Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry. The hon. Minister of Energy.

ENERGY PRICES

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, in his statement yesterday the Premier (Mr. Davis) stated that we needed to gather information during the 90-day price freeze on refined petroleum products sold in Ontario. In that regard, he announced the formation of a one-man royal commission to marshal the facts and to make recommendations.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. members of the terms of reference of the royal commission. The commissioner will inquire into price increases, occurring after the price freeze period provided by the bill, of petroleum products sold in Ontario other than those directly attributable to the price of crude oil itself. He will report on the relationship between any such increases and the interests of the consuming public with due consideration to the adequacy of the federal government guidelines as they apply to Ontario; the financial requirements of the industry; existing inventories and continuity of supply. The report shall be submitted to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by Sept. 30, 1975.

I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that negotiations are under way with a prominent Canadian who has indicated his willingness to accept the appointment as commissioner. However, I am unable to divulge his name today until he has made arrangements for release from his present position. In the meantime, I can assure the House that his expertise in this field will enable him to fulfil the important role of ensuring the Ontario consumer is treated fairly.

MOBILE HOMES

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce that following an extensive review the Ontario government is adopting additional policies to recognize mobile homes as an acceptable form of permanent housing. We define mobile homes as factory-built, single-family dwellings, designed to be transported on wheels, placed on permanent foundations and connected to public utilities.

Early last year, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government agreed to a request from the municipalities and introduced amendments which resulted in mobile homes being assessed and taxed as conventional housing and no longer subject to the licence fees payable on travel trailers. The government wants to ensure that mobile home owners enjoy substantially the same privileges and responsibilities as owners of conventional homes.

First, we will develop, in consultation with the municipalities, planning guidelines for mobile home park design. The government will also amend the Planning Act to provide for planning reviews of proposed mobile home parks. These reviews will be similar to reviews now required for subdivision approval. We hope that municipalities, once these planning revisions are made, will look on mobile home developments as they would any other housing development.

Secondly, it is our intention to bring mobile home owners who rent land in mobile home parks under the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Thirdly, we will ensure that mobile homes are included in the provisions of both the Ontario Building Code and proposed legislation on warranties and guarantees for homes. We hope similar provisions will be included in national legislation.

Fourthly, many mobile home purchasers are unaware that they may reduce the sales tax payable by having either the manufacturer or dealers install the mobile home on its permanent site. The Minister of Revenue has already issued tax folders to explain the Retail Sales Tax Act as it applies to mobile homes and publicity on these options will continue.

The Revenue Ministry is also recommending amendments to the Land Speculation Tax Act regulations, granting exemptions from that tax to mobile home park developers who sell lots to mobile home owners. Such exemptions from the land speculation tax will apply to mobile home communities which comply with the planning guidelines I mentioned earlier.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications will help to ensure that more police escorts are available to lessen delays when mobile homes are being transported on public highways.

The Ministry of Housing will co-ordinate these initiatives for the government. Also, my ministry will be actively involved in the development of at least one mobile home community under the new planning legislation and design criteria.

Mr. Speaker, I have said repeatedly that this government is constantly looking for new and better ways to provide adequate, affordable housing for Ontario residents. I think, Mr. Speaker, these initiatives and others I have announced, should and will add well-built, well-planned, mobile home communities to the housing stock available in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Unfortunately, I didn’t receive a copy of his statement, but I gather that in the first paragraph he said the royal commissioner would be asked to look only into those price changes that will take place after the freeze announced yesterday. Is there a plan in the government to refer these matters to the Ontario Energy Board on a continuing basis, since the royal commissioner will be reporting as of Sept. 30?

If he will forgive me for mentioning the Province of Nova Scotia again, would the minister not agree that the price change procedures in that jurisdiction have come under the review of their utilities board in a way which has proved to be effective, so that those people, technically expert in the field, can receive submissions not only from the oil companies but from experts independent of the oil companies, and it has been effective down there in restraining price increases on a continuing basis?

Why would the minister not be prepared to couple the announcement of the royal commissioner -- whose name we await with interest -- with a statement that the Energy Board of this province is going to have an overview of price changes, even during the period when the royal commissioner is hearing and also beyond that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think it fair to say that to involve both the royal commissioner and the Energy Board at this point would be a duplication. We have, as I have indicated on several previous occasions, carefully monitored the experience of the Nova Scotia Public Utilities Commission, which is the name of the body that carries out the function the member has detailed. In point of fact, we in the Ministry of Energy, after looking at that experience, and recognizing that gasoline prices in the Province of Nova Scotia, with that regulation notwithstanding, are higher than they are in the Province of Ontario, have concluded that that kind of regulation is not, in our opinion, warranted.

However, I would expect that the commissioner will consider that experience. In making recommendations to the government for the long term -- how to cope with similar circumstances in the future -- I am sure it is one of the things he will consider.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Surely the minister is aware that the fact the prices in Nova Scotia are higher than in Ontario is a factor of other matters or rather depends on other matters than just the effectiveness of the public utilities commission; and that in fact they have stopped a price increase which the major oil companies have requested and which has been granted in this province and in other provinces? I believe the price increase about three months ago was nine-tenths of a cent. We accepted it here, but it was reduced to two-tenths of a cent in that province because it was not justified.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the one most important factor missing in the Province of Nova Scotia by comparison with the Province of Ontario is the degree of competition. For instance, in Nova Scotia you will not find the type of operation known as Canadian Tire.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Why doesn’t the minister compare it with someplace else? In fact my information is they had intended to go into Nova Scotia and are not now going to do so. There just isn’t the kind of competition that keeps prices down.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question; will the minister consider putting the terms of reference on the order paper for debate in this assembly -- we have precedent for it. We would have questions as to their adequacy, having regard to the fact there was no reference I could hear this morning to the ongoing protection of the consumer by way of some recommendation from the royal commissioner as to whether the industry should continue to be regulated in some way in the future for the protection of consumers?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part, no. To answer the second part I think I said -- if not I will say it now -- that as far as I am concerned that is a responsibility of the commissioner. Because of the breadth of the subject, I have tried not to tie him down too much but I do anticipate the commissioner must tell us at the end of the 90 days how to cope with this problem after the freeze, whether it is the 90 days or some extension of that.

Mr. Renwick: Why doesn’t the minister say so?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am saying that right now.

Mr. Renwick: It is not in the statement.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Does the minister say the conditions that prevail, say, in northern Ontario, are much different from those in Nova Scotia? Is there not a substantial portion of this province where the conditions are quite similar, competition-wise and in every other matter?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t know the point of the question, Mr. Speaker. Would the member like to be more specific?

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He was asking about northern Ontario.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Because the minister admits to the breadth of the inquiry to be undertaken by the commissioner, and because he made reference to the prices throughout the Province of Ontario, will the minister ask the commissioner to look into the existing differential between the south and the north -- which can be as much as 15 to 20 cents a gallon -- with a view to rolling back existing prices in the north?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate the commissioner will have a number of issues put before him, The member and I have discussed this outside this House and inside -- more outside than in -- and it is something we are concerned about. Whether the commissioner will be able to cope with that as well within the 90 days I don’t know, but certainly if it can be done I will suggest it. I have my doubts as to whether it can within that period of time -- he can’t do everything in that period of time.

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

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Would it be possible, if the commissioner can’t do what the member for Thunder Bay has asked within the 90 days, for the commissioner’s period of appointment to be extended so that he could look into this question and report back on it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I expect, the commissioner, in making whatever recommendations he will at the end of the 90-day period, would indicate to the government whether further studies should be carried out, and if so, in his opinion on what subjects.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition?

PETROLEUM PRODUCT STOCKPILES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes; may I ask a further question of the minister on a related matter?

Since the concept of the freeze yesterday was apparently to extend the 45-day freeze put forward by the federal government by another 45 days, I presume to use up the supplies of old oil --

Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West): They didn’t have a 45-day freeze.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes -- which would be available to the distributors so they would not have the advantage of charging higher prices on oil they had purchased at the price before July 1 -- I ask the minister about this and he might want to refer it to someone else. As Minister of Energy, is there some procedure whereby the smaller companies which do not have a long-term oil supply -- according to the information they make available and which must be available to this minister -- are not going to suffer in comparison with the bigger companies which have a greater supply of oil available?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated yesterday that that kind of question, dealing with the legislation, should more properly be put to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman).

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It has to do with oil supply.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, I am well aware of that but I want to point something out to the member. He talks about extending the federal freeze. I want to point out: One, the federal freeze is voluntary; two, it applies only to wholesale prices; and three, it does not cover propane, which in northern Ontario is a significant factor. The freeze this government has imposed covers wholesale and retail, is compulsory and does cover propane.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It covers everything but electricity.

I would like to direct the question to the hon. minister who is an expert in oil supply, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like to address the question to me, I would appreciate hearing the question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I thought the minister was paying attention because the question was directed by his colleague to him as having the conduct of the legislation. Is there going to be a procedure whereby the small oil distributing companies, which do not have a supply of oil which would last them for 90 days or possibly even longer which had been purchased at the old price, are going to be given some consideration in comparison with the large oil companies which, according to the figures that the Minister of Energy has and has indicated that he would make available, do have a supply of oil at the old price, the pre-July 1 price? Is there some means whereby some balance and equity for the smaller companies can be achieved?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I have no information as to which companies have a supply and which don’t. There is provision in the legislation for flexibility in the administration of the Act. I would certainly rely on whatever information is made available to me in making recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in Council under that section of the Act.

But at the moment, I have no information as to which companies have supplies and which don’t. I’ve heard estimates ranging from 30 days to 113 days. I have no idea of the identity of the companies that are being spoken about.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question: What are the circumstances under which the government will permit increases in petroleum and natural gas products over the prices which have been frozen at June 23 as provided in the bill?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, at the present time there are no circumstances to my knowledge. However, I’m sure as the bill proceeds in the course of administration certain circumstances will be brought to us and we will consider each one on its merit.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put another question to the Minister of Energy. Why is it that he could not at least respond to my question? He indicated his colleague should answer the question having to do with the supply of oil, when obviously it’s the Minister of Energy who has the responsibility to have that information. Has he the information on the oil supply and could he communicate it to us or to his colleague?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was asking details of the legislation which does not stand in my name. It stands in the name of the hon. Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It has to do with oil supply.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As to the question of oil supply the Ministry of Energy has carried out extensive studies of the most recent available figures, comparing them to a year ago. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources of Canada indicated in the House of Commons, on Wednesday afternoon I guess it was, that figures will be tabled in the next week or so. We await those figures with great interest in the hope they will confirm the best calculations we’ve been able to make.

It is the practice of the National Energy Board and the National Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that the companies must file on the 10th of each month their inventory figures as of the first of each month. So I anticipate that the federal minister will release this information about this time next week.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Could we get an undertaking from the minister that those figures would be made available to us as they apply to Ontario so that we could have a look at them by the time that bill comes forward for second reading, which I presume will be next week?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the bill will come forward for second reading on Monday. I’m sure the hon. member will agree the sooner it’s passed the better.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It doesn’t make any difference. The date is set.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As soon as the figures are made available to me by the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister doesn’t have them, eh?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I just finished telling the member --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister said he had done a full survey.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- who perhaps on a Friday morning is not able to comprehend; if so that’s too bad.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They are not good enough to be tabled.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I just finished telling him we have done the best calculations possible with the information available from Statistics Canada, from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and NEB.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We would like the figures on which the government based its decisions.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: When we have the latest figures -- and I’m sure the Leader of the Opposition wants the most accurate and latest figures -- we’ll be glad to make them available.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Riverdale have a supplementary?

Mr. Renwick: No.

PICKERING AIRPORT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have another question, this one of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is there any statement forthcoming from his ministry or from the government in general having to do with the Pickering airport programme? There was some indication of a statement of government policy two weeks ago and we still haven’t heard anything, although evidently there has been communication with the government of Canada having to do with its long-range plans for the Pickering airport.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have received a letter from Mr. Marchand outlining what the position of the federal government was. That letter was addressed to the Premier. There is a reply being prepared to go back to Mr. Marchand. I believe we stated at that time that we were going to reply to the letter and when we did we would table both letters in the Legislature at that time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Might I ask a supplementary? As Minister of Transportation and Communications, are there currently plans and decisions that have been made having to do with the servicing, by means of roads and other things that come under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications’ responsibility, of the new Pickering site? Are we presently spending money on surveys, studies or even actual work on the site for the road facilities?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, our involvement so far has been to take part in a study team that was made up primarily of Ministry of Transport people to look at what the needs would be for surface transportation into the Pickering airport site. Some work has been done but it was not specifically related to the Pickering airport development. It would have been work that would have been done in terms of development of road facilities in that area, with or without an airport. But we have - been working on a study team with the Ministry of Transport looking at ground transportation facilities.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Transportation and Communications say whether or not there is an agreement in place between Ontario and the government of Canada to build those access routes in the event the airport is finally approved?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge there is no such agreement. We have indicated that should things proceed as the federal government have indicated they would like them to proceed, then we would have negotiations and discussions with them. But to the best of my knowledge there is no formal agreement.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

OLYMPIC TICKETS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. I’m not sure, actually, to whom it should be directed but perhaps he could have the information gathered.

