD

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, on Feb. 3 the hon. member for St. George asked:

“(a) How many members of the task force which studied the Workmen’s Compensation Board have been hired since September, 1973, and at what salary? (b) What has P. S. Ross and Partners been paid on the per diem basis since that time?”

In answer to the first question, I wish to report that the task force comprised three members: Messrs. A. R. Aird of P. S. Ross and Partners as chairman; R. D. Johnston, Deputy Minister of Labour; and Michael Starr. As members know, Michael Starr was appointed chairman of the board in November, 1973, at a salary of $37,800, and Mr. Johnston has continued in his office of deputy minister.

In regard to the second question, P. S. Ross and Partners, upon completion of the task force report for the Ministry of Labour, was engaged by the Workmen’s Compensation Board to assist in the implementation of recommendations arising therefrom. For this service the partnership has been paid a total of $140,482.44, during the period Sept. 1, 1973, to Dec. 31, 1974. In addition, the partnership has been paid $2,240.18, which amount is not included above. It was for screening candidates for senior positions recommended by the task force and for a computer analysis of the board’s investment portfolio management programme.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

Mr. Lewis: One hundred and forty thousand dollars in 16 months. That’s not bad.

HIGHWAYS 17 AND 417

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Has he received a letter from the Highway 17 committee over the signature of Mr. Jean Gauthier and has he read it and could he give us his impressions of the statements made in that letter?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I cannot specifically say I have received that letter. I have received a number of letters from the businessmen along old Highway 17. I have no idea what the content may be.

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, would the hon. Premier, to whom this letter has been addressed, pass it to the Minister of Transportation and Communications so that he can be up to date with the feelings along Highway 17 about the lack of action on signs?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, could I just answer that question? I would say if the hon. member were genuinely interested in his constituents, it would be a simple matter for him to send the letter over immediately to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Why doesn’t he do it?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He can do that. Does the Premier really have 10 PR officers? Why is it no one understands him?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. Taylor: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The oral question period has now expired.

Mr. P. Taylor: On a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, I think you will appreciate that as a member of this House I have expressed in this House over the past couple of months very real concern with the conduct of the business of the House --

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): Why doesn’t the member resign?

Mr. Sargent: The Treasurer resigned, and now he’s back in again. He should be ashamed.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. Taylor: A moment ago I attempted to --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. Taylor: A moment ago, sir, I raised the matter of the conduct of this question period, and in your response to my opening statement on the question of privilege, you laid the responsibility for the conduct of the question period at the feet of the two leaders of the opposition parties and the extent to which they are permitted to question the ministry. I ask, sir, as a matter of your policy in conducting the question period in this House, do you intend to allow the ministry to run on ad infinitum in the answers to those questions?

Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that that question is as long as many of the answers that were given today. As a matter of fact, both questions and answers were a bit lengthy today. So there is not a point of privilege.

The next order of business is petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present the final report of the select committee on the utilization of educational facilities.

It is with great pleasure that this committee tables its final report --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I find it very difficult to hear the hon. member who is presenting his report.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. McIlveen: -- which marks the end of our work. As chairman, Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to express to you my satisfaction with the sincere efforts and generous support of my hon. colleagues in the work of the committee in the presentation of this final report. The committee has been served throughout its life by a resourceful staff. We must acknowledge particularly the support of Alex McFedries, clerk of the committee, and the work of Katherine Bladen, as research director, Barbara Couks as committee co-ordinator, and Kay Shibuya as secretary.

During our three years of work the committee has tried to meet with as many organizations, groups and individuals as possible, to gather a wide variety of information and ideas on the matters that we were to study. We visited educational institutions and held public meetings and hearings in many centres throughout Ontario. On the basis of these travels and discussions we prepared a series of three interim reports dealing with the specific areas of interest.

Our first interim report suggested strategies for increasing community use of school facilities and developing community involvement and participation in the process of deciding how local community resources, including schools, should be used.

Our second interim report dealt with the question of year-round use of educational facilities and the development of year-round educational programmes.

In our third interim report we centred our attention on the development of an open educational system for Ontario which would be concerned with improving access to educational opportunities in the province and achieving co-ordination of our educational resources.

Mr. Speaker, in this final report, we have chosen to bring the recommendations of our three interim reports together with the reactions and criticisms that have been made of our work. We have used this response as a means for refocusing on the areas of discussion in the interim reports that needed refinement and/or re-examination. Therefore we have included in this report, summaries of the public response and the basis of these comments, as well as of the study, and we have made 43 final recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate the general questions and issues that have been covered in these recommendations. They are the development of community education in Ontario, the increasing importance of leisure in our lives, the planning and design of new community and school facilities, accessibility for the physically handicapped to community and educational facilities. The issues also include falling enrolments and resultant surplus space in schools, who pays for increased use of schools, the need for community decision-making, improved child care and development programmes, utilization of community learning resources and the development of community learning opportunities, community involvement in school programmes, year-round educational programmes, and last but not least, the open sector in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, may I say in closing that we have been gratified and excited by the interest that has been shown in our work by a wide range, of individuals and organizations across this province. I hope that our final report will find favour with these people and I look forward to seeing the implementation of our proposal at an early date.

Before I close, our staff is in the east gallery. I also have to apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, because there is a mistake in the report. When it’s addressed to you, you are spelled “R-O-E”. We will correct it.

Mr. Speaker: That will satisfy my Irish blood.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 181, An Act to establish the North Pickering Development Corp.

Bill 190, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

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

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP. (CONCLUDED)

House in committee on Bill 191, An Act to incorporate the Ontario Lottery Corp.

Mr. Chairman: When the committee rose during our last session, Mr. Smith from Nipissing had proposed an amendment:

“That section 8, subsection a be amended by striking out all the words after ‘corporation’ in line 2 and substituting therefore the words ‘in retail outlets operated by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and in chartered banks and in all Province of Ontario Savings offices ... ’”

And prescribing the fees, commissions and discount in such sales.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

All those in favour of the amendment will say “aye”.

All those opposed will say “nay”.

It is my opinion the “nays” have it, the amendment is lost.

Are there any further comments, questions or amendments on any further section in this bill?

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Yes, Mr. Chairman, on section 9.

Section 8 agreed to.

On section 9:

Mr. R. S. Smith moves that section 9 of the bill be amended by the addition of a comma after the word “direct” in line five of section 9; and that the words “to be available” in line five be struck out and replaced by the words, “and the total of such funds shall be used as directed in the estimates of the ministry.”

Mr. Chairman: Any discussion on the amendment?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, the discussion has gone on right through the bill on this specific point, so I think most of the points have been covered. The amendment is put forward to make it clear that the funds collected, or shown as a net profit from the lotteries, will be earmarked, for the specific purposes the minister has indicated, to those involved in those pursuits; to ensure that it will be done.

The minister has indicated during the debate that he feels the section does that now. Most of us over here feel that in fact the section does not earmark the funds and that the funds could be used for other purposes when section 9 is read in total. The amendment is to tighten up the section perhaps, and to make it mandatory that these funds be used for the purposes which have been outlined previously in the statement made on the introduction of the bill by the minister.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, since if the amendment is not accepted the section will pass, I would like to make a comment as to another manner in which this perhaps could be dealt with.

If the words “to be available” are replaced by the four words “and shall be used,” then I think it would assure anyone reading the section that that earlier clause, “at such times and in such manner as the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council may direct,” does, in fact, amplify the payment into the consolidated revenue fund and that all of these funds will be used following the term “shall” in the second line, so that there is clarity as to the intention of the section.

During the debate on second reading, a number of members commented with respect to the drafting of this section. It would appear that if the amendment suggested by my colleague from Nipissing is acceptable, it would go a long way to resolving the concern that some of us had to ensure that the matter would be dealt with clearly.

As I have said, Mr. Chairman, if the full extent of my colleague’s amendment is not found satisfactory, I hope that at least the minister will allow the insertion of the comma to which my colleague has referred; and perhaps consider the suggestion I have made, which would be to replace those next three words in the fifth line, which are now “to be available,” by the words “and shall be used”.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman, I’m afraid we can’t support this amendment because of the attitude which I took the other day, and other members of this party have taken. We felt this money should not be earmarked specifically for this kind of activity. Our feeling is that if it’s important that we have recreation and cultural activities in the Province of Ontario, they should stand on their own feet and that this government should make adequate provision for these activities irrespective of whether or not we have a lottery in Ontario. Because of that, our feeling is that this amount should go into consolidated revenue, as is suggested; but at that point is should not be earmarked, it should simply form part of consolidated revenue. If we feel strongly that we should have more recreational centres, more artistic productions or more little theatre in the Province of Ontario, then these things should be undergirded irrespective of how successful this lottery might be.

I can see the problem if the lottery should fail. You then have an incredible expenditure of $60 million in an attempt to get $40 million into the consolidated revenue fund; and that expenditure will likely go on, in large measure, even though the lottery is not fully successful. So if we drop to an income of $80 million on the lottery, then it means the prizes will drop to $20 million or less; and next we might have the minister saying that since the lottery has not been successful this time, we have to back down on our support for recreation, or culture or whatever.

I just don’t want the minister or this government to have that kind of power or leverage on the whole cultural development of the Province of Ontario.

As far as we are concerned, we think the amount which is realized by the lottery should go into consolidated revenue, and that the cultural and recreational activities of this province should stand on their own feet; because they are important and because they are part of the life of Ontario, they should be supported on their own merit regardless of the lottery.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer to the comment which has come from the member for Yorkview. It would appear that the member for Yorkview has now decided that he and his colleagues should oppose the section because of the earmarking of the revenue. Perhaps unfortunately for some of us, that was already decided when the bill was debated in principle. I think that at this point it is our hope, as it appears to be his concern, that the money received shall be used for the kinds of purposes which he wishes to have.

It is difficult, I would feel, to oppose the amendment on those terms because the principle has already been accepted by the House that the money will be earmarked. I would hope that in spite of the comments of the member for Yorkview, the minister will still find the amendment of some value.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Chairman there is a point here that is very difficult, I agree. I feel, and I am sure the minister feels, there are many people in the province to whom the idea of a provincial lottery is not all that acceptable -- although they are not as numerous as they were five years ago, when I would have included myself. The idea that a lottery is going to be used to raise funds for the province doesn’t sit well with a lot of people. They think if you want money, tax us and we will pay our taxes as good citizens.

I could see through this thing right from the start. The only reason this lottery Act is tied into the Ministry of Culture and Recreation is to legitimize it in the eyes of certain people within the province who otherwise might not approve. I was very much surprised that the minister admitted this in the House the other day, but he did. He said, “Yes, that is true.” Well, if we are using this as a reason to legitimize this lottery in the eyes of certain people who would otherwise object to it, by tying it in with the fact the proceeds from it will be used for culture and sports, I think we have to play honest and tie it in some way. That’s the way I feel. Basically speaking, I don’t like the idea of earmarking funds, but you have to be honest about this thing.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Port Arthur wish to speak on the amendment or the section?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to support the comments of my colleague from Yorkview. I agree with the dilemma that has been put up by the previous speakers from the Liberal Party, but there is the very grave danger. I know this minister wouldn’t do it, but he has been shifted out of his portfolio over the last five years so frequently that we don’t know how long he is going to be in this one and how long we can take his words in good faith. It’s the legislation that we have to be concerned about. The legislation itself, and the wording of the legislation, will govern things in the province over the next few years.

Mr. Young: He likes the minister.

Mr. Foulds: Like my colleague from Yorkview, I am very loath to give any minister, including the present one or any future one, the out that they could say: “The lottery has only garnered this much and, therefore, this is all that we are giving to the development of culture and recreation.” With even the slight rewordings that have been suggested, a Scrooge-like interpretation of those wordings could use that as an excuse -- not as a basis in law, but as an excuse -- for leaving, in effect, the support of culture and recreation in this province to chance. I would be unwilling to do that. I’ve spoken on this matter innumerable times in committee, in estimates and in the House.