What is the story on these 14,000 Olympic tickets that are supposed to be made available to members of the Legislature and members of the National Assembly of Quebec? Has there been a request from the government for these free tickets; and why shouldn’t they be left to be part of the open sale of tickets to the Olympics?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: What free tickets?

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Those are not free tickets.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Why doesn’t the Leader of the Opposition wake up?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, since the question was directed to myself, I can only suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that it would be better directed to his colleagues at Ottawa. They are the ones who seem to have a bigger part to play in the Olympics, sir. That is not a decision of our government at all. The only thing I know about it is what I read in the newspaper, and that is very different to what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting.

Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): He wouldn’t know a javelin from a discus.

Mr. Morrow: Ontario just pays the shot.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, while the geese are cackling back there --

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): We are not a bunch of freeloaders like the Liberals.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary to the minister: Would it not concern the minister and his colleagues -- maybe not his back-bench friends, who are the free ticket brigade, first in line everywhere --

Mr. Turner: The Liberals should know all about that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Would it not concern the minister that apparently the directors of the Olympic Games are setting aside 16,000 tickets and they are reserved for very important persons, like those guys in the back row, for members of the Ontario Legislature and other parliamentarians?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. C. Nixon: How many did the Leader of the Opposition get?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why don’t we say that those should be put out for sale to anybody that wants to buy them, including us?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why shouldn’t they be for sale?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member’s alleged point --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The Leader of the Opposition is really drastic today.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Not drastic -- frantic; kind of frantic.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, I think if he reads the article and if he recalls the letter that he might have received from the Olympic people, the tickets are not free. They can be purchased by the members of the Legislature. The Leader of the Opposition has the same right as any other member of this Legislature, I would imagine, to refuse to accept this special offer, as I have done.

Mr. Morrow: And as I have done.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Individuals can make up their minds.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We ought all to have refused them.

Mr. C. Nixon: Three strikes and he is out.

Mr. Turner: Try again.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Lewis: Just a moment --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West has a supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary, has an offer been made? I mean, have members of the Legislature been informed of an offer they couldn’t refuse?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Like the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman)?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We were asked to buy tickets.

Mr. Lewis: What is this offer the minister is talking about? Have letters been sent out to members?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We were asked to buy tickets.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can report is that in the mail I’ve received in a very general way, there was an offer from the Olympic committee to myself as a member of the Legislature, not as a minister, that if I wish to --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Has anybody else had one? The minister is the only one who has had it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Don’t ask me; maybe the mail coming to the Liberals from Ottawa is a little slower than the mail coming to the Tories; that would be a great change.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Maybe so. Has the minister accepted his free tickets? Has he got his free tickets?

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): There will be no Liberals in the House at that time.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: My understanding is the letter is a general one and it offers members tickets for various events --

Mr. Lewis: It does?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s correct, at a price -- not a special price.

Mr. Lewis: Nobody sends me any letters. Only the member for High Park sends me letters.

An hon. member: The member for Scarborough West is not on the list.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have another question?

The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: No, the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Lewis: Just make sure he doesn’t monopolize the question period.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. Renwick: I’ve just been told by the leader of the party not to take more than my share of time. Mr. Speaker, I have two or three questions for the Minister of Energy:

Will the minister explain why he will not put on the order paper the terms of reference as proposed for the royal commission, so they can be debated? I heard his answer to my supplementary, which was “no”, but what are the reasons he will not permit a debate on those terms of reference?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I guess that’s a prerogative question -- the member is asking if I am prepared to table that. I think it’s important that we get on with the commission as soon as possible. If the member is not happy with the terms of reference, I would anticipate that he would say so, whether there’s a debate or not. I’m just anxious that the job be begun.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, a further question of the Minister of Energy: What response does the minister have to the question that what the oil industry loses on the roundabouts it will pick up on the swings, as stated by Mr. McAfee, the president of Gulf Oil, that the added cost to the industry will eventually have to be recovered in the marketplace?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t hear what Mr. McAfee --

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): They’ll sock it to us after the election.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker; and I didn’t hear what the president of Gulf Oil had to say.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We know who is going to be here after the election.

Mr. Martel: I’ll be here.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I won’t.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But I would say that particular subject I am sure will and must be considered by the commissioner, as I mentioned in the statement.

One of the main points is to consider the question of any possible increases after the freeze, other than those directly attributable to the increase in the cost of crude oil. So that kind of comment, whether made by that gentleman or made by the member, will have to be considered by the commissioner.

Mr. Renwick: Well, Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary question: Why doesn’t the minister, now that he has invited us to do so, amend the terms of reference to provide specifically that the commissioner is to recommend to the government of Ontario the procedures by which, in the ongoing continuing future, the prices of petroleum products in Ontario will be regulated?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated this morning, I think the terms of reference as drawn, are broad enough to give the commissioner enough discretion in terms of what he can handle within the 90 days. I have indicated the two priorities. First of all, what to do at the end of the 90 days -- whether the commissioner, as a result of his studies, concludes that either an extension of the freeze is necessary, or some other form of control with regards to potential or possible increases other than crude oil cost increases. The second thing is how best to cope with this kind of thing if, as and when the federal government foists it on us again.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, if I could go on to a further question. Now that the Premier has met with the heads of the oil companies, what meetings have taken place either by him or others with Consumers’ Gas, Union Gas and other retail and wholesale suppliers of natural gas in Ontario, to ensure the adequacy of the reserves within Ontario or to assure there is no interruption of supply of natural gas during the period of the freeze and thereafter?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the prices of natural gas are, in fact, frozen until Nov. 1. The increase imposed by the federal government will not take effect until that time. Secondly, it is the role of the Energy Board to ensure, as they have in the past, that any stock on the shelf passes through at the old price --

Mr. Martel: Where will I find it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- before the increase goes through. Now I would anticipate that by Nov. 1 there will possibly be, as well, rulings by the National Energy Board --

Mr. Martel: Where will the minister be?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- on the tariffs on TransCanada PipeLines. So those will have to be considered by our own Energy Board as well before they can be considered to be passed through.

Now, as for the other point in the question, there is ongoing and regular consultation with the companies as to their supplies and their projections for the next year. The responses I have had to questions of that type that I have put to them in recent weeks and months is that they do not foresee a problem for the coming winter.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary question: I take it that the minister has not met with the top management of the natural gas supply companies to assure there is no interruption of supply to the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I just finished saying -- I can’t remember the specific dates -- but I do know that within recent weeks and within the last month I have met at least once with each of the presidents of the three main companies, Union Gas, Consumers’ Gas and Northern and Central. The question of supply and my concern for the coming winter have all been discussed and they have assured me there will not be a problem this coming winter.

I might as well throw this issue out -- for instance, now that the federal government has resolved this, we want to know -- and I will, hopefully, he discussing this with Macdonald in the next few weeks -- what they are going to do about two permits held up in Alberta at present -- I think they have been held up now for two years -- export or exit permits for TransCanada PipeLines for supplies of natural gas. We would hope that those would be freed very quickly; the concern there being the winter of 1976-1977, not 1975-1976.

Mr. Renwick: My last question of the Minister of Energy: Since the prime source of energy within the Province of Ontario is uranium and since during the war the jurisdiction of Ontario was ousted by the federal government, will the minister give consideration to reasserting against the federal government the jurisdiction of Ontario with respect to the domestic use of uranium so that we can have control over our major source of energy supply -- or at least consult with the federal government to share such jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, since about March, I have written on at least three or four occasions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources of Canada expressing to him some concerns about the way they are operating their guidelines and whether it is possible to take back from the federal government the jurisdiction the member refers to. I have asked that question and am awaiting an opinion.

I think, though, we must remember that uranium must be considered a national resource. Certainly we are involved, through the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of Trade and Commerce -- or Industry, Trade and Commerce at Ottawa, whatever it is -- in giving them our comments on their export permits.

HATE LITERATURE

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, if I could address a question to the Attorney General: With reference to the charges laid by the Toronto police on the question of hate literature and the intended withdrawal of those charges against Crombie, Havers, Chandler and Yorkick, is it because the Attorney General has refused to give his consent to those prosecutions? If not, what discussions has he had about it?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, I’ve read it in the press but I’m not aware of any obligation on the Attorney General to give consent as he must, of course, under certain other legislation like the federal Lord’s Day Act.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): A section of the Code requires the minister’s consent.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m not aware of my consent being required in connection with this. I can tell members, on the particular matter the member for Riverdale refers to, the police did lay three charges under section 281 or whatever it is of the Code --

Mr. Singer: With the consent of the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Clement: With no consent of anyone. They went ahead and laid the charges and when the charges were laid they consulted someone at the Crown attorney’s office -- I believe it was the Crown attorney, Mr. Rickaby -- who was of the opinion that the charges would not stand. Accordingly, I am advised now by reading the press this morning, they are going to be withdrawn.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question, are there at the present time any pending prosecutions, to the knowledge of the Attorney General, on the question of the adequacy of the hate literature provisions of the Criminal Code?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Does the member mean charges being considered or charges already laid pending trial? I don’t understand the question. Does he mean ones being considered by our ministry or people within it or charges which have been laid?

Mr. Renwick: I mean charges which have been laid.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m not aware of any, other than the ones we have touched on in our conversation, or whether there are any charges under that section.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Does it not bother the minister that the Metropolitan Toronto police would be so quick to lay the unusual charges under the hate literature sections of the Criminal Code against a few pathological Maoists who have literature called “Yankee Go Home” during the Shriners’ week but failed to find the opportunity to lay charges involving all of the literature singled out by the Human Rights Commission as offensive to dignity and civil liberties, distributed by the Western Guard, and failed to lay charges around the designing of swastikas and foul obscenities of a racist kind on churches and temples around the city? Doesn’t he find it a peculiar sense of priority on the part of the Toronto police that they would leap in this instance but be so slow in the other?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I think we should separate the various matters touched on by the leader of the New Democratic Party. With regard to the swastikas --

Mr. Lewis: All right, stick with the literature the Human Rights Commission has singled out.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- in those instances and in all instances, as far as I am aware, we don’t know who put them there. They are there in the morning. It’s not a matter of non-policing.

With reference to the other types of literature dealing with various minority groups, these come into the hands of the police, obviously. The Crown attorney is invariably consulted to ascertain if legally, in his opinion, a charge should be laid. Regretfully in many instances the Crown attorney on a pure matter of law is unable to go ahead and process these types of charges. I am not happy with it. I will tell the member that. I have seen a great many types of that literature, as I am sure a number of the members of this House have.

Mr. Lewis: I know the minister is not happy with it. So have I seen such literature.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It is obscene and it’s disgusting, and so on. Yet in a pure legal sense we regretfully have to advise more often than not that we are unable to go ahead by way of prosecution.

RENT CONTROLS

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a final question of the Minister of Housing. Now that the government has got its feet wet in the area of protecting the consumer of the province, what intention does the minister have to introduce, during this session, legislation with respect to either a rent control or a rent review?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That matter, Mr. Speaker, will be determined in the next few days.

Mr. Lewis: Oh!

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing has an answer to a previous question.

Mr. Lewis: The government should have an election every year. It does so much in the six months before it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We would win every one anyway.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, can I have the attention of the member for Scarborough West, please?

Mr. Lewis: Oh, my question? Thank you; good.

OHC LETTER TO TENANTS

Hon. Mr. Irvine: On June 27 the member asked the following question:

Does the Minister of Housing think the tone and contents of a letter written by a senior area supervisor are perhaps harassing and intimidating? Does the insistence of entry into apartments conform to the Landlord and Tenant Act? Will the minister comment on the last paragraph of the letter which reads: “If you have a night chain, please leave it unlocked, so that it will not be necessary to break the locks”?

The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, was referring to and was inquiring about the contents of the letter signed by an OHC senior area supervisor and sent to tenants at 444 Lumsden Ave. in East York. The letter was sent, following complaints from members of the Lumsden Tenants’ Association, in an attempt to identify the location of individually installed washing machines. It was felt that the machines were responsible for a problem of soapsuds backing up in apartment sinks causing offensive odours and also for a threefold increase in the consumption of water at this development in the first quarter of the year compared to the same period last year.

I must agree with the hon. member for Scarborough West, that the tone and contents of the letter are not what one would normally expect. The letter does not reflect OHC procedures and does not conform completely with provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act. Appropriate action has been taken and another letter will be sent to tenants apologizing for any annoyance and inconvenience that the original letter may have caused.

Mr. Lewis: And they didn’t find the washing machines either. He has struck out on all counts.

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

GWELL INVESTMENTS

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. When is he planning to answer my letter of some two months ago, the question I put on the order paper in regard to Gwell Investments and Don Martin of Thunder Bay and the amount of government largesse that he has been able to extract from this ministry for his various enterprises in northwestern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I was of the opinion that we had answered the question, but I shall take it under advisement again.

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

ALLEGED THEFT BY CUPE OFFICIALS

Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. In view of the evidence that has been laid before the Ontario Provincial Police, does he intend to lay charges against the officials of CUPE who stole the money from the Treasury? Is he able to say how much money has been stolen, and does he intend to lay charges against the official of CUPE who has been so strenuously attempting to divert the course of justice by preventing the facts being laid before the OPP?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the member for High Park refers to a matter he discussed with me outside the House, I believe two days ago. Since that time, I understand that the same member has had some discussions with the Ontario Provincial Police.

Mr. Shulman: They have all the documents.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have not received any direct report from the OPP with reference to that particular matter but if, after the discussions with the hon. member for High Park, the police are of the opinion that, indeed, an offence has been committed then, of course, we would be proceeding by way of a charge or charges against those involved.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

QEW RAMPS CONTROL PROBLEM

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Can the minister tell us whether his new median system of controlling ramps on the Queen Elizabeth Way at Highway 10 and Mississauga Rd. is proving satisfactory -- or is it not, in fact, working in reverse?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, we started that system yesterday, and I have had the reports back. It has not been very successful. It has been successful in doing one thing, in hacking up the traffic on the ramp -- that’s about all it has done. Quite frankly, we are not very happy with the way it is working. Delays were created that did cause considerable backup. We are trying to rectify that and hopefully have it moving a lot smoother. It is not working very well.

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

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister of Energy still in the precincts? If not, I will direct my question to the House leader, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the House leader to leave the House dean (Mr. Downer) for a moment and answer a question?

Mr. Reid: Nice to see the member for Dufferin-Simcoe.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am amazed the member for Rainy River can see this far.

Mr. Lewis: Okay, I just wanted to ask him --

An hon. member: He can listen while he is walking.

Mr. Deans: Really, can he do more than one thing at a time?

HYDRO RATE INCREASE

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask the House leader, now that the extravaganza of yesterday is over, is he prepared to indicate to the House --

An hon. member: Does he mean the Shriners’ parade?

Mr. Lewis: Is he prepared to indicate to the House what I understand from well placed and very reliable sources is true? That the government and the cabinet have decided to roll back the Ontario Hydro rate increase at an appropriate moment in time in the very near future -- presumably after the Ontario Energy Board has reported to cabinet -- and can he indicate the basis on which the rollback will be made?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, the informer of the hon. member is not very well informed.

First, let me say that, as I understand it, or believe there can be no increase in any event until Jan. 1.

Mr. Martel: Well after the election, too.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The government will, of course, be guided by the decisions of the Energy Board. Until that time, I don’t think cabinet or any of my colleagues are prepared to make any commitment.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, as he opens another compartment in his political survival kit, is it not true that the word is carefully out that when Ontario Energy Board reports to cabinet on the Hydro rate increase, there is now in preparation a basis on which a public reduction will be indicated applicable for Jan. 1? Is he denying that that will occur?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, I am not denying that will occur, but when policy is determined it will be announced to the Legislature.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that our survival kit is full of scalpels.

Mr. Martel: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: It is certainly inexhaustible.

Mr. Reid: It cuts both ways, too.

Mr. Martel: The price is right in Ontario now.

Mr. Reid: On the other hand, they won’t have any arms left.

Mr. Martel: The price is right; $600 million in debt. We will pay for it after the election.

Mr. Deacon: A question of the Chairman of Management Board: When will the minister answer the question I submitted on March 25 concerning the number of employees under contract on a temporary basis as of Dec. 31, 1974, 1973 and 1972, and what were the total payments made to such persons in the years 1974, 1973 and 1972?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I will have that answer ready just as soon as I possibly can.

Mr. Deacon: It is 3½ months since I asked it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Inasmuch as it is under my jurisdiction, I will do that for the hon. member.

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

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I want to thank the Minister of Transportation and Communications for getting the foreign aircraft off our northern highways as he did yesterday.

Interjections by hon. members.

ACCESS TO AMETHYST MINES

Mr. Stokes: I have a question for him, by the way. Will the minister undertake to assist the amethyst mines in northern Ontario to upgrade the roads so that they can provide more reliable and safe access to the amethyst deposits, now that it seems we are embarking upon a new industrial undertaking surrounding the amethyst mines in northwestern Ontario? Will he undertake to assist those mine operators to upgrade those roads to make them more accessible and safer?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member is going to buy them out with the money he is going to make.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly entertain any request to consider upgrading the roads. It seems to me this possibly could be an area where the Northern Ontario Resources Transportation fund could well be used as a resource; if there is an upgrading required, I would be happy to entertain any request to consider it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

HOME RENEWAL PROGRAMME

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Housing. Could the minister confirm or deny whether a water well is regarded as an improvement item for purposes of an Ontario home renewal loan? If it isn’t, why isn’t it, in view of the allowances for plumbing in cities?

Mr. Lewis: And considering how often one goes to the well.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say I don’t think it is allowable under the home renewal programme. I will look into the matter and contact the member directly to ensure that we are giving the right answer.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: If it isn’t, why isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, I will determine that after I have looked into it.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, the minister will look into it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS OF HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour: Has the minister any further report of progress in giving opportunities for employment to the handicapped?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing further to report to the House at the present time. I indicated to the hon. member that I would start action and I have started action within my ministry to investigate what other jurisdictions are doing, as well as to assemble a selection of reports that the government has already done in connection with this. I hope to study those during the summer and to have something to report in the fall, sir.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

RAILWAY RELOCATION

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister prepared at this time to inform us which four cities are being selected for railway relocation studies?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not. As I told the hon. member last week, we had left the question of selection to the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee and we had requested them to get back to us as quickly as they could. We have as yet not heard from them. We submitted the names of eight municipalities within the province that were ready to go ahead with studies. We asked them to consider possibly four of those eight, and we have not heard back from them as yet.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister inform us as to whether he has set a definite deadline by which they must report the names of the four centres?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There is no definite deadline. What we suggested to them at the time -- and the chairman, Mr. Eggleton, fully agreed -- was that they would get back to us very quickly, before the end of July. We wanted to get it earlier than that if possible, because we would like to get at least four of these studies under way, but we haven’t heard back as yet.

Mr. Speaker: Time is just about up. The member for Sudbury East has a question.

CHILD WELFARE LEGISLATION

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: Has he had an opportunity to present to the policy minister the position paper presented at the meeting on May 3 with respect to rewriting the Child Welfare Act? If so, has he established a date at which time he will reconvene a meeting of those people who were involved to indicate the government’s position with respect to that Act?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker. if the hon. member is referring to the meeting on prevention, I wrote to the hon. members in the last couple of days. If the member hasn’t received my letter, I will send him a duplicate.

Mr. Martel: No, I am speaking about the meeting held in the minister s office on May 13 with respect to the Child Welfare Act and the position paper presented at that time with respect to rewriting that Act. The minister indicated he wanted to take it to the policy ministry and then would give us a reply.

Has that been done? Has he given that position paper to the policy minister and has he decided whether or not he will reconvene the group of people who were in his office to discuss the possibility of establishing a committee to rewrite or redraft the Child Welfare Act?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, there will certainly be amendments to the Child Welfare Act and that will be done in the fall session.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Wardle from the standing miscellaneous estimates committee reported the following resolution:

RESOLVED: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976:

MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION

Ministry administration programme ………………………………………………………$21,923,000

Heritage conservation programme………9,577,000

Arts support programme………………….45,233,000

Multicultural support and citizenship programme ………………………………………………………….6,270,000

Libraries and community information programme …………………………………………………………22,427,000

Sports and fitness programme………… 16,719,000

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I rise to ask for your guidance and assistance. Last evening again we had some difficulty in determining whether a bill was a bill of special interest. You will recall, sir, that early in the session the procedural affairs committee brought in a report which was debated by this Legislature and which contained within it a clause which said that committees studying bills could, if the bill was of special interest, have the proceedings recorded.

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, if it’s of special interest.

Mr. Deans: If they determined the bill was of special interest. Thank you, I think I said that. I have come to the conclusion that it’s virtually impossible to have agreement on what bill is of special interest. The House leader will recall we tried in the House, on the education bill, by having the House approve the recording in advance of the committee hearings. That committee determined the bill was not a special interest bill.

Last evening, in the committee it was tried on the matter of the Environmental Hearing Board bill to determine whether that bill was of special interest and whether the proceedings ought to be recorded. The committee decided on a split -- government versus opposition -- that the bill was not of special interest.

It seems to me that for as long as the government is going to exercise its prerogatives and require its committee members to vote against the recording of any hearing of any bill, we are not going to have anything ever recorded. I spoke with the Clerk and without attributing any words to him -- I leave it up to him to clear it up -- I think he agreed with me that the words “special interest” were very difficult to define and it was very difficult for anyone to determine what, in fact, they meant. To be quite frank, that was one of the points raised by a number of the government backbenchers during the committee hearing -- what did special interest mean?

What I am asking of you today, as the guardian of the rules of the House, is that you require the procedural affairs committee to sit once again and reconsider that clause dealing with special interests. The procedural affairs committee should come forward with a definition in order that we can clearly understand both the procedure to be followed and what will constitute a bill of special interest, so that we don’t run into this problem every single time we in the opposition feel a bill is a particular bill dealing with a matter of concern to a segment of the public and one which should have its deliberations recorded.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I’ll take the member for Wentworth’s comments under advisement. I am not prepared to make a ruling today but I will take it under advisement and I am sure when Mr. Speaker Rowe comes back I’ll advise him of the request made and it can be settled at that time.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, while you are looking into that, also look into the discussion which took place during that committee as to whether cabinet ministers have the right to vote on committees.

Mr. Speaker: I will take that under advisement, too. The member for Algoma.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to take this opportunity to make a special announcement which I know will be of interest to the members of the Legislature. In the recent beauty contest in Niagara Falls, a young lady by the name of Normande Jacques from the famous riding of Algoma, became Miss Dominion of Canada. I am sure the members would appreciate hearing this and I am very happy about it.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Algoma have the beauty queen with him?

Mr. Gilbertson: Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to have her come here and introduce her to the House.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Arrange that; have her sit in the gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.6

Clerk of the House: Government notice of motion No. 6 by Hon. Mr. Clement.

RESOLUTION: That a humble address be presented as follows to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor in Council: We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the legislative assembly of the Province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of Arthur Edward Martin Maloney, one of Her Majesty’s counsel learned in law, as Ombudsman for the Province of Ontario, as provided in section 3 of The Ombudsman Act, 1975, to hold office under the terms and conditions of the said Act.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, in moving the appointment of Mr. Arthur Maloney as the first Ombudsman of Ontario, I am mindful of the historic nature of this occasion. Much has been said about the outstanding qualities and experience which Mr. Maloney will bring to this important position. Perhaps a measure of the esteem in which this gentleman is held is indicated by the readiness with which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) agreed to join me in supporting this motion. This is to me a most gratifying expression of confidence in both the person and the office of the new Ombudsman and augurs well for its success in the future.

At this time, because of the interest in the work of the Ombudsman both on the part of the hon. members and of the general public, I would like to provide a brief explanation of the steps which are proposed to be taken in the summer months to proceed with the establishment of the office.