The private sector, in its contribution to the development of the arts in this province, has been shamefully low. The province, fortunately, over the last three to four years in particular, has taken an increasing role and responsibility, and has taken that increasing role and responsibility in the form of financing out of the consolidated revenue fund.

They have come up with this gimmick -- and it is, in my view, nothing more than a gimmick -- to get additional revenue. To that much I’m agreeable; but I am not agreeable to even coming close to allowing in the legislation the possibility of the danger that the support would be tied only to the funds raised through the lottery. Therefore, I strongly support my colleague from Yorkview, and we would have to oppose the amendment on this basis.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further comment on the amendment to the section?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make one point clear, that neither this amendment nor the section itself in any way indicates that these will be the only moneys that can be spent on culture or recreation or anything else, and I think it is wrong for the previous speaker to indicate that might be the case.

In fact, the minister has given an undertaking to the House that next year this will be in addition to the moneys that are already spent in the present estimates. I don’t think the amendment curtails in any way what can or cannot be spent on culture and recreation or the other areas that would be assisted by this clause.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to comment on the amendment?

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): Mr. Chairman, I want to be helpful and I want to really indicate why I think both of the suggested amendments, other than the comma, might not be what you really want. It would be quite easy to establish rules and regulations which would almost establish these moneys as trust funds. But I didn’t think the Legislature would want to establish any wording which would put the ultimate appropriation of these funds beyond the scrutiny of the Legislature. It should go through the estimates process, and if there is any point I was attempting to make the other night it was that particular point.

I think we have some obligation, as the ministry, to reflect upon those areas which were entitled to some enrichment; to look upon programmes where, perhaps, we should be following some new initiatives; and to present this to the House at estimate time in the regular way that programme scrutiny is carried out.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s what the amendment says.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, the only question about the amendment under the circumstances, among other things is that the word “ministry” isn’t defined in the Act. You talk about this particular ministry, which confines it.

There may well be other programmes or recreation that, in fact, are part of the government delivery system. The physical recreation facilities would not necessarily fall within the purview of this ministry, for example, because all the parks programmes and all the recreational programmes are not necessarily here. I don’t feel you really want to be restrictive. So, I think for purposes of clarification -- and I speak to the member for Kitchener -- I would just be worried that a year or two from now someone might start interpreting his wording too strictly and think in terms of this separate and apart from the estimate process.

What I’m really pleading for is a consideration of section 9 along these lines. The comma, if it helps to clarify, is perfectly legitimate. I think if it will help to clarify the matter then let’s put in the comma. What I would like to suggest is that the section be left the way it is, unless you want to add after the word available “by appropriation”; or some such words which would relate it to the regular procedure.

But aside from the section, I was drawing your attention the other night to what I envisage. Two items in the 1974-1975 estimates have already been carried by the Legislature in the Social Development policy field; I direct attention particularly to pages S20 and S36, whereby we talked in terms of $51,492,000, now being the total for cultural and general education in the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, So there will be some modification of that amount as to the general education portion. On page S36 there is some $10,088,000, which is described as the total for community services, being subsidies and grants to community groups and agencies.

Now these, plus other programmes, are coming into the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. It is our obligation to show you that in the normal way -- in the normal revenue route through taxation -- these programmes will be maintained or modified, depending on the mind of the Legislature. There’ll be the natural appreciation or accretion to these amounts that would come irrespective of a lottery. The new initiative, the new emphasis -- some of the things that perhaps couldn’t have been done another way -- would in fact be attributable to the net proceeds from the lottery, with the very firm statement having been made that we are talking about in addition to and not instead of, which I think is very important.

I’m really trying to be helpful; I’m not trying to be difficult on this amendment, but I really feel, with some sensitivity to the ultimate power of the Legislature in this matter, that the minister has some obligation to introduce these programmes in the normal way through his estimates and then be able to establish the facts for the purposes of this House.

There will be the annual report of the lottery corporation, which will be public information. What the net proceeds are will be quite well known, and I can’t imagine anyone considering the estimates of this ministry or any ministry related to recreation without asking for some accounting with respect to the distribution of those funds as set out in the annual report of the lottery corporation and further manifestation in the estimates with respect to the amounts.

So I really say to you that I would prefer, unless -- and I just caution you about putting in words that may well be interpreted as simply saying that these amounts really are beyond legislative scrutiny. I tell you quite truthfully, I don’t want to be placed in a position, as the minister -- people accuse me of this motivation and I don’t want it -- to have complete control, as a single minister, over the distribution of these particular proceeds. It has got to go through this particular process.

I suggest to you that your particular wording does not do anything to improve upon what’s already there or to further clarify our intention.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): May I just make a comment? I appreciate very much the fact that you don’t want to be burdened with the specific distribution of these funds, but you are going to be burdened with the specific distribution of these funds.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s not true, you know.

Mr. Bullbrook: I believe it to be true.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am simply saying it is not true.

Mr. Bullbrook: I believe it to be true. Correct me then. Who is going to make the value judgements? We are not going to make the value judgements, you are, as the minister; that’s your responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Ultimately it is like every programme of government that comes in here; the Legislature accepts the responsibility, ultimately.

Mr. Bullbrook: I know, that is the very point I am making. We accept the responsibility for appropriating the funds to your ministry under general headings for specific distribution. You make the value judgements and you are going to be doing so.

I want to talk about this. As I understand the purpose of it -- and perhaps I’m not grasping your explanation, but here we have in effect an hiatus as I see it. Our looking at the report of the Ontario Lottery Corp. will just show us an expenditure of their net revenues over to the consolidated revenue fund. That’s all it will show. All right? Now if you continue with the use of the words “to be available,” as I understand my colleague from Nipissing, his concern is that unless you decided to use these funds, they don’t come before us in your estimates, because only if you have appropriated them for public use are they going to come before us for scrutiny and debate.

The problem is that when you use the words “to be available” it puts no obligation upon you to use the funds, therefore giving us the enjoyment that you so truly and rightly want to give us. As I understand it, this is why he is very much worried about it. He’s worried about the fact that the government has the responsibility of making a judgement as to whether the funds will be used. If they are just going to be available and they are not used, we are never going to have anything to do with debating them.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I don’t perceive that happening.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The point I would like to make is that the minister says he wants to make sure they go in the estimates. If he reads the amendment that I put forward, I say specifically that the money I should be made available to the estimates. Maybe the Chairman will read it again and that would clear up the whole question, because you say you want to get it in the estimates. The amendment says you have to put it in the estimates; and that is what we want to do. We are both trying to do the same thing. If you leave the section as it is now, we are not going to accomplish that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I disagree. I’m quite happy to live with the section the way it is, with the addition of the comma for purposes of clarification.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we can deal with the comma first. I understand that the minister is agreeable and the members of the House are agreeable to add the comma in --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Are you going to divide on the comma?

Mr. Chairman: -- line five, section 9, after the word “direct.”

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Let’s deal then with Mr. Smith’s amendment:

“That section 9 of Bill 191 be amended by the addition of the comma after the word ‘direct’ in line five of section 9; and that the words ‘to be available’ in line five be struck out and replaced by the words ‘and the total of such funds shall be used and directed in the estimates of the ministry.’”

All those in favour of the amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it. The amendment is lost.

Mr. Bullbrook: I think you are right. It is 9 to 4.

Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): Democracy in action.

Mr. Chairman: I declare section 9 carried with the one minor amendment.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Section 9, Mr. Chairman, is carried with a comma.

Mr. Chairman: With a comma! Are there any further comments, criticism or amendment to any other section of the bill?

Sections 10 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

Agreed.

Bill 191, as amended, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 191, An Act to incorporate the Ontario Lottery Corp.

MUNICIPAL ACT

Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 182, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Perhaps there are some comments the parliamentary assistant would wish to make first, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. R. B. Beckett (Brantford): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate that opportunity. I would like to inform the House that it is the government’s intention to introduce a number of amendments to Bill 182. Most of these amendments are minor in nature and relate to the date of the coming into force of various sections.

One amendment of particular significance, however, should be noted. That amendment, which is a new matter, increases the authority of municipalities to make grants. Presently, municipal authority to grant moneys to any organizations or persons must be specifically provided for in the Municipal Act. This has caused serious problems where municipalities had wished to fund worthy organizations not referred to in the Act.

This amendment would authorize municipalities to make grants which councils consider to be in the best interests of the municipalities and will result, therefore, in the continuation and establishment of many needed organizations which provide services, such as homes for emotionally disturbed children and community information centres. There will be other amendments which I would beg leave to submit during the consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary assistant has indicated, he must have been saving amendments to the Municipal Act for a good long time to come up with this many all-in-one bills. There is really no general principle to the bill, but there are various things about which I would like to make comment.

The first part, Mr. Speaker, simply allows an improvement district of 500 population now to declare itself either a township or a village, which I suppose has some implications more or less of the future status of that municipality. And then there is the carrying on of the bylaws when a municipality merges with another municipality.

The next part deals with the county now being allowed to be the debenturing agency for other municipalities within the county. I suppose the reason for that is that the county would undoubtedly get a better rate on the money market when it issues a debenture loan than would a small township within the county. So, that would certainly seem to make good sense.

No ministerial approval is required now for a municipality to set up a sinking fund, and there are changes regarding the issuing of debentures in either Great Britain or US currencies. Ministerial approval is no longer required, but these funds must be kept separate if there is any premium. I suppose it would be used later in the paying of the interest on the premium fund, or if there is any change in the evaluation of that particular dollar.

The province, Mr. Speaker, is moving slowly in the right direction along the lines of allowing municipalities to receive or charge certain institutions held by the Crown in the right of the Province of Ontario within its boundaries, to charge them certain amounts in lieu of taxes. We have had legislation regarding the students at the universities. We have had legislation regarding inmates in the provincial correctional institutions, and that definition is now expanded to allow a $50 levy per year against training schools within the municipality, as well as facilities for the mentally retarded. So that will help the tax base somewhat. We have been promised, for as long as I have been in this House, that the province intends to move more and more towards providing the proper taxation grant in lieu of taxes for those institutions which are provincial in nature and lie within the municipality. So, now we have another few added to the list.

It’s difficult to figure out what percentage the $50 grant would be of the taxes that would normally be levied by the municipality if the full assessment were made. I can remember when the grant at the University of Waterloo was $25 per student. For the city, it represented about 19 per cent of what the taxes would be if they were taxed at the regular assessment.

However, this is another step in the long succession of grants that are paid by the province to the municipalities. These payments in lieu of taxes would of course affect the equalized assessment base of that municipality when it comes to them paying their levy to a higher level of government, and the allocation of this money within the municipality for levying purposes would be on the basis of the regular tax base.

The matter of levies on telephone companies is changed somewhat so that a municipality now can collect on calls, as I understand this --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is no quorum.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Clerk check for a quorum, please?

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Why don’t the Tories start doing their job around here and get a quorum in?

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, there are 15 members present.

Mr. Speaker ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Mr. Speaker: We now have a quorum. The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The five per cent taxation on gross receipts will now include calls generated by the telephone company within that municipality, but as I understand it, there is some arrangement whereby the kickback of funds from other telephone companies on long distance calls will now be applicable to taxation within the municipality; which I suppose is a fairer and more equitable way of doing it.

I am a little concerned, Mr. Speaker, as to why the provisions of taxing the gross receipts of the telephone companies under 2,000 phones -- which were at three per cent and then four per cent and were to go up to five per cent in 1975 -- have been left at the four per cent rate, and that has been extended now to 1975 and 1976. Evidently they must have been in some kind of financial trouble and asked for this concession. The municipalities would certainly wonder, I suppose, why they have to cut back their taxation, which was formerly allowed under the old statute, by this amendment. I would like to hear a reply from the parliamentary assistant on that particular point.

Ministerial approval is no longer needed for the setting of reserves, but a vote of two-thirds of council will serve the same purpose, and any reserve, of course, must be used for the purpose for which it was originally designated.

The method by which municipalities may invest on the short-term market money which is not needed immediately is broadened to some extent. I have spoken to various municipal treasurers around the province and they rely a great deal on the investment of money derived from interim taxes, levies that are made even before the mill rate has been set. When the expenditures of a municipality for that year are very low, probably just payroll and very little else, the investment of those funds generates a considerable amount of additional revenue for that municipality. The broadening of the purposes and the places in which they can invest is, I am sure, welcomed by the municipalities.

The investment of surplus funds procured from debentures -- I suppose they float a debenture for a certain project and then if the project is not completed payment would not be required immediately -- is also allowed and provided for, with the condition, of course, that that money be returned to the debenture account. Offhand, I don’t see here what would happen to the interest on that money that has been invested when it is debenture money. Because the money so invested is returned to the account, I would presume the interest from it could go into the general revenues of the municipality. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant could clear up that problem for me.

The imposing of fire routes on private property by municipal bylaw is something which I always thought could be done. Maybe it was done under another Act -- the Fire Marshals Act or something -- but I know there have been times in my constituency, when the fire chief had authority, I thought, to have cars towed away on roads which were designated as fire routes on the private property of shopping plazas. While it is private property, the “No Parking” signs were not being adhered to, and the statement was made that these were fire routes and if a fire ever occurred in that shopping plaza, the fire trucks could not get in. I understand tickets were issued and cars were even towed away. Maybe this is a clarification of that, and perhaps I am mistaken in believing that that had always existed.

Another section, Mr. Speaker, deals with the sale of industrial land and money from that sale can now be used for purposes other than that land without ministerial approval; or three-quarters the vote of the council instead of the minister’s approval would be required for using that money for other purposes.

Then we have a section here, rather a lengthy section, dealing with the whole matter which has been discussed in this Legislature on numerous occasions, and that is the licensing and the assessing and taxation of mobile homes or house trailers.

A rather ambiguous situation has developed in the province, Mr. Speaker. Normally, municipalities license mobile homes under this section of the Municipal Act, and the assessors did not bother to assess, nor did the municipalities tax, the mobile homes. Some bright assessors a few years ago got the idea that, under the terms of the Assessment Act, when they deal with real property it included mobile homes.

That decision was upheld in court, with the result that we had the situation where the municipality was levying a $20 licence fee on that home per month, which they were allowed to do under the Municipal Act, and the assessor was making his assessment stick under the Assessment Act. So the municipality then was obliged to levy a tax rate and a mill rate against that assessment.

I brought this to the attention of the minister in the House about a year ago this spring, and he said it was not their intention to double tax and they would be looking into it. Since then I have had conversation and correspondence with the ministry and the amendments are now here to deal with the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I think many municipalities were labouring under a misapprehension when they thought that mobile homes were not paying their fair share of taxation. And even if they were paying their fair share of taxation, many municipalities did not want, and still do not want, mobile homes. Rather than make their prejudices known, they always blamed it on the fact that the units didn’t generate taxation.

I have said in this House and I have said to councils within my own area at $20 per month many mobile homes were generating more revenue than some three-room apartments in apartment buildings. In any event, this didn’t seem to influence too many municipalities. Then, by doing a little research, Mr. Speaker, I was able to show one municipality that they were better off financially by having a mobile home unit within their boundaries.

First of all, each mobile home was generating revenue of $20 a month or $240 a year to the municipality. This municipality is an area government within a regional government. Now the levy, or the taxation from the area government to the region, is based on the equalized weighted assessment. The assessment on that particular mobile home park is very low. Therefore, the levy to the region would be comparably of a low nature. But there is where the paradox comes in. The grants coming back to that municipality are on a per capita basis under the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act. So they are getting large grants because they are on a per capita basis, and they are paying a small levy to the region because they are on an assessment basis.

So I was never convinced that municipalities were financially worse off by virtue of having mobile homes within their boundaries, even if a considerable number of school children were involved. Because the same thing held true to the levy of that municipality to the school board as on an assessment base, and the grants from the province came back on a per pupil basis. So I was never convinced.

Now we find that under this particular amendment the licensing procedure will be eliminated, and municipalities may license trailers presently in the municipality and charge a licence fee up to $20 a month. The amendment exempts the trailers assessed under the Assessment Act in order to avoid the duplication involved in paying both the licence fee and municipality taxes in respect of the trailers. So in those municipalities where they have accepted the assessment on those trailers, and they are charging them taxes on that assessment, I understand they will no longer be able to license them.

From what I have been able to find out in my own area, I know the municipality is going to need revenue under the taxing arrangements. Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the people living in mobile homes expect to pay less tax than anyone else. They want to pay their way. This has been the argument given by many people who have approached me as to why they can’t establish additional mobile home parks closer to the built-up areas of the province. They have always said: “We want to pay our own way but that type of life suits us better.”

Retired people can get into a really nice mobile home for $10,000, $12,000 or $15,000, instead of having to pay $30,000 or $40,000 for a home. People whose work takes them from one part of the province to another certainly like that way of life. But the municipalities have generally resisted them.

If there is a loss of revenue, there is provision in the bill that a refund of licence fee will be paid if a particular unit has been assessed and taxed. There is also provision that the province can reimburse a municipality for loss of revenue when the taxation rate does not equal the licensing fees. The provision here is quite clear, I think, in that the owner must apply for that refund of licensing. That’s something that may cause a few problems if owners are not aware of the fact that they have to apply, but I suppose word will get around quite quickly in that regard. The minister also can pay a municipality for lost revenue.

There is an interesting section in this bill, Mr. Speaker, which I hope will clear up the problem that has existed with taxis at the Toronto International Airport. It provides that cabs licensed in Mississauga will not have exclusive rights at the Toronto International Airport and that others not governed by these municipal bylaws may also serve people at the airport. I hope this corrects once and for all, the situation that has existed for a good many years at the airport.

The maximum $2 licence fee on itinerant salesmen now is removed and the municipality now may pass bylaws granting permits to construct over public roads and streets. I presume, this will correct situations like the Sparks St. Mall in Ottawa, where there were problems because they wanted to build certain things within what was a permanent mall but what was still designated as a street.

The section should also correct the problems that have resulted in sidewalk sales being illegal in the province, as I understand it, although I’m not sure. I’d be interested to know if this section will correct that situation, because the merchants in most municipalities of the province have been holding sidewalk sales up and down their main streets and, as I understood it, they were illegal because there were no provisions in the Municipal Act to allow them. I would think this section should take care of that.

The method of financing county councils is overhauled so that they now will be allowed to make interim installment levies of taxation. There is one point here which I am not quite in favour of. If a municipality within the county is late in its payment to the county or is in default, interest will be paid on that late instalment. Then there is provision in another matter where the OMB can hear appeals on these levies. If the OMB decision upholds the fact that the levy from a township to the county council was too great and it was going to have some portion of money refunded, I don’t see any provision where the county would have to pay interest on that overpayment that was designated as overpayment after an appeal had been made to the OMB. At least, I couldn’t find it.

I think that should work both ways. If the county is going to charge interest for late instalments, I think they should also pay interest if they have been overcharging a municipality within the county and that municipality has filed an appeal with the OMB and has had its decision upheld. It is just a point which I think I’d like to hear clarified.

Then there is a long section here regarding the poor municipal clerks and all the work which they have to do, which, in my view, should be done by the assessment department. It’s up to the clerk now to get the school support lists in order. He has to include the assessment roll number on them. Among other things he has to do is verify the owners on a tax sale list where they list the properties that are going to be put up for tax sales. The clerk has to verify those now in a new form and the fee that the clerk charges on that may now be set by bylaw and not necessarily just be the $2 fee which it was before.

In the section dealing with refunds, cancellations and return of taxation by a municipality in such cases where a house is burned down or torn down and there would be a refund, provision is now made that it applies to mobile homes as well.

In all, Mr. Speaker, I’m sure these are needed amendments, and probably amendments that municipalities have been asking for. I would appreciate if the parliamentary assistant could comment on those questions of which I was uncertain.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, this bill is certainly a hodgepodge of amendments to the Municipal Act which are very difficult to deal with as a matter of principle. I suppose the general principle that is outlined here is that there shall be amendments to the Municipal Act, and there’s not much more than that. I don’t plan to do what the member for Waterloo North has just done. He has gone through the bill very adequately. I don’t think I disagree very much with that he has said, but we may have some comments from time to time during the committee stage.

But there are a few things. I think that one of the good things that has been done here is, in effect, the abolition of the improvement districts and making the figure 500 and up for the new townships. This is something that the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) has been talking about for some years. He’ll have a word to say about that later and I don’t intend to dwell on it right now. I presume this is simply a transitional phase because as regional governments are set up these small townships will disappear into the regional government. Certainly it looks as if it’s a good move now, because all too often these improvement districts are simply little fields of the provincial government or the local corporation that may be exploiting resources.

The general tenor of this bill seems to be a reversal of the trend which has been going on for many years, and which the minister and his predecessors have been trying to change; that is, for a long time we saw the gradual erosion of the powers of municipalities. Over the period from the Baldwin Act until a couple of years ago, we saw how those almost independent municipalities gradually became the property of the provincial government because more and more of the powers of those municipalities were taken over, because they were not large enough to exercise those powers, and they could not provide the resources to set up the staffs and the technology to meet the present age. So we have seen the province assume more and more of that responsibility over the years. This is something many of us from time to time have remarked upon at great length in this House.

But now, in the last period of time, we have seen a reversal of that -- particularly as we have got more and more regional governments. The government has seen fit to restore certain powers to the municipalities, and that is all to the good. I think the more independence we give, particularly to the regional governments, the better. And while the smaller municipalities may not yet be in a position to assume much of that power, at least they are being given what little power they can exercise with some degree of skill. So that a good deal of this Act is looking toward that particular change of responsibility, and we agree that it is a good thing to do.

One thing that has concerned me for a long time is the fiasco with the cab situation at Toronto International Airport. At one time we had a very efficient service there -- with the airport taxi service -- when one company had the monopoly. While I realize that this bill doesn’t deal with this in any adequate fashion, it does give other people, beside Mississauga, some control. And it does end part of the cab war that we have seen.

In recent days we have gone into the great scramble for business out there. When I get into a cab I notice that the dispatcher puts his hand out to the driver, and the driver deposits part of the fare into the dispatcher’s hand. Cab drivers tell me that this is the usual practice; that they have had to share with the dispatchers if they expect to get business at all. This system did not exist when one cab company had the franchise, and it’s an introduction I am very sorry to see.

If I can enlarge on this for a moment, Mr. Speaker, the cab drivers who used to drive for the franchise company recently formed their own organization, set up their own dispatching system and are in uniform now, and doing a good part of the driving from the International Airport. Perhaps a more healthy situation is being restored. I agree with this particular section of the bill, but I would hope that we can go a good deal farther, and that eventually we can restore a good deal more order to that situation.

The fixed date for the last day for assessment complaints disturbs me. I think uniformity is what we are striving for in the administration of our municipal governments but I can see where some municipalities may have difficulty in meeting this deadline, which is set as the second Friday in November. I’d like to hear the minister, or the assistant, justify this. Perhaps he can give us good reasons why that should be done.

The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), who is occupied in committee today, asked me to express to the ministry certain reservations which he had about part of this bill. He wasn’t sure that he understood the complete meaning of it. I’ll simply read the notes which he left with me to have placed on Hansard, Mr. Speaker.

He says that the sections on equalized assessment on the shares paid by municipalities to meet county expenses should be explained by the minister. There seems to be no reference to the method of calculating payments by area municipalities to county school boards. This is a serious problem in the Ottawa area. Gloucester township is facing a liability of $950,000 because the Carleton county school board did not take into account Gloucester’s federal grant in lieu of assessment in calculating the township’s share of school board costs. The board was working on the ministry’s directives, but these were overturned on an appeal to the OMB, and cabinet has not rejected Gloucester’s appeal from the OMB decision. What is needed from Gloucester is clarification of how grants in lieu of assessment should be handled by school boards and compensation for its taxpayers for the $950,000 liability which accrued because of local officials following the directives of Queen’s Park. Now, perhaps we will have some clarification of this when we get the ministerial answer to the whole problem.