Mr. Maloney is quite anxious to begin to provide service to the public as soon as possible and a number of members on all sides of this House have expressed similar views. As was indicated earlier, Mr. Maloney has a number of previous commitments until approximately Sept. 2, when it is proposed he will assume office. Mr. Maloney is doing all he can to conclude these commitments, and in the event that he can complete them before that date he will be ready to assume his new responsibilities immediately.

However, after discussions with Mr. Maloney, it has been agreed that the administrative work, accommodation and preliminary staffing for his office should proceed in any case during the summer months, so that he will be in a position to carry out the full responsibilities of his office as soon as he is able to devote his full time to it. To accomplish this, it is proposed that Mr. Maloney should be appointed immediately by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, on the recommendation of this House, with the understanding that he will not be able to assume his duties until on or before Sept. 2. This, however, would permit Mr. Maloney, under the Act, to delegate an official chosen by him to proceed during the summer months with the administrative details of establishing the office.

In addition to shortening the time necessary until the Ombudsman’s office can become fully operational, this arrangement will provide for as full service as possible to the public during this time. During this interim period, it is proposed that Mr. Maloney will not receive his regular salary, but his services will be available in an advisory capacity and he will be reimbursed for such services on a pro-rata basis.

Finally. Mr. Speaker, it is proposed that the oath of office should be administered by the Lieutenant Governor to the new Ombudsman on or before Sept. 2, in commemoration of this significant and historic event. As a matter of fact, just in summing up, Mr. Speaker, I believe that under the Act the oath of office has to be performed by you and not by the Lieutenant Governor, so I would draw that inadvertent remark on my part to the members of the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be associated with the humble address moved by the Attorney General this morning. We have debated the Ombudsman bill here for six, seven perhaps eight years, and it’s gratifying that it has finally been accepted by the House and proclaimed just a day or two ago. The appointment of the Ombudsman himself, of course, is of special interest because the usefulness and effectiveness of the office depend entirely on the ability of the individual who holds it.

I think one of the reasons why we on this side feel the choice was particularly opportune has to do with the undoubted qualifications of the gentleman in his chosen profession. The fact is, he is accepted not only by his profession, but by the community at large, as an outstanding professional person. Personally, I believe the fact that he has had a political career, even though it was in support of the Progressive Conservative Party, gives him that special measure of acceptability which I want to refer to very briefly. In his role as Ombudsman he is going to have to deal with politicians and those people who have been frustrated by politicians. For that reason I feel he will have a special understanding and sensitivity in this role, which a person who had not been immersed in the political maelstrom, I suppose we might call it, would not understand.

So, rather than sort of overcoming his former political involvements, I, and I believe most other people, would consider it almost a prerequisite which he has very strongly attained in his own right for doing his job in a way which we feel would be of most use to the people of this province, and, of course, as a servant of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, we, of course, support the appointment and are happy that it is being made. I have some questions to ask the Attorney General if I may. The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) had intended to ask the questions, but he is in the committee downstairs and that makes it a little awkward.

He had wondered whether, in fact, the oath could be taken while the Legislature was still in session, rather than at some other obscure time in the middle of the summer? It would have made good sense for all of us to be acquainted with Mr. Maloney, for example -- particularly those who are not yet acquainted with him -- and it would be a benefit, we think, to the Legislature and to the public if the oath could be taken right here. We would like to ask if that might not be arranged, sometime between now and a week or so from now when we finally rise.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall when the debate was being undertaken in the House or was under way in the House the member for Riverdale asked with regard to section 16, which deals with the matter of the assembly making general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman, how this was to be undertaken. My understanding is that the Attorney General indicated he thought there would be a select committee to deal with that either while the House was sitting or while the House was not sitting.

I would like to know if there is going to be a statement with regard to that before we rise and appointments made by the various parties involved in order that the rules can be set out in order that the Ombudsman, under sub-section 3 of section 16, can then go ahead with the determination of the procedures which he might want followed by his office, subject of course to the Act and to the rules. Could the Attorney General indicate when this is going to happen so that we could begin the processes of preparing for it?

Other than that, we are delighted that the appointment has been made and we would like to see the job under way and the people of the province in the capable hands of Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, can I join with the Attorney General, my leader and the hon. member for Wentworth in expressing my wholehearted support of this resolution?

I wasn’t able to participate as fully as I would have liked in the debate on the Ombudsman Act as it went through the House. However, I did make some remarks and in essence I repeat them now. It is a good bill and it is long overdue and the first choice of the government to occupy this important position, I think, is an excellent one. I know Arthur Maloney personally and I have known him for a number of years.

I would think one of the best indicators we have had about his ability has been the recent report that he presented to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission insofar as complaint procedures are concerned. We had started on the Solicitor General’s estimates, and one of the remarks I put to the minister was his attitude about that report of Arthur Maloney’s about changing the procedures for complaints in relation to police work. I don’t know if he did answer that or whether it was pursued later on during the course of those estimates, but I think that kind of thing is very important.

The success or failure of this job is going to depend to a very large extent, as I think I did say in the second-reading debate, on the intelligence, ability and sense of fairness that the first occupant brings to the position. For all of the various reasons set out by the Attorney General, by my leader and by many others I think the choice has been an excellent one. We can look forward to a very substantial addition being made to assist the people of Ontario who are concerned about decisions made by civil servants which affect them. These decisions become more complex every day. The ability of the citizen to identify the person who makes decisions affecting him grows less and less. In fact, in most cases he can’t identify the civil servant who makes them. This kind of protection is important. Ontario hasn’t really rushed into the concept but we have it now, and this resolution that is before the House presently is a good one.

I join with the hon. member for Wentworth in the two suggestions be has made. He echoed, I gather, the feelings of the member for Riverdale. I think it would be a good idea. It is going to be quite an historic event when the first Ombudsman for Ontario is sworn in. I think it would be most important if it took place in this chamber while the Legislature was in session. The committee and the terms of reference certainly have to be set up quite quickly. The sooner the Attorney General gets at it the better.

It is indeed a sincere pleasure that I have, Mr. Speaker, in supporting this resolution.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly grateful to those members opposite who have supported me in this resolution. Indeed, I think it must be accepted by the people of this province and, in fact, by the Ombudsman himself as a vote of confidence in the individual whose name we have put forward here today in the resolution under my name and seconded by the member for Brant of the Liberal Party.

I specifically would like to respond to the member for Wentworth, who made certain observations, firstly, that the Ombudsman be sworn in in this House. Under the Act as it is presently drafted, he cannot be sworn in while this House is in session, for the simple reason that immediately he has taken his oath of office he is precluded from undertaking any other activities. He is in the process of winding up his most busy practice of law. So, therefore, it would immediately be a breach of the Act. We’ve had some involved discussions with Mr. Maloney, who is working most arduously in attempting to clean up those commitments in favour of his various clients.

I think, perhaps, the appropriate situation might be this: When the matter is about to take place, I’m confident, Mr. Speaker, that on or before Sept. 2 you will notify all members of the various parties, all members of this House, to give them an opportunity to be here. I know I would like to be here, and I think most of us would if circumstances permit. I think that’s the route that probably will be followed.

With reference to section 16 of the Act dealing with the rules, I think the members can rest assured that they will be hearing from my ministry within the next few days -- that is, within the next week -- as to how the composition of the committee should be effected. I am still not clear in my own mind, and will have something to say on it later, whether it should be, in fact, a select committee or a standing committee of the House. Those who were present during the debate of the bill will remember the matters which were discussed at that time.

Mr. Deans: It can’t be a standing committee if the House isn’t sitting.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, but the committee may well -- we don’t know when the House is going to rise; at least I don’t know that. It may well be that the committee can be created and undertake its task prior to the House adjourning.

Mr. Deans: We can’t have another committee sitting.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m not prepared to debate that. If it requires a select committee then, obviously, that’s the route we will have to take. It will have to be a three-party committee and the guidelines will have to be prepared by that committee, I presume, in consultation with Mr. Maloney in order that the office can be undertaken as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members opposite for their observations. They will be hearing from my ministry within a very few days insofar as the committee is concerned.

Resolution concurred in.

Mr. Speaker: The address shall be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by Mr. Speaker.

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

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 13, An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments on any section of this bill?

On section 1:

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Chairman, last evening I asked that the bill go to committee, because I have some question about the appropriateness of the wording in section 1, subsection 2 (i) (ii), in which it says, “establishes to the satisfaction of the board that he had, for a number of years immediately prior to the death of a contributor” and so on.

I was asking at that time how one might interpret the words “a number of years,” and whether there wasn’t a more suitable phrase to be used which would not make it subject to the discretion of the board, but would, rather, make it equal for all people. That was, from my point of view, the reason why the bill came to committee. I wonder if the minister might be able to tell us something about it. I know he is eager to, in fact.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not being able to answer that question specifically last evening during second reading, but I do have the information available to me now.

In the first sub-subclause, I guess you would say -- that’s (i) (i) -- the reason for specifying the seven years is that in that case we are dealing with a person who is living common law and cannot lawfully be married since he or she has a legal spouse. That is the reason for the seven years, and in this case the lawful widower or widow should not be disinherited through a very short common-law liaison which happened to precede the death of the contributor.

In subclause (ii) we deal with the common-law widower where there was no legal obstacle to a marriage by virtue of a previous marriage existing at the time of the contributor’s death. Here, depending on circumstances, any number of years, interpreted to be more than 12 months, may be sufficient.

Mr. Chairman, the evidence produced to substantiate the claim to common-law relationship to the satisfaction of the board is often very circumstantial evidence, and it is felt that the board should be able to use its discretion and not be tied to a specific period. However, in the absence of a lawful husband or wife, a much shorter period of time than the seven years would usually be accepted.

If, for instance, we put in “three years” specifically in that clause and a very good case was brought forward to the board that happened to be two years and 11 months, it would prevent the board from considering that common-law relationship. That is the reason for the rather open terminology, just referring to “a number of years,” that is in that clause. When one considers the explanation I’ve given, I think the board can very well deal with this type of matter with that discretion.

Mr. Deans: Frankly, in a law of this kind, I would be very reluctant to provide these discretionary powers to an appointed board. If people are entitled to anything then they should be clearly entitled, and the entitlement should be known to them. If they are not entitled, then they should be clearly not entitled. I don’t think there should ever be any question about it. If it’s the minister’s view that a period in excess of 12 months is all that’s required, let’s put that in. Then an individual who looks at the Act under which the superannuation is payable to the widow or widower or spouse of the deceased can clearly tell whether they are eligible or otherwise. All they have to do is prove to the board that they have met the requirement for that period of time. In a number of years the board would change and the circumstances would change. I just don’t believe that is a satisfactory way to write law but that is what we are doing.

Mr. Deans moves that subclause 2 of clause 1 be amended by striking out in the second line “for a number of years” and replacing it with “for a period of time not less than 12 months consecutive.”

Mr. Deans: You may want to change the wording but that is what you said to me in your explanation and I think we should make it clear.

Any person who simply looks at the law then will be able to tell, if they have lived in that relationship for that period of time, they’re entitled to claim. They have to be given very good and justifiable reason why they are deemed not to be eligible.

I realize the wording is a bit sloppy and frankly I would ask that the clerk or someone at the table clean it up a little for me. I wrote it in haste because I didn’t anticipate having to write it.

The period you’ve chosen -- seven years, for example, in clause 1 -- isn’t necessary. Divorces can, of course, be obtained in three and you’ve chosen an arbitrary figure of seven. It could be three; it could be five; it could be anything; You’ve chosen seven. I’m not going to quarrel with you but I feel frankly that in subclause 2 “a number of years” is as ambiguous a term as one could possibly determine. It should be either 12 months or more -- consecutive months; two years if you want; three years if you desire. I am not going to argue about the number of years, but set a term. Make that term the term and then allow everyone to live under exactly the same law with exactly the same interpretation.

It shouldn’t be discretionary, not in a case like this. What you’re talking about is the right of an individual to a pension. That’s what it is. It is entirely possible they could be deprived because the board thought that two years wasn’t enough in that case, for reasons of their personal views; in another case they may think two years would be sufficient because they like the explanation a little better.

That’s not how you write law. I would ask, if you think 12 months is satisfactory, make it 12 months. If you think two years, make it two years but don’t leave it like that. That’s not good enough.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, I was rather interested in the amendment suggested by the member for Wentworth when the matter came up last evening. So far as I can recall, the only seven-year requirement which comes immediately or quickly to mind in the operation of law is one that deals with the presumption of death; where a person has not been heard from for that period. After a seven-year term, on application to the courts one can obtain a certificate with respect to presumption of death which would probably allow the remarriage of the applicant.