Some of the other members of this caucus have a word or two to say on aspects of the bill. We don’t feel that it solves many of the basic problems of our municipal governments today. Certainly, we should be looking more and more to a speed-up of regional government which this government seems now to have slowed dawn. But with that there should be proper undergirding of fiscal resources, which we have already mentioned many times here.

I would hope that we don’t think -- and I don’t think the minister does think -- that this is a solution to the whole problem of municipal government today. However, by and large we agree with the general changes that are outlined in this bill and we will have a bit more to say at a later date.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a few comments on the bill -- I’ll be very short -- and express the concern of my own community and commend the ministry for having taken it into consideration and eventually resolved the problem.

The section of the bill that I first would like to make comment on, Mr. Speaker, is section 14. This gives municipalities the right to designate private roadways and fire routes and to prohibit the parking of vehicles thereon.

I can recall back in the early 1960s being asked by the municipality to encourage the government to come along and introduce legislation that would control the problem. The municipality was always of the impression that they did not have the authority. If I am not mistaken, at one time they had a bill before the private bills committee seeking that type of authority. It was denied, because they said it should have been in general legislation, rather than going into specific legislation.

Now the ministry has seen fit to designate the power to designate private roadways so that the municipality can ticket illegal parkers -- parkers on private shopping plazas. It’s nothing unusual to go into a shopping plaza in almost any community and find cars parked where it says, “No parking; fire route” -- because it is the closest area to the entrance of a building. Under this legislation the municipalities will have the authority to designate such areas and to have tickets issued in violation of the municipal bylaw.

The next area, Mr. Speaker, that concerns me a bit -- and it is the name that really concerns me -- and that is the use of the name “trailer” for accommodations. These are mobile homes. I know in the definition section a mobile home may be designated as a “trailer” but I think this is downgrading a substantial and important type of housing.

I think the definition should be changed. I think we should call a mobile home a mobile home, and designate the trailer differently. What we looked upon as being a trailer in the old days was something that trailed behind a vehicle and did not have all of the conveniences that you find in what today is referred to as a mobile home. Anyone who lives in a mobile home park is very highly insulted in having his accommodation called a “trailer.” It’s almost the same as calling some individual’s accommodation a slum, and one shouldn’t do that.

Mobile home living is substantial living, it’s good living. It provides accommodations for a large percentage of our population. In the future it will provide a much greater percentage of accommodation to the people. In fact, if I am not mistaken, approximately 60 per cent of the accommodations under $ 15,000 built in the last year in the United States were mobile home accommodations, so I would like to see the ministry look into the changing of the name from trailer and, especially where it refers to a mobile home, to have it referred to as a mobile home.

The only other section that I would like to bring to the minister’s attention is section 19, which now permits municipalities to have sidewalk sales and other business ventures of that nature. It was only last year in the private bills committee that my own community asked for permission to conduct such sales and was denied that, simply because the ministry thought that should have been in general legislation. The city of Toronto was given permission to have the mall in the downtown area as an afterthought, when pressure was applied by the members of the local council. I think it is a forward step to allow municipalities to regulate, control and license these ventures. My community hesitated to permit such obstructions being placed on sidewalks and in roads because of the insurance coverage, and I think now that there is general legislation that will solve the problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be extremely brief about it.

There is very little to oppose in the bill. The thing that bothers me about the bill is that while every single section is no doubt somewhat of an aggravation to some municipalities across the province, and is, indeed, a reflection of the government’s response to questions raised by municipalities and by members of the Legislature over the last while about particular matters, it worries me that at a time when municipalities are faced with major cost inflation we are playing around the fringes with changes like this to the Municipal Act. I don’t quite understand why the government hasn’t begun the process of rewriting the Municipal Act to bring it into touch with the actual needs of municipalities and to provide within it a much more substantial access to provincial funding.

The changes that are made are fine. On the matters dealing with the levy against telephone companies one might question why it was staged in the way it was between 1973 and 1974, and why the government found it necessary to levy different percentages on smaller companies in those particular years. One can question all kinds of things, such as the right to raise the levy in a number of different areas, but I think, quite frankly, that these things, though they might be important in their own right, don’t begin to deal with what is the major problem of municipalities across the Province of Ontario, and that is that they are going to be faced in the next year with a tremendous appreciation of cost; that the cost of providing the services that are currently being provided in the majority, if not in all, municipalities right across the province is going to rise by a substantial amount.

I would have thought that since this is now the month of February of 1975 and most municipalities are currently in the midst of determining what their budgetary requirements are going to be for the year 1975-1976, this government might have been in a position in February to tell them that there are going to be substantial additional amounts of money made available to them for general municipal purposes in order that they can meet their legitimate obligations without imposing additional hardship on the residential ratepayers.

I think that’s what aggravates me about the kind of legislation that is brought in by the government. Nobody questions the need for these amendments, but they should be part of a total package dealing with not only these rather incidental matters but also dealing with some of the major problems confronting the municipalities in this province. The government seems to think that all it need do in order to satisfy the requirements for sitting from time to time is to bring in amendments of this type.

How are we going to make available to municipalities their fair share of the additional revenues that have been derived by this government as a result of the inflationary spiral; an inflationary spiral which I might say is affecting their performance and the possibility of them being able to provide the level of service that their residents rightfully expect from them? And I think that’s what we could have expected in this.

The other thing that bothers me is that not too long ago I raised with the ministry the problem of the position of solicitors with regard to their rights to a hearing. I put a private member’s bill on the order paper and asked that the Municipal Act be amended to give solicitors the same rights with regard to a hearing in the event that they were to be fired as is given to engineers, clerks and other personnel within the municipality. Given the nods of approval that I got from a number of the government members, including the then minister -- now Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) -- charged with the responsibility of administering of municipal affairs, I had expected that that might come forth in an amendment to The Municipal Act.

I know the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) knows, as I do, that the city solicitor in the city of Hamilton suffered a great deal of aggravation and embarrassment not so long ago at the hands of certain council members who attempted to downgrade his position in a personal vendetta, and he needed the protection of The Municipal Act. He desperately needed that protection to ensure that he would have in law the right of a hearing, and he doesn’t have it.

When I raised it with the member for Grenville-Dundas, now the Minister of Housing, and asked whether they might consider permitting the private member’s bill to go through, the first reaction I got was, “yes,” they were prepared to accept it. It was only after they realized the legal consequences of allowing an opposition member’s bill to pass that they decided not to go ahead with it.

But I did anticipate that that would be contained in an Act to amend the Municipal Act, to ensure that no other solicitor acting on behalf of any municipal corporation would be forced to endure the kind of embarrassing situation that was thrust upon the city solicitor in the city of Hamilton.

I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) whether or not any discussion was ever undertaken with regard to ensuring that the same protection now afforded to other top officials in municipalities will be afforded to the top legal adviser in municipalities. I think it’s necessary; I think it’s common sense. I’m disappointed, frankly, that it isn’t contained in this bill. I had anticipated that it would be, and I frankly think that it should be.

I wish that the government at some point could set its mind to putting into order the Municipal Act so that it reflects the needs of today’s municipalities, and that it stops bringing in, in dribs and drabs, all kinds of minor amendments year after year. Surely to goodness it’s not too much of a problem for the government, with the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, given the vast numbers of people that it has at its disposal, to sit down and to try to bring into the 20th century an Act which has been amended and amended and amended, but has never been rewritten, in an attempt to provide a proper kind of legislation for municipalities to operate within.

I sincerely hope that the parliamentary assistant will take back to the minister -- I couldn’t remember if he was Minister without Portfolio or parliamentary assistant. It really doesn’t seem to make a heck of a lot of difference.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Oh, it does, it makes about $10,000 worth of difference. That’s an appreciable difference, isn’t it?

Mr. Deans: Well, in terms of dollars, it’s a big thing.

I hope that he will take back to the minister the need to spell out clearly what the intentions of the government are (a) with regard to the funding, and (b) with regard to ensuring that the Act is gone over, if need be, by one of the standing committees, and getting representation from those who are knowledgeable in municipal affairs, in an effort to try and make sure that all of the sections of the Act are in keeping with the needs of municipalities in the more modern society of 1975.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to add to the debate on Bill 182. I am going to confine my remarks specifically to section 1 of the bill, which is a provision which I have advocated. It is something about which I have been cajoling successive Ministers of Municipal Affairs, Ministers of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, Ministers without Portfolios, parliamentary assistants and civil servants for the past six years. The purpose of my cajoling and urging them was simply to allow communities of less than 1,000 population to be erected into townships. We have many of them in northern Ontario and because of the limitations under section 10 of the existing Act, it was impossible for them to do without bringing in a special piece of legislation into this House.

It was done in the case of several smaller communities, unorganized communities, in the past which allowed them to seek erection either into a village or a township, but it required a special Act of this Legislature. With an amendment to section 11, I guess it is, of the Municipal Act, it is possible for communities of less than 1,000 population to be erected into a township rather than having the status of an improvement district board where there wasn’t responsive or responsible government, inasmuch as they were officials appointed by the existing minister or someone who was under his direction.

This is a tremendous step forward. It has been a long time coming. It will provide many communities throughout the province, and particularly in my riding, with an opportunity for the first time to have some control over their own destiny. Not only will it provide an opportunity for people living in those communities to be more responsible with regard to their own needs, but I think that those who are charged with the responsibility for municipal government will of necessity have to be more responsive to the specific and unique needs of those particular municipalities.

I think the time has long since gone when people in a community have to be guided, led and directed by somebody who is elected by a minister of this government or any other government for that matter. I think that what has aggravated the situation even more was that some of the elected officials who were charged with the responsibility for the affairs under an improvement district board did not necessarily have to reside within that jurisdiction. In fact, many of them didn’t even reside in the jurisdiction but had a fair degree of control and say in the day-to-day affairs of those communities that had an improvement district board as the only municipal body to deal with the various ministries of this government down here in Queen’s Park.

It has been a long time coming. It is something, as I say, that I have advocated, I think, almost since I came into this House about seven years ago. I do hope that the parliamentary assistant will impress upon officials within the ministry that they should proceed with all possible haste to assist, to advise and to guide these municipalities so that they too can take their rightful place in the social and economic life of the province by allowing them to get into, in a meaningful way, cost-sharing programmes where they will have a much greater responsibility now than they have ever had before. I hope this amendment will provide them with an opportunity to enhance the lifestyle in their community and accept some responsibility for its future. I’m sure all of those people will be a lot better for it. I think that even the ministry will find that if we make people more responsible at the local level they are much more likely to take municipal affairs in those communities much more seriously than they have ever done in the past.

I want to compliment the minister, through the parliamentary assistant, for having brought in this particular amendment. I’m sure that a good many communities in my riding will be extremely pleased by it and I hope that it gets speedy passage through this Legislature to allow those municipalities to get on with doing the kind of work that they’re capable of doing. I see the minister’s advisers under the gallery complimenting one another. I’m sure that there were people who were urging for this very thing behind the scenes. I want to compliment them, too. I don’t know their names, but I’m looking forward to bigger and better things from these communities as a result of this amendment. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak? The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, sometime around Dec. 16 or 17 the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) introduced some amendments. I wrote him a letter on Dec. 18 in which I said:

“I was glad to listen to your introduction of amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. I didn’t hear any reference to putting fire lanes in shopping malls under the Act so that local police could enforce safety in such places. Did I fail to hear it? If not, could you work it in?”

An hon. member: What date was that?

Mr. Burr: Dec. 18. Bill 182, which we’re now discussing, was introduced on Dec. 19, and yet I got a reply from the Minister of Transportation and Communications on Dec. 31 in which he said:

“Dear Fred:

“Thank you for your letter of Dec. 18 regarding police control in fire lanes of shopping malls. The Highway Traffic Act has traditionally been restricted in its scope to the public highways and I believe that this is the right and proper way for it to remain.”

I suppose this is an example of lack of communication between ministries.

Mr. Bullbrook: What ministry was the member dealing with? The Ministry of Transportation and lack of Communication?

Mr. Burr: Yes, Transportation and lack of Communication. The question I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant is why this new section 14, subsection 1, can’t be extended to require the reporting of collisions and compliance with privately erected speed limit signs? Could this section be expanded to cover these two points so that the police could enforce traffic laws, control speed and make it mandatory that collisions be reported?

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further comments by hon. members?

Mr. Bullbrook: I would like to speak, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: I have one brief comment, if I may, on a matter of principle not enclosed within the bill itself but on the outside of the bill, and that is the principle of the Treasurer of Ontario instituting municipal bills.

Through the Speaker, I would strongly recommend to the minister that if he ever has the opportunity he would recommend to the government the reinstitution of a separate portfolio dealing with municipal affairs.

Looking back to my first term in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, when I had problems, I would pick up the phone and call the present chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board, the then deputy minister; when I had a legal problem, I knew exactly where to go to -- John Bell, QC. We knew who would give us the answers.

I think one of the most significant responsibilities of a provincial government -- it might even be a trite to say this -- probably is liaison with municipalities. I think we made a tragic mistake when we integrated that responsibility in intergovernmental affairs. I think it is worthy of a separate portfolio. I think it’s something that, were I part of government, I would strongly recommend to my colleagues.

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

Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to attempt, not to answer each one of the points raised by the various members but rather to try to group them, because I think the same points were raised many times by different members.

To start off, there was a question about what I would call the philosophy behind this bill. The best way to express it, I think, is to say that this is the government’s answer to requests from municipalities to have returned to them the authorities which they feel that they can administer to the best advantage of their ratepayers.

The matter of the telephone rate changes, I would think, would be the subject of a debate when this bill comes before the committee of the whole House. All I can say now is that I believe the hon. members will find that it is very much to the advantage of the municipalities in that under the procedure that is being recommended there will be more moneys available to the municipalities, which they will be able to use for their own purposes. At some time I was told that this government would make in the vicinity of $600,000 more funds available to the municipalities.

A question was raised about the solicitor’s right to a hearing; this is currently being considered and examined by senior staff with a view to an amendment in the next session. This was asked by the member for Wentworth, I believe.

There was a question about the fire routes. At the present time, one of the difficulties is that cars parked in an improper place can only be towed away with permission of the owner of the property. This will remove that problem. We are taking the action that has been requested by municipalities who’ve had the problem. We are also following the lines of the requests of the professional firefighter’s organization -- I’m sorry, I can’t remember the exact name of it -- which has requested this type of legislation.

Regarding the matter of the control of sidewalks, this bill definitely will allow regulation of sidewalk sales.

There was the matter of mobile homes and trailers. I would certainly agree with the points raised by the hon. members who mentioned the problems in regard to the use of the word “trailer.” All I can report is that this is being studied by a group composed of all the ministries that are involved with this problem, namely Transportation and Communications, Housing and this Ministry. A report is anticipated very soon, which I hope will allow legislation in the next session to look after this problem. But I definitely agree that there is a problem in describing these luxurious homes as “trailers.”

There was the question of the payments in lieu and there is the $50 per resident place as a proportion of the tax that would normally be levied. This is difficult to estimate, as I’m sure the hon. members realize, because of the fact that the taxes are dependent on the mill rate and the value of the property. Thus the ratio would be different from municipality to municipality and as between types of institutions.

With regard to the licensing and assessment variation for the trailers, in some cases taxes will be more than licence fees. In others, they will be less. The intent is that mobile homes will be treated in the same manner as moderately priced conventional homes. There is no provision for interest on reapportionment pursuant to an OMB decision. This is consistent with the other OMB decisions with regard, for example, to school boards and regional apportionments, etc., for which there is no provision for interest. But I am certainly sure that --

Mr. Good: Well, that is wrong.

Mr. Beckett: Right -- this can be considered.

Several members have mentioned the question of the control of taxis at the federal airport at Malton. I’m sure all members will recall that there was an announcement made by the federal minister, Mr. Marchand, and by the Minister of Transportation and Communications of an arrangement that had been worked out. One of the requests that group made was that the type of legislation that is before the House be presented for them. They feel that this will assist them in the proper control of the taxi situation that all members have made comment on. They are very anxious that this legislation should come through as soon as possible. The services of the Ontario Highway Transport Board have been offered by the Minister of Transportation and Communications to assist in this problem.

The reason for counties issuing the debentures on behalf of municipalities within their structure is, as the members have indicated, that obviously there will be a better rate available if there is a consolidation instead of a series of smaller issues. In answer to the points raised, in particularly by the hon. member for Thunder Bay, basically, this legislation has been produced in this manner to attempt to assist in the situation in northern Ontario. It’s anticipated by the ministry officials that there are a number of organizations that will probably want to take advantage of this legislation.

Mr. Stokes: Beardmore and Nakina, to name two.

Mr. Beckett: To indicate very briefly, there are North Shore and White River, both in Algoma; Balmertown, Barclay, Sioux Narrows, Kenora, Timagami and Nipissing, Manitouwadge, Nakina, Red Rock and Thunder Bay. If the hon. members have any others, I would appreciate them.

Mr. Stokes: Manitouwadge has already done it.

Mr. Beckett: I couldn’t quite hear the other name that you mentioned.

Mr. Stokes: Nakina and Beardmore.

Mr. Beckett: Beardmore, thank you. I will certainly draw to the minister’s attention and also to the attention of officials of the ministry the comments of the various members. The question was raised of speedy passage. I would certainly hope that other members will agree with this.

The member for Sandwich-Riverside asked a question that I am not able to answer, even though I was in Transportation and Communications as parliamentary assistant for nine months. But I think regardless of where the difficulty is on that problem of those dates -- I think it was Sept. 18 and 19 -- we have the legislation now before us; hopefully that will clear that part.

Mr. Burr: Is the parliamentary assistant going to be able to extend it to the points I suggested?

Mr. Beckett: May I read the notes that I have been given?

“The Highway Traffic Act, as its name suggests, does and should deal only with the public highway. This is the policy of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. We are trying to interfere as little as possible with private property rights, but this doesn’t mean we are not going to take into consideration the comments made.”

The one thing that I am sure the hon. member will agree with is that this movement of traffic really doesn’t belong to this ministry. It should be in the other ministry.

That completes my remarks, Mr. Speaker, at this time.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand it’s to go to committee of the whole House. Am I correct?

Agreed.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed to other business I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.

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

Bill 125, An Act to amend the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974.

Bill 176, An Act to provide for the Conservation, Protection and Preservation of the Heritage of Ontario.

Bill 177, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Bill 181, An Act to establish the North Pickering Development Corp.

Bill 190, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Bill 192, An Act to amend the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, 1974.

Bill 193, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Bill 194, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Bill 195, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Bill 191, An Act to incorporate the Ontario Lottery Corp.

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

MUNICIPAL ACT

House in committee on Bill 182, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member have any remarks on section 1 of the bill? If not, the parliamentary assistant has an amendment on section 2.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. R. B. Beckett (Brantford): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don’t believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is an amendment to the first section. I believe it’s the second section.

Mr. Chairman: No, the first section has been dealt with and carried. This is section 2.

Mr. Beckett moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section 248(a):

“The said Act is amended by adding the following section 248(a): Notwithstanding any special provision in this Act, the council of every municipality may, subject to section 248, make grants to any person, institution, association, group or body of any kind, including a fund within or outside the boundaries of the municipality for any purpose that in the opinion of the council is in the interests of the municipality.”

Mr. Beckett: This is the amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I mentioned in the opening remarks, which has been requested by municipalities. It gives to municipalities the ability to make grants to types of institutions that they feel are of merit. The problem at the present time is that there are some municipalities which do not have this ability, whereas their neighbours have it through a private bill.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have a copy of that amendment. What concerns me is that it says “notwithstanding section 248,” and that’s the section that deals with municipalities, isn’t it?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Good: Okay. Now you are not saying by this that municipalities can go out and lure industry by giving them free land and that sort of thing, are you? I just wanted to get that point straight.

Mr. Beckett: Section 248 states: “Notwithstanding any general or special Act, a council shall not grant bonuses in aid of any manufacturing business or other industrial or commercial enterprise.”

Mr. Good: Do I have that assurance, Mr. Chairman? Maybe I can see the minister’s officials.

Mr. Beckett: You have the assurance, because it certainly would not be the policy of this ministry to permit what you are suggesting might be the result.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anyone on any section previous to section 6?

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): On section 5, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: I want to ask the parliamentary assistant as to whether there is any indication of time. There doesn’t seem to be any here. That is, this thing could go on forever if foreign exchange fluctuates, if the credit balance becomes rather marked in any one account and the exchange remains in favour of the municipality, or perhaps it fluctuates very slightly on the other side. Does this fund go on forever? Is there no termination date when some adjustments might be made, or can the adjustment be made with the permission of the minister?

Mr. Beckett: It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that that clause is withdrawn.

Mr. Young: Withdrawn?

Mr. Beckett: There is a substitution.

Mr. Young: I must have a wrong copy of the bill then.

Mr. Beckett: I am sorry. I couldn’t hear which one you meant. What was the number?

Mr. Young: Section 5, that’s in connection with the premium received on currency. Whatever premium there is must be set aside in a special fund to offset any decline on the other hand, if such should occur. My point was simply that it may be that the fluctuation of currency may be very much to the advantage of a municipality for some length of time and there may not be any draw on that particular account for some years. I wonder whether there might be some provision by which, with the permission of the minister, those funds might be transferred.

Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I misunderstood the section. This will provide that any premiums that may be received on such currency that is not required to pay the cost of work authorized under the bylaw, and charges incidental thereto, shall be set aside in a reserve fund to be used to pay the premium on the annual payments of principal and interest on the debentures, and this is in keeping with the ministry’s policy of increasing municipal authority.

Section 5 agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Chairman: The parliamentary assistant has an amendment on section 6, subsection 2.

Mr. Beckett moves that section 304 of the Act as amended by subsection 2 of section 6 of the bill be further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“For the purposes of subsection 3(a), the designation by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and a determination by the Minister of Community and Social Services mentioned in that subsection made in 1975 shall apply in respect of 1974 and a levy may be made in 1975 in respect of both 1974 and 1975 upon such designated facilities.”

Mr. Beckett: This amendment, Mr. Chairman, provides that there is retroactivity and it also brings in the Developmental Services Act in respect of the year 1974. This amendment will provide that the power of municipalities to levy an amount against an institution under the Developmental Services Act -- in other words, institutions for mentally retarded persons -- will extend to levying an amount in respect of the year 1974.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments on any other section before section 21 of the bill? The parliamentary assistant has an amendment on section 21.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): My colleague has an amendment to section 14.

On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Could we ask for clarification of section 7, as to what telephone companies are meant here: “ ... exempts from the tax traffic agreement, revenue involving two companies, each of which has multiple traffic agreements”? I’m not just sure I understand what is involved here.

Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, there are many private telephone companies in existence in the province. In the event that I was to be in one of the areas serviced by a private company and I wished to place a long-distance phone call, it would go out of the independent company’s area into Bell system -- or in some parts of the province it would go into the Ontario Northland system. It is for these traffic agreements between these two companies that we are now suggesting taxing authority, so that some of their gross receipts will now be taxable in such a manner as to bring a benefit to the municipalities within the area served by those private telephone companies.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Beckett: It will mean, if our estimates are correct, that the current amendments will make Bell and Ontario Northland taxable on their traffic agreement receipts from independent companies, and will add $500,000 and $100,000 respectively to the tax bills of the companies. It is important that these taxes be paid to the municipalities in which they were generated.

Mr. Young: All right. Thank you very much.