In this case, I am rather attracted to the idea put forward by the member for Wentworth to have the same period of time, whatever that may be, in the two subsections. He mentioned that, as is the case, a three-year term is now the minimum time for a divorce action based upon separation of the parties. I would think that three or perhaps five years, whichever might be considered a reasonable amount of time, should be clearly set out in the Act in both of the subsections so that, whether the persons were unable to marry or chose not to marry and yet carried on a relationship of husband and wife within the terms of that section, the law would be clear and the various rights that are acceptable to us, more so in this day and age than perhaps they were in past years, would be clearly known to both parties.

I would appreciate hearing from the minister, first of all, why the seven-year term is considered to be reasonable in the first item and why this very general number of years term is considered to be satisfactory in the second. I would have thought, as I’ve said, that both should be the same and that both probably could be effectively attended to when you’ve decided upon a certain term of a period of three or five years.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, the reason for the seven years is that before in the previous legislation -- the federal legislation -- as I understand it, the automatic divorce more or less could be obtained in three years. This matter is under consideration by the board and the Civil Service Commission but it has not been decided to proceed with changing that seven years at this time. This is under consideration. Personally, I think under the other relationship that seven years would be too long. I think in all cases of a common-law relationship such as this there has to be evidence given to the satisfaction of the board that this common-law relationship did exist.

I’m concerned about trying to define when the relationship started or whether it was totally continuous or not, regardless of whether you put a term in here of, say, three years. If, just off the top of my head at this moment I were going to consider a term, I think probably I would like to see two or three years. There is still such a lot of subjective judgement or whatever you may wish on behalf of the board in accepting the evidence as to the existence of the relationship that there is no way of making it straight black and white down the centre line the way the hon. member for Wentworth has suggested.

Mr. Breithaupt: Maybe, Mr. Chairman, the matter could be resolved quite easily if simply the words “for a number of years” are removed, so that the subsection would begin “establishes to the satisfaction of the board that he had immediately prior to the death” etc. It may be, since it’s going to be dependent upon the satisfaction of the board anyway, that there is no point in having in this phrase “for a number of years.”

Mr. Deans: I don’t object.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think it is satisfactory.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I have no real objection to that type of amendment. We would also have to prepare and introduce another amendment to section 1, subsection 1 (h) (ii) in the original Act where on page 1 of the Act, if you have it handy, the same wording exists. It reads, “establishing to the satisfaction of the board that she had for a number of years immediately prior to the death” and so on. “A number of years” is in the existing Act now and that’s why --

Mr. Breithaupt: If the minister would accept bringing in that suggested amendment now and tying it together with this, perhaps we would be making a more reasonable approach by simply striking out those five words in the two locations in which they exist.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I am prepared to do that. It may take me a moment to get the proper wording prepared.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I have qualms. In order to make this easier, I am quite prepared to accept this; it is satisfactory to me. I just don’t want to see the term “for a number of years” in there, because I don’t want anybody arguing about it. I was quite content, as you know, that the individual should establish to the satisfaction of the board that they had lived together immediately prior to the death. All I was trying to do was to establish something more definite with regard to the period.

Mr. Breithaupt: It doesn’t solve your problem.

Mr. Deans: It doesn’t really resolve the problem; “immediately” then becomes the key word, rather than the “number of years.” It’s not exactly what I had in mind, but if you are satisfied -- that is, if an individual is able to satisfy the board that they had lived together immediately prior to the death of the contributor in the way in which it is set out in the bill -- then I am satisfied too.

I am a bit worried about the word “immediately” now. How do we interpret that? Does “immediately prior” mean two or three weeks or two or three months? I don’t know. Let’s read it for the moment. Section 1(1)(ii) says:

“Establishes to the satisfaction of the board that he had, immediately prior to the death of a contributor with whom he had been residing, been maintained and publicly represented by the contributor as her husband, and that at the time of the death of the contributor, neither he nor the contributor was married to any other person.”

Could somebody give me the legal definition of the word “immediately”? Now you have got it, it doesn’t take a year. What you are saying is that as long as it was thought by others living around that the individual was being represented as the husband of -- let me put it this way, if he received mail and that mail -- well, in that case of a husband it doesn’t really count; as I say, in the case of a wife it is clearer, because if it was addressed to a Mrs. then obviously it could be easily interpreted. How would you go about proving such a thing, that “immediately prior” you had been represented as a husband? How do you do that? How would it be done legally?

Hon. Mr. Snow: My understanding would be that they would have to satisfy the board that it was immediately prior. If you did not have the word “immediately,” to my way of thinking a contributor could have had one or more common-law relationships over a period of years or a contributor could have had a common-law relationship 10 or 20 years ago that would then be meaningless in the current context. I don’t see any way you are going to put everything in black and white in this type of a matter without giving some discretion to the board.

Mr. Deans: I think that this should be for a 12-month period. I am back to where I started. I frankly think it should be for the 12 consecutive months immediately prior to the death. I don’t think that “immediately” is good enough. I don’t think just simply striking out “a number of years” does the job. I think that we would all agree that the relationship should have been of some duration. You would agree with me on that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We are not talking about one-night stands.

Mr. Deans: But provided he can prove that he was represented publicly as the husband immediately prior -- what I am suggesting to you is this, why don’t we say that it is for a 12-month period, the 12 consecutive months prior to the death? Then it is clear. I think it is a reasonable period of time and establishes, in this day and age, a lasting relationship; it might not have 10 years ago. But why don’t you rib it that way instead of getting hung up? I don’t see how you can interpret it properly and adequately if you don’t have some period of time. It seemed to me that 12 months is an adequate period of time in which to establish a relationship if we are going to do this.

Hon. Mr. Snow: My advisers have advised me that in interpreting the Act in the past they work from the date of death. “Immediately” means right up to the date of death and they get this evidence from friends, relatives or whoever may be able to give it.

After considering this, I am certainly not worried at all about the way it is written. I am concerned about taking the number of years or any period of time out because I am really concerned about someone coming up with substantial evidence that someone had been represented as a wife for a week or two weeks or something, which I don’t think is the intent of the legislation.

Mr. Deans: I agree with you, but “a number of years” doesn’t solve that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I agree that “a number of years” leaves the discretion. I am not prepared to take “a number of years” out and not to have any time limit. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept or to make an amendment reducing it to a minimum of 12 months consecutive, immediately prior to the death of the contributor.

Mr. Deans: Thank you very much, I appreciate that.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): True Tory.

Mr. Chairman: May I have something in writing to that effect?

Mr. Deans: That’s what I have given you, actually; you may not be able to read it. I have scribbled what I said.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, if I may. On that amendment, we will get you the proper wording for it if the hon. member for Wentworth will agree.

Mr. Deans: I am quite content to have it reworded.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The amendment will have to apply to both this clause in the amending Act as well as a corresponding clause in the main Act. If the hon. member will agree to have this time limit put in both those clauses we will get the proper wording of the amendment.

Mr. Deans: I agree without any question. I knew the wording wasn’t very tidy.

Mr. Chairman: I think the committee understands the principle of Mr. Deans’ amendment, now accepted by the minister on the proviso that it will be given the proper wording.

Mr. Deans: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Snow moves that the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Wentworth pertain to clause (h) (ii) as well.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything else on this bill? Shall the bill be reported?

Sections 2 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 103, as amended, reported.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

STOCK YARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Eaton, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Stewart moves second reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Stock Yards Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Speaker, I really see no objections to this bill, but there are a few things I would like clarified. At the present time, the surplus moneys of the Ontario Stock Yards Board are deposited in the consolidated revenue fund and constitute a fund known as the livestock improvement fund, and now the surplus moneys are to be deposited into the consolidated revenue fund and shall constitute a fund to be known as the Ontario Stock Yards Board reserve fund.

My question is: What has the money that has been deposited in the livestock improvement fund as it existed under the original Act been used for, and how is the use of that money going to differ from the use of the money which will be deposited into the reserve fund? I note here that the interest from this fund will be used by the board for the operation of its undertakings, and the principal of the fund may be used from time to time by the board for any purpose approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the board and the minister.

In other words, what does the parliamentary assistant anticipate such funds will be used for? And if there happens to be a surplus in any one particular year that exceeds the $500,000, what is to become of that money? Is it to be turned into the consolidated revenue fund to be used for purposes other than for the operation of the stockyards, or will it be laid aside and perhaps used another year if the surplus is not just quite as great and does not come up to the $500,000 level?

These are the only comments that I wish to make at the present time. I just ask for a little clarification on what the money is going to be used for now, and what it was used for when it was deposited in the consolidated revenue fund and constituted a fund known as the livestock improvement fund?

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to take part in this debate? The parliamentary assistant.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Mr. Speaker, just to clarify some of the points that the member for Huron raised, first of all, there have been no funds accumulated in the past, so there haven’t been any funds to be used.

The use of the money will differ to some extent, in that it was designated there for the livestock improvement fund and I suppose could have been used in many different ways outside the use directly for the stockyards. Under this, it will be used for purpose of the stockyards -- the member mentioned two or three things -- and it could be used for improvements there.

If the surplus fund should exceed $500,000 then it must be used to reduce the fees at the yard so that the fund doesn’t in fact, accumulate over $500,000. I guess that pretty well covers the points that were raised.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 115, an Act to amend the Stock Yards Act.

ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL MUSEUM ACT

Mr. Eaton, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Stewart, moves second reading of Bill 116, the Ontario Agricultural Museum Act, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, briefly on this bill, in some ways it’s a housekeeping bill. I was just noticing in one of the sections where it says “the minister is responsible for the administration of this Act,” which I suppose was left out before by some errors. But the Ontario Agricultural Museum Advisory Board is continued. I noticed in another section of the Act that the word “persons” in the public service was changed to “members” in the public service. I suppose that’s a technicality -- not being a lawyer -- but they probably found over a period of years that maybe that should be changed.

There are one or two new other items in it. One I was noticing, Mr. Speaker -- it was in the old Act as well -- and I don’t propose an amendment on it. But I just want to mention the fact. It is section 4, subsection 2:

“The board shall consist of not fewer than five and not more than 11 members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, of whom at least two shall be members of the public service of Ontario.”

I feel that no member of the Legislature should be a member of the board. This has been brought up a number of times previously by my leader (Mr. R. F. Nixon), and the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer), and I have a feeling myself that members of the Legislature should not be on the board.

I was wondering about subsection 4 of section 4, which says:

“Members of the board, other than full-time members of the public service of Ontario, shall receive such remuneration and expenses as the Lieutenant Governor in Council determines.”

This is new. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could tell us what remuneration the previous board was receiving, if any.

On subsection 5, regarding term of appointment it says:

“A member of the board may be appointed for a term not exceeding three years, but may be reappointed for one or more further terms.”

That’s the same as in the present Act, but I feel myself is that here should be a limitation of perhaps nine years in serving on a board such as this. I look at it in other areas, co-operatives and credit unions and so forth, where you can have your three-year appointment -- three years in a row -- and then after that you must go off the board for at least a year to be eligible to be re-elected or reappointed, as the case may be.

I think this is a good thing. It may mean sometimes that a person doesn’t necessarily want to get off, but by the time the nine years are up, he’s willing to say: “Thank you very much, I’ve enjoyed the nine years. I think I’ll let somebody else do it now.” And he can gracefully bow out, and it gives an opportunity for someone else to come in to take over.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): That’s what the people of Essex-Kent are saying about their member in the Legislature.

Mr. Ruston: We’re talking about appointments here. There is a little difference.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): After three elections he may agree.

Mr. Ruston: Yes, there is a little difference. When people go to the ballot, that is a little different, and I am sure the member for Lambton is aware of that, being one of the politicians who has been around for a while.

I think that has some good points to it. On the nine-year limitation someone will say, of course, that one of the board members is doing a very good job and shouldn’t have to get off. However, I am sure there are other people who would be able to do as good a job if they were given the opportunity. It spreads it around and gives more people an opportunity. It brings new blood into it, too, new ideas. I think it has some merits which the parliamentary assistant might consider in the future.

I notice in section 13 that the accounts and financial transactions of the museum shall be audited annually by the Provincial Auditor and, of course, this is new. We are happy to see this because, dealing with public accounts as a member of the public accounts committee, I find we have these boards and commissions -- there are so many in the province. I sometimes wonder if the Premier (Mr. Davis) has some kind of a computer which keeps track of all the names of people eligible to be appointed to boards and commissions. Maybe he punches a little button some place and, if it has to do with agriculture, he must have a list of people in the computer who would be eligible to be appointed to a board which has to do with agriculture; or with education.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): They just have to be members of the Tory party, don’t they?