Section 7 agreed to.

Sections 8 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 14:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. Burr moves that 45(a) of section 14 be amended by adding the following words after the word “thereof’: “and that the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act shall apply to any private roadways so designated.”

Mr. Chairman: Have you anything you would like to speak to?

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Well, I could explain. I think I probably explained already that we would like to see the municipality, if it so desires, give the police the right to enforce speed limits in shopping malls, and have any traffic collisions reported. At present, because these collisions take place on private property, it’s not essential that they be reported. This amendment would have two advantages: It would require that all collisions be reported on these private roadways, and the police of the municipality would be able to enforce any speed limits that were posted.

Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, I don’t argue with the intent of the hon. member’s amendment, but I would respectfully suggest to him that there are other pieces of legislation which would be much more suitable for that type of an amendment than this Municipal Act, because this amendment basically is the one that gives municipalities the rights to prohibit parking on private property and to tow away vehicles, and so on.

I would be very pleased to recommend to the minister that this be processed to a ministry that could handle this problem more adequately than in this particular Act, because, we deal very little with police other than authorizing police commissions, and so on.

Mr. Burr: Does the parliamentary assistant mean that he would refer this back to the Transportation and Communications ministry?

Mr. Beckett: I would be very pleased, sir, if you would --

Mr. Burr: With favourable comment.

Mr. Beckett: If we could get together and write out something, I would be delighted to present it to the minister, with the recommendation that this would be processed. It wouldn’t be the policy field, as the hon. member has mentioned, not this policy field.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member wish to withdraw his resolution in view of what the parliamentary assistant has suggested?

Mr. Burr: Well, I suppose I have made my point. Thank you.

Section 14 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member have anything before section 21 of the bill?

Sections 15 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 21:

Mr. Chairman: The parliamentary assistant has an amendment on section 21.

Mr. Beckett moves that subsection 1 of section 21 of the bill be struck out and that subsections 2, 3 and 4 be renumbered as subsections 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

Mr. Beckett: The reason for this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that in 21(1) it was hoped to provide an answer to the problem of indication of school support. We thought we had the remedy by indicating “the index book shall take precedence.”

Representations have been made to the ministry by the Ministry of Education, which has received representations from school groups who are not satisfied with the solution that we have presented here. They asked of the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) that they be involved in further discussions in an attempt to come up with a solution to this problem, a solution they think likely to be more successful than what we have here.

At present, persons wishing to indicate where their school support should go, can go to their municipal clerk’s office where duplicate forms are provided for them. They complete the forms; the clerk notarizes that he has received the forms; they receive copies back; and the information as to their wishes is recorded in “the index book.”

There is also a problem when enumeration takes place by the assessment persons -- many people are not home when the official calls, and for some reason do not return the information. So the assessment roll could get out of date. With the index book system we thought we had the answer, because this is where people actually come and made their wishes known. But it has been requested that this be withdrawn and be reintroduced when a more satisfactory solution to this problem is arrived at by the various ministries concerned.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 21 stand as part of the bill, as amended?

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, if I could make one comment?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, it is too bad you haven’t got the problem solved because it has been of great concern. I understand some school boards have hired a full-time person who does nothing else but try to gain more assessment for that particular board, which means the other school board in the area has to hire another full-time person to check the work done by the first. It’s a real dog-and-cat game going on with each of the two school boards trying to make certain of the accuracy of the assessment roll as it relates to school support. I do hope you find some good solution to keeping that index book up-to-date as it relates to school support.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member has indicated is true but I think he must not forget that the onus is on the individual to indicate his support. The mechanism is there. I know there is no question about it, that a part of the problem is the person not doing this. I would presume it is something like the dog-tag business in municipalities. People ignore it as long as they can.

Section 21, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member have any comments on any section before section 25? The parliamentary assistant has an amendment on section 25.

Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 25:

Mr. Beckett moves that section 25 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“25(1) This Act, except subsection 2 of section 6, subsection 4 of section 14, and sections 18 and 20, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

“(2) Subsection 2 of section 6 shall be deemed to have come into force on Jan. 1, 1974. Subsection 4 of section 14, and section 18 shall be deemed to have come into force on Jan. 1, 1975. Section 20 comes into force on Jan. 1, 1976.”

The reason for this, Mr. Chairman, is to make sure that these various amendments will come into force at these particular times, because, as you will recall as we’ve gone through the bill, there is retroactivity in some cases and there are projections forward in regard to new county apportionment, for example, under section 20 of this bill which will come into force for the 1976 taxation year.

Section 25, as amended, agreed to.

Section 26 agreed to.

Bill 182 reported.

UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT

House in committee on Bill 55, An Act to Prohibit Unfair Practices in Sales to Consumers.

Mr. Chairman: On Bill 55, section 1, does any member wish to speak? The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three points to make on section 1 of the bill. It’s an important section because it contains, of course, the definition clauses.

My first question is a technical one of legal draftsmanship. When we were in the standing committee on the administration of justice there was included in section 1 a definition of the term supplier. That definition of the term supplier was eliminated in the bill as it appears before this committee, which as noted on the front, is reprinted as amended by the administration of justice committee.

The reason I raise the question is not concern because of the elimination of the definition of the word supplier, but because in the committee we had provided in item (b) on the definition of consumer the following words, “consumer means.” Then we were to insert the word “natural” before the word “person”; and that is in the bill which is before us for consideration. After the words “natural person,” there was to have been a clause “to whom a consumer representation is made but,” and deletion of the words “other than a corporation.”

That may sound like gobbledygook to those who weren’t in the committee, but I take it that it is now no longer necessary to have the words “to whom a consumer representation is made but,” because of the elimination of the word “supplier.” I assume that to be so, but I would like the record to show that is the reason the particular wording that was agreed on in the committee was altered in the revision.

To put it succinctly, those words “to whom a consumer representation is made but” are no longer a necessary ingredient of the definition in item b of section 1 of the word “consumer,” because of the elimination from section 1 of the definition of “supplier” which formerly appeared.

That’s my first point and perhaps it would make sense to deal with them one at a time.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): That was the intention and it was subject to draftsmanship at the time. That was the intent.

Mr. Renwick: I’m satisfied. I just wanted the record to show that was the reason for it.

Mr. Drea: I would like to say to you that I think one of the things that should be brought out at this particular time is that a great many of the changes that were made were made on the condition of being subject to the approval of the draftsmanship.

Mr. Renwick: I understand that and as usual I bow to the drafting skill of the legislative council.

I would like to refer to clause f of section 1, which is the definition of the term “goods.” We are talking about a consumer bill, a bill to protect consumers. The bill is entitled, An Act to Prohibit Unfair Practices in Sales to Consumers, and I would have assumed we would want to use language that was meaningful to a person who was a consumer and who was not a lawyer by profession. I think most consumers are not lawyers.

I find it extremely difficult to suggest that the words “chattels personal,” as it appears in the definition, which is a very technical legal work of art, is meaningful to the citizens of the Province of Ontario. I think if you ask somebody what was a “chattels personal” he would have some difficulty in indicating what it was. I think he might perhaps think his automobile was a chattels personal, but I don’t think he would get there by direct use of the English language as we understand it.

Mr. Renwick moves that clause f of section 1, Bill 55, be amended by deleting the words “chattels personal” in the first line and substituting therefor the words “tangible personal property;” and by deleting the words “chattels” in the third line and substituting therefor the words “tangible personal property.”

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The object is that the uninitiated can more easily understand.

Mr. Renwick: I think the word “tangible” is an English word which is knowledgeable. I think personal property is something which a person can relate to. I find it difficult to suggest that the jargon of the law is ordinary, everyday language but I suggest it is more in the nature of ordinary, everyday language than the phrase “chattels personal”. Therefore I make that amendment.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Chattels were always used on the farm.

Mr. Renwick: I would be quite prepared to stack that particular amendment without requiring a division of the committee at this time.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Chairman: Does the parliamentary assistant wish to comment before I read the amendment?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, I got the first part of the amendment, but there was a bit of chatter on the second part. I wonder if I could hear the second phase.

Mr. Renwick: The chairman will read it.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that clause f of section 1 of Bill 55 be amended by deleting the words “chattels personal” in the first line and substituting therefor the words “tangible personal property”; and by deleting the word “chattel” in the third line and substituting therefor the words, “tangible personal property”.

Mr. Singer: But he was deleting more than just the word “chattels”, it is “chattels personal”.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Are you in favour of that one, Vern?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, throughout the committee hearings the member for Riverdale raised in a general way this particular change, that an Act dealing with the consumer should have language readily understood by the consumer. However, and I suggest this with all due respect to the member for Riverdale, just going over to the next page and getting into definition i, the introduction of that three phase definition of services put an enormous burden upon the definition of goods. It seems to me, it was the intent of the committee that the definition of goods would be a most specific one and that that is why it was drafted in that particular legalistic way. I would also suggest to you that the words “tangible personal property” have no traditional judicial meaning.

Mr. Renwick: Yes they do.

Mr. Drea: The other argument, and this was raised at the particular time, is that the words “tangible personal property” have associations --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: -- with the administration and the collection of retail sales tax. These arguments were brought up at the time and much as the committee would have liked to use common language throughout in this bill, on this particular definition it was the intent of the committee that the definition of “goods”, because of the implications in it, should be a very specific legal definition. Therefore I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Renwick: I didn’t expect that the ministry would accept it. I suppose the outcome will be that we will lose that amendment and the consumers of the province will lose again.

Mr. Drea: With all due respect to the member for Riverdale, I fail to see how --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: -- the consumer is going to lose again with a specific definition. I would think the consumer might lose with a nice little piece of vernacular that says “tangible personal property” which has to go all the way through the whole court system for a definition.

Mr. Renwick: I’m just delighted, because that just put a little fire and life into this debate. It was a bit languid up to now.

Mr. Singer: You will hear about this on the hustings.

Mr. Ferrier: Lot of fire and not too much light.

Mr. Renwick: I think we can now get down to some meaningful remarks. I am very much concerned about the meaning --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Singer: What about your earlier remarks?

Mr. Renwick: -- of the ambit of the definition of the word “services.” The members of the committee will recall that in the original version of the bill, even though it purported to deal with goods and services there was a definition of goods but no definition of services. In committee, after some prodding, the ministry came to the conclusion if it was related to goods and services that some effort should be made to define services. Then they defined it in a way which, even though it’s language which is used on the other side of the Rockies, I believe it is rather meaningless in its ambit and leaves much to be desired in precision. I find it difficult that “services” mean services, particularly “provided for social, recreational or self-improvement purposes” or “that are in their nature instructional or educational.” I find that is rather meaningless language. I am not quite certain what its origin is, but my recollection is that it is taken out of the British Columbia statute.

I think it’s inadequate. I don’t think it clearly covers the kinds of services that could be designated as professional services. I think it’s very important that the bill extend to professional services.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Especially lawyers.

Mr. Singer: At least that!

Mr. Renwick: It may be argued that it would apply to professional services in respect of goods or in respect of real property, but there are many other kinds of services which are rendered by persons who are professionals that are not in respect of goods or of real property. It doesn’t seem to me that they are covered under the two clauses which follow that clause to which I have referred earlier. I therefore believe it is most essential that the courts know what we intend about services.

Mr. Renwick moves that clause i of section 1 be amended to read as follows: “Services means services of every nature and kind, including without limitation services provided in respect of goods or of real property.”

Mr. Chairman: Before the chair puts the amendment, perhaps we should deal with the previous amendment. I was allowing the discussion to continue, feeling there was interrelation between clauses f and i. Perhaps we should deal with Mr. Renwick’s amendment to clause f.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could stack these.

Mr. Chairman: We are going to have a voice vote.

All those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s amendment to section f will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

It is my understanding then that we will stack any votes.

Mr. Renwick: If we follow the whole procedure.

Mr. Singer: You haven’t been around here long enough to.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): He’ll get used to it.

Mr. Stokes: Why don’t you go back from whence you came?