Mr. Ruston: He must have quite a computer system set up of names of those who are eligible to be appointed to some of these boards.

Mr. Henderson: It is getting longer; more and more of them.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ruston: It is strange when I mention that I get a little rumble from the back rows across the way. It is nice to know they are listening anyway. It is kind of strange where all these appointments come from. I wonder if there are that many Conservatives around the province -- I don’t think there are that many right now but there have been.

Anyway, that’s beside the point, Mr. Speaker. I do wonder at all these appointments, how many boards and commissions we have, and the appointments made.

I think that is all I have with regard to this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Breithaupt: Has he got his overalls on?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I have my overalls on, speaking on behalf of all of the farmers in my riding. I would like to ask something about the reporting procedures -- I don’t imagine we are going into committee, are we?

Mr. Eaton: We can if the member wants.

Mr. Deans: No, I don’t want to. Let me deal with it this way then. As far as the bill itself is concerned, it is fine but I want to get some clarification on section 12.

In the new section, it says, “The chief executive officer of the museum shall make such reports to the minister as the minister from time to time may require.” I would have thought that report would automatically have become part of the annual report of the minister to the Legislature. The minister would be reporting on the matters of the museum board and the chief executive officer’s report to the minister would automatically become part of the annual report. The Legislature would be informed as to matters which have been raised during the course of the year and the requirement on the chief executive officer would be an annual requirement rather than from time to time.

I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant if he wouldn’t consider making it that way so that section 12 would read, that the minister shall make a report annually upon the affairs of the museum and shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the Assembly if it is in session; if not, at the next ensuing session. And 2, the chief executive officer of the museum shall make an annual report to the minister or shall report from time to time as the minister may require and such reports shall be contained within the next year’s annual report.

The reason I am saying it is because while we certainly enjoy getting reports from the minister, we would enjoy a lot more getting reports from the person who is responsible. That happens, in this case, to be the chief executive officer. I would like to make sure the requirement on the chief executive officer to report would be an annual requirement and that we would also have access to it. Since we have to suffer through the reports themselves, we should at least get some of the meat and some of the actual feelings of what is going on within the operation. Would the parliamentary assistant not then consider making the chief executive officer’s report an annual one to the minister, or as the minister may require from time to time, which is in addition to the annual report, and that such report shall be contained in and be part of the annual report of the minister to the Legislature?

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to take part? The member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this advisory board I am wondering how many are on the board at the present time and who are the members of the board. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could provide us with the names. I would also be interested in knowing what these members are being paid.

Then in connection with explanatory note No. 2 provision is made for the appointment of a chief executive officer of the museum and his staff. Do I assume that there is not a chief executive officer appointed at the present time? If there is one appointed, I would be interested in knowing who he is and what he is being paid. If there is not a chief executive officer at the present time, I would assume the parliamentary assistant wouldn’t know at this time who he might be, but I would be interested in knowing what salary the chief executive officer will be paid.

I think that is the only comment I wish to make at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter this debate? The parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Eaton: I want to make a few comments on the points that the members have raised. First of all, the member for Essex-Kent inquired as to the payment of the previous board and what their remuneration was. The previous board was paid under the guidelines laid down by Management Board. The fees were $110 per diem for the chairman while the members of the board were paid at the rate of $85 per day. Mileage rates are paid to them at the rate that is prescribed under the government regulations.

In regard to the three-year terms he referred to and the limiting of them to nine, as he says, there may well be someone on there that we wish to keep beyond nine years. Certainly we will take the points that he made into consideration in reappointing people as those terms come up. I am sure that I can assure him that there are lots of good Conservatives around with great talent who we can continue to appoint to the board, but we do stray from that and we do appoint some others who are equally qualified.

In regard to the member for Wentworth’s point on the annual report to the minister, it was put in there so that the minister can report or ask for reports at other times and can get reports in between. It’s much like any branch of our ministry in that they report to the minister. In the beginning of it, as it is pointed out there, the minister is the person responsible for the administration of the Act and not particularly the chief executive officer, as was indicated. The report will form part of the report of the minister at the time he reports on the ministry each year. I really can’t see the necessity of having the chief executive officer print one specific annual report each year to be distributed for that specific project within the ministry; otherwise one could carry that through to each branch of our ministry and to each operation carried on by the ministry.

Mr. Deans: This is a different matter altogether; this isn’t like a branch of the ministry.

Mr. Eaton: The way it is structured and the way it is set up within the ministry it is. I can look at other facilities that we operate within the ministry -- the agricultural colleges and these sort of things; they don’t give annual reports that are tabled here in the House. They come in as part of the total report of the ministry.

Mr. Deans: Yes, but they must report annually.

Mr. Eaton: Oh yes, to the minister, but not to the Legislature.

Mr. Deans: There is no requirement in law for this group to report annually. There is such a requirement on the minister.

Mr. Eaton: The minister must make an annual report on it, so he has to get that information from the museum board and from the chief executive officer of the museum. He certainly won’t just be doing that annually; it will be a continuing contact and I would hope for a number of reports during the year on the activities of the museum.

Mr. Deans: Well may I ask -- I realize I am out of order but --

Mr. Speaker: I think we should go to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Deans: Let’s go to committee now and I can talk all I want to.

Mr. Eaton: Okay. Before we do that, I will make some comments on the points that the member for Huron raised. He raised the question as to the number of members on the board. There are eight at the present time. I have the list of names of the members. The chairman is David Pallette. William Amos is on it; Carm Hamilton, Mrs. Saunders, Mrs. Charlton, R. F. Cooper, Gordon Smith --

Mr. Ferrier: Is that Gordon Smith, MPP?

Mr. Eaton: Yes, Gordon Smith, MPP.

Mr. Riddell: He is a member?

Mr. Eaton: Yes. And William Shillinglaw, I think the writing says. I mentioned to the member for Huron that the remuneration was $110 for the chairman and $85 for the members. In the previous setup there was a manager and the manager was Bob Carbert. Bob will be the chief executive officer, and his current salary is $20,235 a year. I believe that covers all the points that the member for Huron raised. If members wish to proceed to committee I am agreeable.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Deans: No.

Mr. Ferrier: Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House.

Clerk of the House: Order for committee of the whole House.

ONTARIO ACRICULTURAL MUSEUM ACT

House in committee on Bill 116, the Ontario Agricultural Museum Act.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you. This should be brief; I just didn’t want to get it passed without discussing it for a moment.

Mr. Chairman: Could I ask the hon. member what section he is on?

Mr. Deans: Section 12.

Mr. Chairman: Could I ask, first, are there any comments before section 12? The hon. member for Wentworth.

Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 12:

Mr. Deans: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. All I am really suggesting is that it doesn’t weaken the section at all; it strengthens it. But it seemed to me that since this is, in fact, not like a branch but is, rather, a separate group set up under an Act of its own, it should be clear that the chief executive officer has an obligation to prepare an annual report. It should be stated in the Act that the chief executive officer should be obliged by law to prepare an annual report and that he or she should then be required, in addition to make such reports to the minister as the minister from time to time may require.

For example, I don’t want there to be a time when someone is able to say: “Wait a minute, they don’t have to report annually. All they have to do is report when the minister asks for it.” Some minister, at some point, inadvertently or because of the pressure or whatever, might not ask.

Since the minister has an obligation to prepare an annual report, it would seem to me that the chief executive officer should have a similar obligation; in addition, he should have an obligation to report to the minister from time to tune as the minister may require. That was all I was about. It’s not weakening it at all. I thought it was strengthening it a little.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): You’re not suggesting that the report come here but that there be an annual report to the ministry?

Mr. Deans: The reason I raised it is because I had hoped that the annual report of the chief executive officer would form part of the report of the minister to the Legislature. That’s where I started out, that the annual report of the chief executive officer would form part of the report to the minister.

The minister may want to report on other matters other than those things contained within the annual report and likely he would want to report on other matters. I’m just interested in making sure that there is an annual report, that that annual report is part of the annual report of the minister and that, in addition to whatever other information the minister requires in order to carry out his functions as the Minister of Agriculture and Food, he can require the chief executive officer of the museum to report as he wishes from time to time.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member define the actual wording? I think there would only be two or three words involved.

Mr. Deans: Yes, I would have thought it might have read as follows: “12(2): The chief executive officer of the museum shall make an annual report and, in addition, shall make such reports to the minister as the minister from time to time may require.”

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other speakers on this section?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): That is interesting, Mr. Chairman, although under section 13 the auditor had to make a report annually.

The other thing I’m concerned about is the chief executive officer and his powers. Does the board have the power to operate the museum or does the ministry? This actually ties in with section 6(2), which I know we have passed but which says: “The chief executive officer shall have the management and administration of the museum, subject to the supervision and direction of the minister.” Maybe the parliamentary assistant might be able to clear that up.

I have no objection to what the member for Wentworth is suggesting, that there should be an annual report, but I would think that when the auditor has to make an annual audit of the books, we would have an annual report automatically.

Mr. Deans: The auditor only deals with financial things.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other inquiries?

Mr. Deans: I’m just curious. I want to know why the parliamentary assistant is not going to accept it; I want to know why he wouldn’t accept it in the first place.

Mr. Chairman: Does the parliamentary assistant wish to respond?

Mr. Eaton: I’m not sure that I’m not going to accept it. I’m just checking with our legal people on the possible wording.

Mr. Deans: I’m happy to have other wording. I just want to be sure that there is an obligation, that’s all. I think it’s part of our job to make sure that bodies that we establish by law are obliged by law to report annually.

Mr. Eaton: Right. Excuse me, while I confer for a minute.

Mr. Deans: Yes, sure, by all means.

Mr. Eaton: I am prepared to accept an amendment with the wording after the word “shall” so that section 12(2) will read:

“The chief executive officer of the museum shall make a report annually and make such reports to the minister as the minister from time to time may require.”

Mr. Deans: Thank you. I would be delighted to move such an amendment.

Mr. Chairman: I think the parliamentary assistant has made the motion.

Mr. Deans: I think I already did. It’s no different from what I asked, so it doesn’t really matter.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 12 as amended carry?

Mr. Deans: I think you have to have it in writing somewhere, don’t you?

Mr. Chairman: Could the parliamentary assistant supply the amendment in writing?

Mr. Eaton: I am sorry. I didn’t get the complete context of what the member for Essex-Kent was saying; on which section it was.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I was asking about the powers of the chief executive officer. Actually it comes in sections 2 and also 12, where he is under the supervision of the minister. I was wondering what power the board has in this case?

Mr. Eaton: To the member for Essex-Kent. through you, Mr. Chairman, the board is an advisory board. It really doesn’t have powers. The chief executive officer has power through the minister, the same as any other operating branch of the ministry.

Mr. Chairman: We now have the amendment from the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Eaton moves that subsection 2 of section 12 be amended to read:

“The chief executive officer of the museum shall make a report annually and such report to the minister as the minister from time to time may require.”

Motion agreed to.

Sections 12 to 14, as amended, agreed to.

On section 15:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Section 15 says, “The moneys required for the purposes of this Act shall be paid out of the moneys appropriated therefor by the Legislature.”

As elected representatives we like to think we are spending the taxpayers’ dollar wisely. I’m wondering what kind of a drawing card does this museum have and does it have its own source of revenue? In other words, is there a charge to get into the museum? Are there ever donations made to the museum? Or does it rely solely on the moneys appropriated by the Ontario Legislature?

Mr. Eaton: Of course it isn’t open yet so there are no charges yet. But the Act allows the fees for entry to be fixed. There are donations made in the way of material goods to the museum and any funds which can be raised from the entrance fee will be used toward it.

We’ve had to purchase some of the items in the museum. Sometimes we’ve had to purchase collections to get an item we wanted; there may be two or three other items in the collection and those can be sold under the terms of the Act and moneys returned through that method. Otherwise it will be from funds which, of course, will appear in the estimates of the ministry.

Mr. Riddell: When is the museum scheduled to be opened? Have you any idea?

Mr. Eaton: I can’t give you a firm date on that. Things are proceeding quite well. They are on schedule out there and hopefully it might be this year.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): During the election?

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive agreed to.

Bill 116, as amended, reported.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House reports one bill with a certain amendment and begs leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 116, the Ontario Agricultural Museum Act, 1975.

PREGNANT MARE URINE FARMS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Eaton, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Stewart, moves second reading of Bill 104, an Act to amend the Pregnant Mare Urine Farms Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): It would appear that this is strictly a housekeeping bill, and I’m sorry that I didn’t have a chance to look at the --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Is that the member for Huron?

Mr. Riddell: Right. Unfortunately, the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) cannot be with us today to debate these bills as he does have an illness; I know he would like to be here. I didn’t know that he wouldn’t be here and I didn’t have a chance to look at the original bill, but in the explanatory notes it indicates the subsection being repealed provides that no member of the Pregnant Mare Urine Licence Review Board shall hold office for more than five consecutive years. Does that mean that the subsection now provides this, or that the amended section provides that no member of the Pregnant Mare Urine Licence Review Board shall hold office for more than five consecutive years?

If that is the case, what is the situation at the present time? How long can they hold office?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue):

It is now five years. This bill changes that.

Mr. Riddell: Well then, what is the change?

Hon. Mr. Meen: There’s no limit.

Mr. Riddell: There is no limit now. They can hold office indefinitely?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Does the member want me to answer?

Mr. Riddell: Well, why in the previous bill does it stipulate that an advisory board member can only hold office for three years -- and then be re-appointed -- and now we are saying that a board member in this particular instance can hold office for an indefinite period of time? There doesn’t seem to be any consistency here. Is it a case of new blood not adding something to this particular board?

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to take part in this debate?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): It may surprise the minister to know what I have to say.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That he doesn’t know a damn thing about it.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: And what I have to say to the minister is this, that I can’t for the life of me find anything in here that I could amend. And so, therefore, we approve.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Would be please give that line to the member for Ottawa Centre?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. parliamentary assistant.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): In response to the questions raised by the member for Huron, the limit in there was five years. That is what is being taken out, so it is now at the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The reason is that some of the people on the board have now served their five years. As one can well recognize by the Act, there are a limited number of people who have much knowledge or experience in this area, and it is to enable some of those people to carry on.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 104, an Act to amend the Pregnant Mare Urine Farms Act, 1975.

DRAINAGE ACT

Mr. Eaton, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Stewart, moves second reading of Bill 130, the Drainage Act, 1975.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask, particularly based upon the reports received in the document background presented by the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. In the issue No. 7514 of July 2, there are comments from the hon. Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) with respect to the following point:

“The amendments to the Drainage Act will be introduced this session and allowed to sit over the summer so that municipal elected representatives and appointed officials will have the opportunity to study the legislation.”

I’m wondering as a result of that apparent comment of the Treasurer whether it is really the intention to call this order at this time or to have this bill stand over. Of course, there may be some other decisions which had been made but it would appear that this is a rather substantial piece of legislation that has been introduced after lengthy deliberations by the select committee.

Mr. Stokes: They wanted to deliberate another year.

Mr. Breithaupt: I don’t know that the deliberations have to continue another year but it certainly would appear prudent, where this bill has just been introduced in the last week, to allow those areas of the province particularly affected and interested in this new kind of legislative approach to have some time to review the legislation.

I see the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) who was chairman of the committee is in the House. I don’t know what the intention was, whether it was to proceed at this time or not, or whether the bill was then going to go to standing committee or what it might be. But if that was the comment of the Treasurer, perhaps some thought could be given as to just how we are to handle this bill so that the outside encouragement of municipal elected and appointed officials will be allowed to take place.

Mr. Speaker, on several occasions we have seen bills introduced and, as a result of comments which could make for a better bill, amendments were then received when we went into committee of the whole House or to standing committee. This is surely a better way of making legislation than bringing in a bill now which might indeed be improved upon after there are certain positive comments received by the ministry. Perhaps we could hear the intention of the parliamentary assistant just so that we know which of these paths is going to be followed.

Mr. Speaker: Before we do that, we will have any other comments. The member for Cochrane South.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): I would like to speak on the same point of order. I have the same piece of material from TEIGA before me. If we go ahead with second reading, I would like to have some kind of a commitment that there will be provision for committee work and that this bill will proceed through all the stages before we rise for the summer. Otherwise, I don’t see much to be gained by going through a second reading debate and then letting it sit on the order paper when the likelihood of an election coming in the fall will mean that no further action will be taken.

If we do go to second reading I hope there will be provision for the municipal people to appear before a standing committee to air their opinions on the bill or else the bill should be stood over and introduced at another session.

Mr. Speaker: I am going to suggest we confine our remarks to this particular point. The member for Lambton.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the legislative assembly. I might say since the report was tabled in the Legislature a little over a year ago, I have had the opportunity of speaking to the Association of Rural Municipalities of Ontario. I’ve had an opportunity of speaking to the Ontario Municipal Association. I also spoke to the municipal people in that area of Ontario where the majority of the drainage is -- in southwestern Ontario, my home area. I’ve spoken to the Contractors Association of Ontario, the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario. Although I haven’t spoken to the actual Ontario Federation of Agriculture, I have had input from them to me as the former chairman of the committee. All of these people were very anxious that the bill be brought into the House and that the legislation be enacted as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the bill following whatever the parliamentary assistant says, because I do have some other comments that I want to make on second reading. I’ll just leave it that all of these people and all of the associations that are involved with it have asked for speedy passage of this. The Ontario Municipal Association appointed Mr. Ralph Gagner, the clerk of Dover township in Kent county and Mr. Donald Williams, the president of the Association of Rural Municipalities of Ontario. I might say Don is a reeve in one of the townships in my constituency. I met with these two men last Tuesday morning. I spent Tuesday morning with them. We went over the bill clause by clause and they are very happy with the bill, but I wouldn’t guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that they don’t want some minor amendments. I would leave it like that.

Mr. Deans: If I may, Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point raised by the member for Kitchener, corroborated by my colleague from Cochrane South, it’s out a matter of whether some people are happy to go ahead or not. It’s a matter of a commitment made by the Treasurer of the province just seven days before the bill was introduced. On June 20 at the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee in response to questions stated, as the member for Kitchener has accurately put on the record, that the amendments to the Drainage Act would be introduced this session and allowed to sit over the summer so that elected municipal representatives and appointed officials will have the opportunity to study the legislation. It was introduced, as he said it would be, on June 27.

I think it fair and that we have an obligation at this point to ask that it not be proceeded with further until the parliamentary assistant has an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Treasurer. If the Treasurer and the parliamentary assistant sort out the obvious difference of opinion, then we could proceed on Monday. We are not going to get much dune between now and 1 o’clock anyway. I think that it would be good common sense that we not go back on a commitment made by the Treasurer without the Treasurer first having been informed that the parliamentary assistant, acting on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, desired to proceed.

Mr. Speaker: The parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Eaton: Just to comment on the items that have been raised by the members in this regard, I wasn’t aware of that printed statement going out from the Treasurer and I certainly will be consulting with him in that regard. It was our intention to go ahead with the bill and to have some consultation with some of the people involved. In fact, I have arranged one meeting for next week.

However, I don’t see a great need for letting it sit over the whole summer --

Mr. Deans: Talk to the Treasurer about that.

Mr. Eaton: -- because, as members well know, the drainage committee travelled this province and met with all these people. The recommendations that are being brought forth in the bill are the recommendations that were put forth by many of these people. These are the recommendations we are acting on. It has been some period of time since this Act has been reviewed. We’ve had quite a number of urgings to get on with this legislation and to get it in place so that it can be made use of.

Mr. Stokes: It would be a good idea if the parliamentary assistant told the Treasurer that.

Mr. Eaton: We have had, as the member for Lambton mentioned, some consultation in the last while with some of these organizations that are involved --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Not all of them.

Mr. Eaton: -- including the Federation of Agriculture. The member for Lambton didn’t say he had contact with them but I have had contact with them.

Mr. Reid: Did he contact them the way he talked to the Clerk on another matter?

Mr. Eaton: I feel we should be proceeding at this time with second reading of the bill. We will be going to committee of the whole House and we will be bringing in some amendments ourselves in regard to the bill. If we get through second reading at this point, we will be able to meet and discuss with these people next week and continue to work on the legislation and put it through if we can work out the problem, with the Treasurer, of making a commitment. I think he can consult with these people and clear that fact.

Mr. Deans: Could we do it Monday rather than today?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is irregular but might I make a suggestion? We are not suggesting the bill be put over for the summer because, of course, that had nothing to do with any comments made on this side of the House.

I would suggest it might be prudent, in order to resolve any problem, that this order be put over until Monday to continue with second reading, if the member wishes to do so, after he has perhaps had the opportunity of discussing it with the Treasurer so that everyone knows what the situation is. It may well be that on Monday, it being the wish of the House, the decision will be made to proceed with second reading. Of course, it is up to the government to make that decision but I think it would be helpful if it were put over until Monday so that any possible embarrassment could be avoided.

Mr. Stokes: Since the Tories have talked to everybody else it will give them a chance to talk to one another.

Mr. Eaton: He is aware of the fact that we are proceeding with second reading of it. We have discussed this with the House leader and so on as far as proceeding with second reading and then going to committee is concerned. We can make a decision then whether we let it sit or continue in committee.

He is aware that we are proceeding with second reading of it and I would like to see it continue now. We have a half an hour and we can get the comments of at least one speaker on the bill. Some of the people who were involved in the committee wish to make comments on it and we would like to get those comments now.

Mr. Speaker: We have the motion for second reading. The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, this is quite an important bill. I was following the discussion in the last few minutes and I was concerned as well.

Only last week I was talking with some people in the area and when I told them there was a flew Drainage Act coming up they were quite anxious to find out about it. I told them my understanding was it wasn’t to be passed until fall. I had read the same article the member for Kitchener had, saying it wouldn’t be passed and it was going to stay on the order paper for the summer for people -- engineers, municipal officials and so forth -- to have a chance to peruse it and make any recommendations for changes.

I know the drainage report was far-reaching. This bill, of course, doesn’t cover the complete report. There are some things in the report which are not in the bill; of course, we have that with any select committee which makes a report. Naturally, all the things aren’t in the bill. We found the same with one of the committees I was involved in and when the bill was brought in there were some changes made to it in the Legislature. No doubt there will have to be some changes made in this, I would assume, in processing it from second reading on.

If it is the desire of the government to go ahead with it before the summer recess it would appear to me that the bill probably should go to a standing committee rather than the committee of the whole. It would be a little more opportune for people to make representations with regard to it.

Drainage, of course, in the Province of Ontario, in the farming area, has been a great experience for people who have been involved in it. I have been involved in municipal council for a number of years and live in an area which needs a great deal of proper drainage. People call Essex county the prairies of Ontario. It is pretty flat and we do have a great deal of work to keep the farmlands drained properly.

I know when we were putting in drains in the township many farmers in our area said they sometimes have municipal drains right around the farm. I know a number of farmers paying for as many as four municipal drains at one time. It is a major undertaking for farmers in an agricultural area to keep their lands properly drained.

There are some major changes in this bill. One of them, of course, is the drainage referee, a position which has been held by senior county judge Judge Clunis in Windsor, and it has been a problem in some areas for one man to get around to take care of many of these things. It sometimes caused delays and I am sure it was not the fault of the referee. The workload that he had was bound to cause delays. Now, of course, the only consultation with regard to the drainage referee will be a point of law and the Ontario Drainage Tribunal will act on all other matters, so that should improve the situation considerably as far as that matter is concerned.

Another area that has been a major concern is the number of people required to have a report made. Now you can have a preliminary report, which people can then study before the engineer makes a complete report on it. I think this is a good idea, because we had many situations where, under the Drainage Act, one person would notify the council that the drain required repair and he would hold the council responsible f or any damages unless it was repaired. The council, naturally, would go ahead and have the report brought in and then some problem’s would show up later, where other people didn’t think the drain was necessary. It’s the prerogative of the council and the engineer and so forth to see that proper drainage is maintained.

I am not sure of the area it was in -- I think it was in western Ontario, in the Owen Sound area or some place, I believe -- where the drainage report people had quite a meeting. Some of the environmentalists were holding up the construction of proper drains for farm drainage and --

Mr. Ferrier: Fraser township.

Mr. Ruston: What was the name of the town?

Mr. Ferrier: Fraser.