Mr. Renwick: It’s going to be hard on my colleague to keep them in the House all this time.

Mr. Chairman: Clauses g and h will carry. On clause i we have the amendment by Mr. Renwick. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Certainly my colleague was right in committee, which lasted for about two solid weeks of much mumbo jumbo and turbulence --

Mr. Stokes: And foofaraw.

Mr. Lawlor: As my friend says, foofaraw. At any rate, it was necessary to insert the wording. The language that we did finally insert is not taken from the British Columbia legislation, which defines services as meaning “services that are the subject of a consumer transaction, either together with or separate from any kind of personal property, whether tangible or intangible.” The Alberta legislation, however, has substantially the same definition that we incorporated here.

Mr. Renwick: Oh it’s Alberta.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, the two clauses having to do with “recreational” and the third one having to do with “instructional” and so on, are taken as written from the Alberta legislation. The first clause, though, which may be a moot one, is not identical to what is in the Alberta legislation, which refers to “services provided in respect of the maintenance or repair of goods or of personal property used as a private dwelling by an individual.” They have narrowed and delimited it and expressly excluded real property with respect to a whole dimension of services which otherwise might have affected it.

If the parliamentary assistant subsequently decides to do something about the clause that is giving us all the difficulty, at least from a public impact point of view, namely section 6, I believe --

Mr. Drea: Section 5.

Mr. Lawlor: -- section 5, having to do with real estate firms; if it is his intention to alter that in any way at all, then I suggest that from his own point of view the definition of services as set out here cannot stand.

Well he wags his head, and I would be interested to listen to his nice points.

Mr. Stokes: He agrees with you.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh he agrees?

When this legislation was first passed in the United States, when it first had an impact upon other jurisdictions in this country and elsewhere in the world, the legislation was basically designed to touch merchandising in all of its phases and amplitude.

There’s no doubt that the vigorous imagination of my colleague -- I say “vigorous imagination” because he sees the virtue and the potency of the legislation as being able to extend to the whole dimension of services; in other words, to cover the waterfront in one fell swoop with this bill. It’s a good idea. It’s a thing that can be done. And it would be precedent-setting to attempt the full amplitude of the possibilities of legislation of this kind.

However, if I may say so, the definition of services as contained in the bill is ambivalent: it reaches too far and yet doesn’t reach far enough.

Either you come down on a restricted definition with respect to the merchandising field as such or you go the whole hog and join forces with my colleague from Riverdale on this matter and cover the full amplitude of every possible service. You must do one or the other.

We are prepared to go the second route in the matter. I am most intrigued to see just which way you are going to go down the flue.

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

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Chairman, as I read it, the amendment proposed by the member for Riverdale is all-encompassing, which is not the case in the Act that has been presented to us and read at this juncture. If it is the intent of the amendment to include all professionals in this legislation, I would take it that this was not the purpose of the original bill.

It is my respectful submission to the Chair, and to my colleagues here, that the individuals who may well be involved with this type of legislation could include doctors, architects, lawyers and so on. I am not sure if those professionals were advised that the legislation would apply to them or if they were given an opportunity to make any representation before the standing committee. As I recall the original legislation, the word “services”, or whatever definition you had at that time, would not have included their services; therefore, they felt they would not be affected by this legislation.

I am not saying that these individuals should not be included, Mr. Chairman, but if they are going to be included -- especially when one considers the way we draft legislation and the problems we sometimes have because our legislation is drafted in haste or without sufficient debate or public input -- then the various professionals who may well be included should be given an opportunity to make some representation to the committee.

Mr. Renwick: They had plenty.

Mr. Roy: I’m not sure they have, because originally they were not included in the legislation.

Mr. Renwick: They were before the committee in force.

Mr. Roy: So what I --

Mr. Lawlor: The advertising industry, the insurance industry, the aircraft industry.

Mr. Roy: The doctors, the architects, the chiropractors, all these people made representation to the committee? That was not my --

Mr. Renwick: Are you saying they should he permitted to engage in unfair sales practices?

Mr. Roy: No, I’m not suggesting that at all.

Mr. Singer: Oh come on!

Mr. Roy: I’m suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that if we have a standing committee and present a piece of legislation and advise certain groups they may well be affected, and then we come into committee of the whole and make an amendment encompassing a whole series of other professionals who were not advised, I think it is highly irresponsible of us to do so.

Mr. Good: How are you going to back out of that?

Mr. Roy: As much as I want to --

Mr. Renwick: What a pass, that we should advise the professionals.

Mr. Roy: Look, I didn’t interrupt you. I would like to support your amendment.

Mr. Renwick: Isn’t that interesting?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa East has the floor.

Mr. Roy: All I’m saying, Mr. Chairman -- and if my colleague the member for Riverdale would just sit and listen; I listened to him -- is that I appreciate the intent of the legislation.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the point I’m trying to make is that as I read the amendment it says “services shall include services of every nature and kind.” That is pretty wide. Some of these professionals, Mr. Chairman, have their own associations. We just passed a number of amendments covering doctors under the Health Disciplines Act to deal with certain infringements or practices which were not worthy of that particular profession. They have discipline committees and all of this.

I’m not saying it is not a better way of dealing with them, but the fact remains that if we are responsible here and if we are going to pass legislation affecting all of these professionals, I’m suggesting we should listen to them and get some public input.

I can’t see how we here today -- at least I for one -- I don’t see how I could responsibly support this type of amendment without at least giving these individuals, these various professionals an opportunity to make comment and to see how it may well affect their services or their professions. I think it would be patently unfair and not at all responsible.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I was interested in the comments made by the hon. member for Ottawa --

Mr. Roy: East.

Mr. Renwick: -- East. It’s quite interesting that before the House of Commons in Ottawa at this time is Bill C-2 extending the Combines Investigation Act, which is a far more all-embracing bill and a far more punitive bill, being part of the criminal law, than this bill is to services.

Mr. Roy: In fact that bothers me, considering what we’re passing.

Mr. Renwick: While there is no magic in words, I could have adopted and perhaps should have adopted in my amendment to the definition of services the proposed definition in Bill C-2 to amend the Combines Act. Because by that definition service means a service of any description, whether industrial, trade, professional or otherwise.

Mr. Roy: And includes all professionals.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right. No question about it whatsoever. Now I don’t think any notification was given by the Parliament of Canada --

Mr. Roy: It certainly was.

Mr. Renwick: -- which I understand is the Liberal Party government.

Mr. Roy: It certainly was.

Mr. Renwick: A notice was sent out to each of the professions telling them about it?

Mr. Roy: All the professions were advised of this and they have all made representation.

Mr. Renwick: About services? Yes, the professions?

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Mr. Renwick: They didn’t get specific letters from the minister responsible for the bill.

Mr. Roy: I don’t know how the notice was given.

Mr. Renwick: There was immense notoriety about the extension of the bill to services.

Mr. Roy: Well your comparison is unfair. That bill has been before the House for about two years.

Mr. Renwick: Well this bill I’m talking about hasn’t been before the House for two years. This bill was introduced on Oct. 2, 1974.

Mr. Roy: There was a white paper on that.

Mr. Renwick: Of course; I’ve got most of them here, somewhere. All I’m suggesting is that the reasons which were given by the Consumers Association of Canada before the standing committee on banking, trade and commerce on Dec. 18 in Ottawa seemed to apply singularly to what we are talking about in this bill; that is if we are interested in the consumer protection aspect of this bill. If we are interested in limiting its scope in order to protect specially-privileged groups, then of course that’s a different purpose.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege.

My colleague, the member for Riverdale, keeps misinterpreting the intent of my objection. I want to protect the consumer as much as he does. As a practising lawyer I think I have prosecuted more cases under the Combines Investigation Act in favour of the consumer than possibly he has.

But the point is simply this: If we are intent on having these professionals affected by this particular legislation -- and it may well be that we want to, and I would have no objection to it -- all I am saying is that the original bill did not say so and they were not advised. Surely if we are going to be responsible let’s advise them. What is there to lose?

An hon. member: Some representation.

Mr. Roy: What I am saying is very simply that I want to protect them. I am saying that the way you are doing it is unfair and not responsible.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, this is almost ridiculous. There are literally hundreds of bills that come before this assembly which affect the people of the Province of Ontario; and we don’t send every citizen of the province of Ontario a registered letter advising him there is a bill before the assembly to amend the Municipal Act. Now let’s not fool around.

Mr. Roy: You’re doing it.

Mr. Renwick: We sat in that committee, as my friend said, for a long period of time dealing with this matter and there were representatives of various vested interests before it. They had a single tune that they were playing. They all agreed the principle of the bill was excellent, just so long as it didn’t apply to their particular vested interest group. That’s what took place, and those were the preparatory words.

Now I am simply saying that particularly in the case of professionals, the consumer relies on the professional. He goes to the professional because it is a field in which he is not versed. Therefore he is singularly dependent on the professional for the advice he gets and he is entitled to the same protection as a person is who is buying an automobile or any other piece of tangible property -- about which, incidentally, he may know a lot; but you do not know very much, usually, about services by a particular professional.

I thought it was such a good statement of the point that I jotted it down from the proceedings before the banking, trade and commerce committee in Ottawa.

“The client does not normally know what he needs and relies on the professional to diagnose the situation and satisfy the need. The importance of that is critical. That is why integrity is so important in the professions.”

I understand my friend, the member for Ottawa East. He says we shouldn’t do it now, we should do it next year.

Mr. Roy: I am not saying that. I am saying very simply that if we are going to do it, we must be fair with them. I am in agreement with you that the professionals don’t have a status superior to any other person supplying services. I am saying the original bill does not include them. Your amendment now includes them. We want public participation in legislation, why don’t we advise them?

Mr. Renwick: That is not so. The word “services” was in the original bill, it just wasn’t defined. There was no definition of the word services, so in all likelihood it was covered under the original bill as it was originally presented. Now we have a restricted --

Mr. Roy: Not the way I read it.

Mr. Renwick: Well there was no definition in the original bill.

Ms. Roy: Well when they talked about suppliers helping out, it included professionals.

Mr. Renwick: No, it talked about the provision of services. That’s all it talked about. All we said was we wanted definition. All we are objecting to is a restricted definition; we want a broader definition. I want to make certain that the professionals are covered by it. There is absolutely no reason why they should be exempt from the provisions of the bill.

Mr. Roy: I agree with you.

Mr. Renwick: I think they had ample notice because my friend says that Bill C-2, or its predecessor, was before the House of Commons a long time ago.

Mr. Roy: It has been talked about for two years.

Mr. Renwick: I think I have here somewhere the original bill as introduced by this government, and I think it was some considerable time ago. I think many people were well aware of what was taking place in connection with the bill.

Well I’ll leave it at that. I think the definition should certainly cover it. I think so far as draftsmanship is concerned, I would accept the definition in Bill C-2, if for no other reason than for purposes of uniformity, as being an equally adequate definition of the term “services”.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick has moved an amendment to clause i. Does the parliamentary assistant wish to comment?

Mr. Drea: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Going in reverse order, the question raised about professional services by the member for Ottawa East is quite correct. When this bill was introduced there was no intent to cover professional services. At this present time, even with a revised definition of “services,” there is no intent to cover professional services.

Mr. Roy: It changes your intent.

Mr. Drea: I’m talking about the intent of clause i at this time.

Before we get into this thing as to who is the best friend of the consumer, I point out that to bring in coverage of professional services under this bill would either make this section, or those in the various Acts and statutes that cover discipline of the professional societies redundant.

It is all very well to read a definition that people put forward in support of Bill C-2 in the federal House. There are adequate provisions for the integrity of a solicitor, of a physician, of a dentist and a great number of other professional groups.

Mr. Renwick: There are not.

Mr. Drea: There certainly are.

Mr. Renwick: There are not.

Mr. Drea: Without being a solicitor I would say to someone I think is a very distinguished solicitor that if a person goes into a law office --

Mr. Renwick: I mean that is the height of the debate.