Mr. Ruston: Oh, yes. Thank you. I recall reading about that once or twice. It is of great concern when people are being flooded out and they can’t get action if the municipality hasn’t got the power to go ahead and have the drain constructed. If they are in a farming area that is associated with a built-up area or a town or a village, where maybe they don’t see the need for the drain, then of course they object very strenuously to having to participate in the cost. That’s a concern of many people with regard to drainage.

Another thing I want to mention is the superintendent of drains. A drainage superintendent means a drainage superintendent appointed by a municipality, and of course he will still be appointed by the municipality. A number of years ago this was done by the municipal council, particularly in small municipalities.

If I recall correctly, in our township when the council was elected, then at the first meeting certain wards of the municipality were allocated and one person was commissioner of the drains in that particular ward. Of course, as a commissioner, one did receive some remuneration for it. I don’t think it was all that great, although I guess it was satisfactory at the time.

I can recall some cases where a councillor happened to be in an area where there was a great deal of drainage work being done and it seemed like he was busy almost all the time on drains, and in other areas there wouldn’t be very many. Now, of course, in those particular municipalities they have had a drainage superintendent for some time and one man is responsible for the supervision of all the drains. I think that is probably better, although I think the old system at the time did serve the purpose very well. I guess that was what you call grassroots political affairs. The municipal council is right in the area. As the fellow says, he couldn’t get much more grassroots; he was walking in the mud and the water in covering the drains.

I can recall on a number of occasions going with the engineer to survey drains, and it’s quite an education to work with civil engineers. They’re very highly qualified people when it comes to layout of land and so forth. I think some of our municipal councillors perhaps picked up some of their education in that area, because it was quite enlightening to be in contact with that type of work.

Of course, the province has been involved in municipal drains for a number of years in terms of paying one-third of the cost. Now, I believe, if I recall correctly, this covers drainage repairs and the province will share that cost on a one-third basis as well.

I understand the appeals have changed to some extent under the new Act. There was an engineer in my area who spent a fair amount of time and had quite an input, I think, into the Municipal Drainage Act amendments around 1960 to 1962. I refer to Mr. Armstrong from Windsor. He was one of the well-versed municipal drainage engineers. He had a fair amount of input into that Act; I think he also provided some input in this one, but not to the same extent, since he’s getting on in years.

I’m a little concerned with regard to the major changes in the Act, in that I think we’re going to have to make sure the Act is well publicized. When the member for Lambton says he’s been around a great deal on the drainage committee, that does cover some of the points; but when you get into the detail of the Drainage Act itself, the paperwork involved and so forth, these are the things that people want to see in detail to ascertain just what it means to them as the local people who have to deal with it.

I think it’s very important that we make sure they are aware of these, because it’s very easy to say, “Well, we’ve got our drainage report. We’re going to do this.” But we say it in broad terms. When you have to get down to the technical points of law, and our draftsmen have to write it up, sometimes it’s a little different than what we really intended. I think it is very important that this be made broadly known to those involved.

This does involve a great many people in great large areas of the province. When we think about the necessity for proper drainage for farm lands, I suppose we could think of eastern Ontario as perhaps one of the areas of great potential; it is probably still open to great crop improvements with improved drainage. Having visited relatives in eastern Ontario, I’ve been told there’s a great potential there with improved drainage. They have been making major improvements in the last few years, of course, but there’s a great opportunity there to improve the agriculture land potential for crop production, which would be a great asset to our food possibilities in the coming years.

In our own area, western Ontario, good drainage has been a necessity for years, but if you go over fields that are not tiled -- for instance, I was at a farm the other day that a young chap had just bought and it was tiled four rods apart, about 45 acres of it. It had been tiled about 40 years ago and the outlet wasn’t all that good. It had been a farm that had been rented out and wasn’t properly worked. Probably some of the drains had been damaged -- a very poor situation.

Just across the line fence was land that was tiled four rods apart; it was well drained. On other farms they tile them three rods apart. Of course, on many farms in our area they are now putting them two rods apart.

Of course, many farms were tiled about 40, 50, some of them 60 years ago. They were tiled four rods apart, some of them with 3 in tile, and are still working after 50 years, which is really amazing.

Many of them, of course, have been tiled in between since, and it certainly has improved the situation.

Anyone who grows tomatoes or cash crops of high value certainly is going to make sure that their land is well tiled -- very likely two rods apart or a minimum of three -- to make sure that their crops are protected. This is really the main thing in land drainage, the potential crop production by having proper drainage.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could really talk a day or two on this subject if I really wanted to go into detail on each section. But I would certainly recommend, Mr. Speaker, that if it is the decision to go ahead with this bill in this session -- the parliamentary assistant and the member for Lambton are very concerned with this -- I would ask that they give consideration to having it go to standing committee rather than the committee of the whole House. This provides more freedom in discussing the matter. The officials and draftsmen are there to explain things that maybe we, as laymen, don’t quite understand. We understand what is in the drainage report, but when it comes to drafting sections and having to read the legal terms, it throws us a little. This would be an opportune time, then, to have people to question things like that -- and allow the public as well to come in to make presentations. I would appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if they would give that consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, as one of the members of the select committee that looked into this whole area of concern, I am glad to see the bill coming forward in the form that it is. This select committee was a real experience in participatory democracy. While there has been some criticism by certain people in the press about the work that we did, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have never been at public meetings where so many people took part and offered suggestions for improvement of legislation or improvement as to how it works.

The people had full opportunity to express themselves and this took place in county after county and district after district of this province. I feel the bill we are putting forward here today is as close to meeting the needs of the local people as possibly could be drafted and presented.

Mr. Speaker, it is an improvement in many ways on the previous bill that farmers of this province have had to deal with in getting drainage for their property. I think it will be much less complicated than the previous bill and much easier to work with for the clerks, the municipal councils and the farmers themselves.

I would like to deal with a few topics in the time that remains to me. I am pleased the petition procedure has been changed so that it is not just a majority of the people requiring drainage that can now request it, but if 60 per cent of the land in the drainage basin is owned by those who want the drainage, then four or five people who may own only small tracts and had previously held it up no longer will prevail. If one holds 60 per cent of the land, he can go ahead and get a valid petition to be accepted by the municipal council. That indeed is a step forward.

I think also the provision for a preliminary report by an engineer to give some idea as to what might be involved in a petition is also a step forward, because some people would not sign a petition for fear it might cause them a great deal of expense and they were frightened away from it. This way there will be something specific and basic for the council and the fanners to deal with. They will have a much better idea of what they can expect from going ahead with a drainage scheme in their area. There will not be the dissatisfaction that we discovered out there in so many places under the previous situation.

I think the whole idea of an environmental impact study is important. My colleague, the member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr), who was also a member of the select committee, was down in committee studying the Environmental Assessment Act. We are seeing how different courses of action have a spillover effect on a number of areas of our lives. I think this is important to the legislation. It may not need to be used very often, but it is still there and I think it is valuable.

Also, I am pleased to see that the legislation follows through with another one of our recommendations, that a benefit-cost statement can be required. Most drain are beneficial and warrant the spending of the money involved, although we did discover in certain parts of eastern Ontario some drains had been constructed and the cost-benefit part of it was not altogether positive. I think that to allow the ministry to require that this be gone into is again a positive step forward and one that I am glad to see in the legislation.

One of the major moves is in the appeal procedure, where the bill allows for the establishment of an Ontario Drainage Tribunal to look into appeals on the technical aspects of drainage. Many of the drains got bogged down when disputes arose and there didn’t seem to be too good an understanding of how to proceed to an appeal. One would go to a county court judge and he might be conversant with drainage; or he might not be. The problems that come to us in many instances were ones that we tried to resolve; in a sense we were almost operating as an Ontario Drainage Tribunal.

Mr. Reid: They didn’t solve my problems.

Mr. Ferrier: Maybe they are pretty insurmountable up there.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Not really.

Mr. Ferrier: The thing is this body will be made up of people who have expertise and understanding of drainage from the technical point of view and, we hope, people from the farming communities or long-time municipal people. In this way, in a lot of these things that have blown up, where disputes really have got heated and people have really got emotional and animosity has just exploded, this kind of tribunal can sit down with those affected, talk to them about the issues at stake and try to come up with a solution, perhaps in an informal way; perhaps they won’t have to even come down with a firm ruling.

I think that the drainage referee has been so remote from people and that in many instances he has only really dealt in a strictly legalistic way with the problems brought to him, that this is a very, very forward move that is being put in this legislation. I think the committee, of which I was a part, should be commended for this report --

Mr. Reid: One of the most expensive in the history of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The expenditure was worth it.

Mr. Eaton: Doing the most good too.

Mr. Ferrier: And of course, the ministry has gone ahead with it --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ferrier: Also, drains in this province often were allowed to grow over with weeds and did not function properly because grants were not available to them. This legislation now means that maintenance and repair are eligible for the same grants. I think we will find that the drainage system will be kept in much better shape and that the major projects will not have to be carried out perhaps 20 years hence. If they do it about every five or six years, we will have much better functioning drains and we will not have the problems we have had in the past with this kind of thing.

I think it is also worthwhile that the drainage superintendents will be paid partially by the province and by the municipality as a whole, and that there will not be such a heavy burden placed on those who sign the petition. We all also realize that drainage is to the advantage of an entire municipality and to the province as a whole in terms of the effects in the province and the municipalities pick up this cost and that we have superintendents and people at the local level who are most knowledgeable about drainage matters. These people will replace the commissioners in many instances, but again I think that matters can be resolved and farmers can be helped by superintendents who are knowledgeable, involved and interested in their work, and well qualified. I think it is a very good move that we have made here in providing for them and in making provision for their pay.

I see that my time is up. I would have had some more things to say, but I have got to go to Winnipeg on Monday to elect our new leader --

Mr. Reid: That will be a wasted effort, a waste of time.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ferrier: -- so I will yield the floor to another member.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Is that trip necessary?

Mr. Deans: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter this debate?

Mr. Stokes: Talking about drips, we are waiting to hear from the member for Rainy River.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Reid: Go ahead.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lambton then.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, is it your wish that we carry on with the debate?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Henderson: I do have about 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the member for Lambton would move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Henderson: Just before I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the hon. member for Cochrane South. He has brought out some very important points. I will now move the adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And the passage of the bill.

Mr. Henderson: I would certainly move that too, of course, but I guess that is not in order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Henderson moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Before I call the order of business, I would like to say I think we have reached the point where we can almost say we will call any item but some will be excluded. To the best of my ability, I will call them in this order: I’ll read the bill numbers for Monday.

Bills 133, 105, 127, 129, 108, 109, 117, 128 and 99.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, before we move the adjournment of the House, will the House leader indicate if he thinks we’ll get out of here this year?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the government introduces and the opposition disposes.

Mr. Deans: We will get out this year. What I’d like to know is can the House leader tell us whether all of the legislation he proposes to deal with during the current session is now on the order paper?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I will have to say no. I will be presenting a bill on Monday but I can assure the member that it is not controversial.

Mr. Deans: Okay. The second question is can he tell us whether it’s his intention to sit in the House on Wednesday next?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I would have liked to have been able to comment on that, as I told the hon. member, before the House closed today. Unfortunately, I cannot tell, as no one can, what the reaction will be to the legislation I have called, but we will be able to determine that on Monday. I think on Monday evening I will be able to say. The point is, if we have to sit on Wednesday in order to conclude the business on the order paper. I would like to say that’s what I would do. If not, I would see no necessity for sitting on Wednesday.

An hon. member: Why not sit at 10 o’clock?

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

Mr. Deans: I’m sorry, but I have one other question. Given that we have two important bills outside the House now -- the teacher legislation and the Environmental Assessment Act -- and given my understanding that this legislation we’re currently dealing with is also to go outside the House, it would appear to me it is not possible for us to carry on here and outside with three standing committees.

Mr. Reid: It’s committee of the whole House.

Mr. Deans: It’s not going outside?

Mr. Eaton: It’s committee of the whole House.

Mr. Deans: Committee of the whole House?

Mr. Kennedy: We will still be in session when the member gets back from the west.

Mr. Deans: I’m not going to the west.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: All right. We’ll talk about it on Monday.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lambton.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the House leader -- as you know we adjourned the debate on Bill 130 and I note in the business announced for next week the House leader didn’t mention Bill 131. Is it his intention to carry on with the debate on Bill 131 on Monday or is he going to the energy bill, Bill 133, as he called?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we would call Bill 133 first on Monday and we would determine sometime on Monday what the course of events is and probably call those two bills on Tuesday.

Mr. Henderson: Fine, thank you.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1:05 o’clock, p.m.