Mr. Drea: -- and receives an exorbitant bill for the amount that is done, he has provisions through the taxing office to have that bill reduced, or in fact eliminated. That is there.

In any event, the member for Ottawa East is quite correct. It wasn’t the intent then and it is not the intent now in clause i. I am not going to accept that amendment.

Second, to come to the member for Lakeshore, I’m a little concerned about his difficulty in grasping the implications of the words “real property” in that definition. If he will recall, during the committee the insertion of those words, was by intent, and by draftsmanship, not to cover the sale or the transfer of real property but to cover renovations and so forth that were done.

Mr. Renwick: Oh I can hear it coming now. Are we amending section 5?

Mr. Drea: When we get to section 5, we will get to section 5.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, but this is your version of what was intended in the committee. We were members of the committee; perhaps we can speak for the committee, you were but the parliamentary assistant carrying the bill.

Mr. Drea: That’s right.

Mr. Renwick: We know what we amended in committee and what we intended to cover --

Mr. Singer: Is that the royal “we”?

Mr. Renwick: -- exactly what we had to.

Mr. Drea: Not in this definition; and I say that with the greatest of respect, not in this definition. The words “real property,” and I refer you to the specific intent of clause i, under that definition “real property” has no connection whatsoever with the sale or transfer of real estate. Its only connection concerns renovations, repairs, fixtures and so forth; that was very clear in the committee.

Mr. Renwick: It was not.

Mr. Drea: It certainly was.

Mr. Renwick: Not your version.

Mr. Drea: It certainly was; it was a very clear and specific intent.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Renwick: It was so clear that we put in section 5, that you’re going to take out.

Mr. Drea: It was so clear that we put in section 5; one of the reasons section 5 was put in --

Mr. Renwick: Let’s deal with section 5 when we get to it.

Mr. Drea: Yes, we’ll get to it.

Mr. Renwick: You’re jumping around from section to section.

Mr. Drea: You keep interjecting a little bit. Section 5 was put in because, if you’ll remember correctly, you were one of the people who said there was no reference to the transfer of sale of real property, even within the amended definition of services. It pertained only to renovations -- and let the record say that.

Mr. Renwick: That is not correct.

Mr. Drea: That’s right. Now, in terms of what the member for Lakeshore suggested --

Mr. Lawlor: You have got a distorted view of reality. It was because we expended the definition to services that you got into that difficulty.

Mr. Chairman: Order please, the parliamentary assistant has the floor.

Mr. Renwick: Let’s go back to standing committee.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, he can’t go construing these clauses any damn way he pleases. It is not what he says, it’s what the courts will decide they say.

Mr. Chairman: Order please, let’s get back to subsection i. The parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Drea: The member for Lakeshore knows it, if he was there when that particular definition was made.

Mr. Lawlor: It won’t mean what you say it means.

Mr. Singer: He isn’t going to win this amendment, I don’t think.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Drea: The member for Lakeshore raises the question as to whether this legislation particularly applies to the mercantile field. If I recall it, that was the thrust of his argument.

The intent of this legislation has always been that it applies primarily to the mercantile field. That was quite clear in the opening statement by the minister when it was introduced. It was quite clear in the comments of the minister while he attended the standing committee, and I think it’s been quite clear from the many remarks that I made in the standing committee. So I put his mind to rest on that.

Coming back to the amendment, the difficulty with this amendment is that it would go far beyond the intent of the Act. It would put every conceivable service, including opinions and a great number of intangible things, within the scope of this Act.

Mr. Renwick: Of course. Do you think that they are entitled to protection against unfair practices, or not?

Mr. Drea: I think that anybody is entitled to protection against unfair practices, but --

Mr. Renwick: All right then, let’s put it in.

Mr. Drea: -- but there are more appropriate places to put in that type of protection then within the scope of a business practices Act.

Mr. Renwick: This Act is an Act of general application.

Mr. Drea: This Act is an Act of general application as it relates to the marketplace. With all due respect, I suggest to you that the very specific professional services you mean, are hardly within the scope of the ordinary marketplace. There are already, through a great number of other statutes -- none of which to the best of my knowledge are administered by this minister -- a great number of detailed and specific remedies for consumers who feel that they are wronged. On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I would refuse to accept the amendment.

Mr. Renwick: I was going to suggest we divide, but that would take us till 6:30. By the way, what time is 6 o’clock on the Celsius scale, anyway?

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member for Riverdale wish to speak further on his amendment, or shall we take the vote?

Mr. Renwick: Yes I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Singer: In case you think that clanging is a coincidence, it isn’t.

Mr. Renwick: The importance of this debate on this question of services is because it deals with the ambit of the bill, there is no question about that now, just as there are laws of general application, such as this law, there is no reason for excluding from it any person who provides any kind of service or supplies any kind of goods. No reason whatsoever.

The parliamentary assistant’s argument is that because there is a special Act governing the Law Society of Upper Canada and the medical profession and the chiropractors and the auctioneers and the real estate and business brokers and a number of other areas such as that, and the insurance industry as such, we do not need to protect the consumer from those persons who, while they may be of professional status, engage in the kind of activities which are referred to as unfair practices in the bill which we have before us. There is no logic for saying that a member of the legal profession, the accounting profession, the medical profession, the architectural profession or any of the other professions should be exempted from the requirement not to engage in unfair practices.

The protection we are trying to give to the consumer here should be given to the consumer against the professional who engages in the unfair practices which we are endeavouring to prohibit. That’s the argument and it’s quite simple. You cannot take away from that argument without limiting the protection of the consumer. And the consumer will be less well protected to the extent that you delimit the meaning of the word “services”; to delimit it, as it comes across to me in the response by the ministry, means in terms of the vested interest groups. Whenever the consumers run into the vested interest groups with this government, the consumer generally loses. And that’s what this ministry is trying to do in this bill.

The argument is unanswerable that professional services must be rendered by persons who eschew, stay away from or do not engage in false, misleading, deceptive or unconscionable consumer representations with respect to their services. It is equally important because the professional is in a relationship of utmost good faith, and therefore the consumer must have the benefit of the protection of this Act. This is fundamental to the nature of the bill.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Do you want the lawyers under this?

Mr. Renwick: The parliamentary assistant may say that it was never their intention to cover services by professionals, but that was never said when the bill was introduced. There was no statement to that effect; there was the broad word “services.” The parliamentary assistant is endeavouring to rewrite history in the way in which he interprets the Act.

Mr. Drea: That was your game.

Mr. Renwick: All right. We are going to spend a little bit of time on it, because I’m not going to allow the ministry to get away with the suggestion that the original bill, in its text, did not cover professional services. And the parliamentary assistant is saying that it excluded professional services.

Mr. Drea: No, I didn’t.

Mr. R. C. Hodgson: Do you want the lawyers under this?

Mr. Renwick: Well, he is saying it was not intended to cover them.

Mr. Drea: The intent was not to cover them.

Mr. Renwick: There was no such statement. The bill itself contained the word “services” when it was introduced. The definition of “supplier” was not limited to goods and the definition of “consumer representation” was not limited to the recipient of goods. It was to provide for services. Anybody who rendered a service would have come under the original bill. That’s why I say, with the greatest deference to the parliamentary assistant, we are not going to have this record pretend to show something different than what the original bill said.

Mr. Drea: You have already done that.

Mr. Renwick: What you have done is to delimit --

Mr. Drea: No, I haven’t.

Mr. Renwick: -- the extent of the bill as originally introduced. I would rather go back and delete the definition of services and let it ride just on the word “services,” because then it would apply to all professional services of every nature and kind. There is no way in which it wouldn’t apply.

Mr. Drea: Well, I am glad of the opportunity to respond because first of all, let’s make the record entirely correct. When we are talking about professional services, I am not talking about anyone covered by a regulatory Act that is now enforced by this ministry. There are no exclusions or exemptions simply because you are in a field that is already covered by a specific regulatory Act.

Mr. Renwick: They’re not covered by any regulatory Act whatsoever.

Mr. Drea: My friend, you used the words real estate and business brokers and you said something about auctioneers. I want to make it very, very plain that there are no exemptions and there are no exclusions under this Act simply on the basis that you are already covered by a regulatory Act enforced by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Renwick: Say that again. Are you saying that the real estate and business brokers are not covered by this Act?

Mr. Drea: No, I said that there will be no exemption or exclusion.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: That would bring the lawyers under this Act.

Mr. Drea: You started raising some of those occupations that were covered by regulatory Acts of this ministry. It may have been inadvertent or it may have been a fishing expedition. If it was a fishing expedition, you have got your answer, because this question was raised many times in the committee.

When we come back to the activities of the professional person who is covered by professional statutes, or statutes governing a profession which are administered outside of this ministry, I am suggesting to you to put them under here, when there are already remedies for the consumer.

Mr. Renwick: There are no remedies for the consumer under the Law Society of Upper Canada --

Mr. Drea: There are none? Then how do you get your money back? Tell me how you get your money back if there is no remedy for the consumer? Of course there is.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): What is it?

Mr. Drea: What is the remedy? There is a fund administered by the Law Society of Upper Canada that will repay the consumer when the --

Mr. Renwick: Not that unfair practices are defined in this Act.

Mr. Drea: Not specifically the unfair practices that are defined in this Act.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Drea: Not specifically those unfair practices, but certainly where the lawyer is engaged in the betrayal of trust of his client, where money is involved, there is a remedy for the consumer. There certainly is.

Mr. Renwick: There is not.

Mr. Drea: Then why does your fund pay out? Certainly not out of the gratitude of the Law Society. It pays out and occasionally it pays out copiously.

Mr. Lawlor: It is only under very narrow conditions of fraud.

Mr. Drea: Yes, that is quite true.

Mr. Renwick: And sometimes by very proportionate amounts.

Mr. Drea: Yes, depending upon what is there. But I am suggesting to you that the very title of this bill -- An Act to Prohibit Unfair Practices in Sales to Consumers -- indicates clearly that this is a business, a marketplace, a mercantile bill. It has been abundantly plain since the day of introduction that this did not cover the so-called professional services that have been regulated far longer than this.

Mr. Renwick: Who does it cover then? Which services does it cover and which services does it not cover? Does it cover insurance?

Mr. Drea: It covers the service -- the sale of the insurance -- not the insurance contract.

Mr. Renwick: I am not talking about the insurance contract. Does it cover the insurance salesman?

Mr. Drea: In his representation to the consumer, yes.

Mr. Renwick: Yes? How does that come about?

Mr. Drea: How does it come about? He is providing a service within the definition of the Act.

Mr. Renwick: What kind of a service?

An hon. member: Ah, come on!

An hon. member: A cultural service?

Mr. Lawlor: Recreational service?

Mr. Renwick: A recreational service?

Mr. Drea: No, he is not providing a recreational service.

Mr. Renwick: What is he providing? A service in respect of real property?

Mr. Drea: He is providing a service in respect of goods. He certainly is covered under the services --

Mr. Renwick: What if he is selling life insurance?

Mr. Drea: It is my understanding, at least under the definitions of f and i, between goods and services, that the insurance agent is covered in the representation he makes to the consumer. The insurance contract itself may not be covered. That’s already covered under other legislation. But the purchase of service by the consumer is covered under this Act.

I suggest to you that to accept your definition, the amendment that you want, would go far beyond the intent of the bill. Indeed, if Bill C-2 does go through the federal House, the definition that you want about all services would either make this particular section in this Act redundant or parts of Bill C-2 redundant. How many pieces of legislation do you want that cover virtually the same thing?

Mr. Renwick: They don’t cover the same things.

Mr. Drea: If I accepted your definition, I suggest to you, you probably wouldn’t need a Bill C-2 within the scope of this province.

Mr. Renwick: You are going to have one.

Mr. Drea: Yes, that’s a fine answer, “You are going to have one.” So as long as there is a federal bill coming in with specific things in it, you want us to duplicate it word for word in a provincial statute. Surely if there ever was redundancy, it lies right there.

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