role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 9, 1974

29th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L023 - Tue 9 Apr 1974 / Mar 9 avr 1974

SOLANDT COMMISSION REPORT

SOLANDT COMMISSION REPORT

PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT IN NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT

HEALTH PLANNING TASK FORCE REPORT

OHC ADVERTISING

ETOBICOKE HOUSING SUBDIVISION

LAKE ERIE PUBLIC BEACHES

COINCIDENTAL TIMING OF HYDRO PROJECTS

CORPORATION INCOME TAX PAID BY OIL COMPANIES TO PROVINCE

DEEP WELL POLLUTION

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PUBLIC WORKS

CROP INSURANCE

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

FIRE INSURANCE FOR ROOMING HOUSES

FARMERS’ CONCERNS OVER LOCATION OF NUCLEAR PLANT

LAKE SUPERIOR OUTFLOWS

LAND TITLES OFFICE

FARM PRODUCTS GRADES AND SALES ACT

THIRD READING

AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES ACT

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1

BUDGET ADDRESS

LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT

LAND TRANSFER TAX ACT

RETAIL SALES TAX ACT

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. J. N. Allan (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I would like the members to welcome a group of 70 students from the senior public school in Dunnville who are sitting in the west gallery.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, a group of students from Waterford District High School are sitting in the east gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

SOLANDT COMMISSION REPORT

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, on March 7, I tabled in the Legislature the report of the Solandt commission which dealt with transmission of power between Nanticoke and Pickering. The recommendations of the report are being considered by the government, which intends to make its decision shortly.

There has been ample opportunity for public involvement on this 500-kv line through the medium of approximately 45 public meetings held by the Solandt commission and its consultant. Since the tabling of the report, we have received further representation from citizens who see themselves as most likely to be affected by the line should Dr. Solandt’s recommendations be accepted.

This statement, therefore, is made to advise any others who may wish to respond to the report to do so as soon as possible before May 10, because of the importance of proceeding with this project without too much further delay.

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

SOLANDT COMMISSION REPORT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development further to the statement he just made. Is the government prepared to accept the Solandt recommendation that properties for the Hydro corridor will be expropriated without going through the requirement for a hearing of necessity as is necessary under the law of the province? Is the minister prepared to state government policy in that regard or is he, on the other hand, prepared to give to those citizens directly concerned the rights to have such a hearing of necessity?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of setting the date of May 10 is to make sure that at a certain time we will have whatever conceivable objections some people may have who have not had the opportunity or who felt they had not had the opportunity to present their case, having regard for what the final report of the commission was. In the meantime, the ministries involved have been asked to let us have their views and within a short time after May 10 we will take into consideration all of those presentations which have been made on the report of Dr. Solandt.

We don’t guarantee that all of his recommendations are going to be accepted. All we are doing at this time is considering the report and very shortly after May 10 the policy of the government with respect to all of his recommendations will be made known.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I would also like to ask the same minister if he is prepared to order an environmental study on the alignment of the so-called Bradley-Georgetown Hydro corridor. Is he aware that the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) has stated -- at least, is reported to have stated -- in western Ontario that if there is sufficient objections he, as minister, is prepared to recommend an independent environmental hearing? What constitutes sufficient objection since there have been large meetings of farmers and interested citizens involved, and I know that I and others have received written objections to the corridor as it is presently outlined?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, of course the recommendations of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, will be discussed and the House may rest assured that whatever needs to be done will be done to make sure that citizens are given whatever consideration they feel should be given to their objections; these matters will be taken into consideration. Even though, as the hon. member, I am sure, appreciates, it’s a very difficult decision to arrive at, what I am really saying is that we are going to have to wait until we consider the whole matter of the project, and whatever the Minister of Energy is prepared to recommend to the government will be taken into consideration.

I can’t say anything further at this time because it’s all under consideration.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Does that simply mean the minister is going to do what the Minister of Energy tells him or is there, in fact, some area of overriding policy involving the establishment of an environmental assessment hearing because of the substantial objections which have been coming forward?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have said, Mr. Speaker, that the government will take into consideration, of course, the recommendations of the Minister of Energy; indeed, the government as a whole takes into consideration the representations of each and all of its ministers. When the decision is made this House will be advised.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): A supplementary.

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

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister assure the House, in view of the fact that the environmental studies on the Bradley to Georgetown route were the in-house variety done by Hydro itself, that at least the Ministry of the Environment of his own government would look at those environmental studies to assure the people of Ontario that there has been some external input, even though a commission of Dr. Solandt’s proportion is not going to be involved in those studies?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) is, of course, studying all those matters to which the hon. member has referred.

Mr. Good: He has looked at them?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Still in trouble on that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can advise the hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that a statement on this particular project will be made shortly.

PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT IN NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have another question of the same minister. Still in the absence of the Minister of Energy -- but it is a matter of policy so I think it is correctly directed -- can the minister report to the House the status of the negotiations held so far in secret between Ontario Hydro and the private sector on the involvement of the private sector in the development of the equipment and capability for nuclear electricity plants, both for installation here and abroad?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, that is a question which should be properly directed to my colleague, the Minister of Energy.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Let me just ask the minister if as a matter of policy the government has decided, through the policy board that he heads, to involve the private sector in this area, or is this still simply an exploratory series of conferences seeing what the outcome might be? Has the policy decision been made?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, that has not yet reached the cabinet committee on resources development.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Will it ever?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Why then does the Toronto Star report that secret negotiations are going on between the consortium --

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): The member doesn’t believe that, does he?

Mr. Sargent: -- Union Gas, Consumers’ Gas, GE, Westinghouse? Why does the Star say that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, that question should properly be directed to the publishers of the Toronto Star.

Interjection by an hon. member.

HEALTH PLANNING TASK FORCE REPORT

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Health. On his reading of the Mustard report is he rejecting the recommendation that comes from Dr. Mustard and that committee that the implementation of at least certain aspects not be delayed, particularly the establishment of what I believe are called district health councils, a matter which Dr. Mustard puts forward with some urgency? Does the minister’s statement that he is going to take no action even to appoint a committee to deal with this for four months mean that he is rejecting the urgency of those matters put forward?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that we rejected the urgency of those matters. The Ministry of Health has for some time said that district health planning councils were a vital part of the decentralization of health care. There are some issues involved in that programme which we need to study within our ministry before we make a public statement on the issue.

We have one council functioning now. It’s functioning in the Ottawa-Carleton area and we are observing it very carefully before in fact further steps are made.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Did the minister indicate then that he is going to take no further steps until the period of four months has elapsed, at which time further committee reviews will begin?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I think our statement was very carefully worded to say that we wanted to get the greatest degree of public participation and response before in effect we tried to decide whether the Mustard report had offered the correct solutions to the correct issues. Now, we are in fact setting up mechanisms by which to monitor these replies at once. We’ll be collating them as quickly as we can and I’m quite sure that shortly we’ll be able to give the member some more information.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): May I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I think we should alternate the supplementaries.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): In view of the minister’s statement, does this mean that all of the background work that has been done concerning the formation of the health council in northwestern Ontario will be held in abeyance until the minister sees the results of the only one in existence at the present time -- that is the one in Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion at this point in time.

I think that there are a number of issues in that report, some of them very contentious, some not so contentious. A district health planning council is a concept, as the members know, that was not new. It didn’t suddenly arise within the report. The Ministry of Health has been encouraging discussion on and formation of these throughout the Province of Ontario, but naturally we do have the desire to see that they function well, related to other governmental bodies.

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

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a question of the minister relevant to the Mustard report and the Health Disciplines Act. One of the suggestions in the Mustard report was establishment of arrangements for sharing tasks and delegation of responsibility among the health personnel. This is one of the recommendations of the report and in view of the minister’s statement that he wants to get some public input for about four months, does he still plan to proceed with the Health Disciplines Act now in view of this particular recommendation about sharing of responsibilities?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do plan to proceed with the Health Disciplines Act now.

Mr. Roy: Isn’t there a contradiction there?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre. A supplementary.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Could I ask my supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Well, I really think we should keep to the alternating programme.

Mr. Cassidy: As a supplementary, I just want to ask the minister whether he was aware that the formation of the health council in Ottawa took two years because of delays by the ministry, and does that mean that the further formation of health councils in the rest of the province will take another two years, or is there more commitment than that?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I think it is safe to say that concurrently with the work being done in Ottawa, work was being done in other areas, therefore we don’t have a two-year time lag for any of the other areas.

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

OHC ADVERTISING

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing, further to the province’s advertising budget, to explain why Ontario Housing Corp.’s display advertisement for integrated community housing programmes appeared three times in today’s Star -- exactly the same ad. Is he trying to use up his budget, or what is the purpose of that expenditure?

Mr. Roy: Has the minister got his name on it?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen today’s Star and I will check into it for the hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Once on page 8, twice on page 2.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I will look into it and report back.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions? If not, the hon. member for Scarborough West is next.

ETOBICOKE HOUSING SUBDIVISION

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): May I ask the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker -- he will know that the borough of Etobicoke has approved a plan for subdivision which permits the development of 302 single-family dwellings on roughly 75 acres in the last area of development land in Etobicoke --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: For $100,000 homes.

Mr. Lewis: Yes. Does the minister intend to make any public comment? Does he intend, in fact, to meet with the borough to discuss with them whether the putting on the market of 300 more homes whose costs will be in excess of $100,000 each is consistent with his priorities in the housing field?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I have every intention of meeting not only with the borough of Etobicoke, but all other boroughs in Metro or with Metro council to discuss our housing programmes. From what I have read of the particular subdivision that the hon. member is raising at this point, it appears to me to be a matter entirely within the hands of the borough and the developer.

Apparently there is a market for that type of housing and developers are prepared to satisfy that type of market.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There is even a bigger market for cheaper houses.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I certainly don’t believe that it fits into our programme, nor do I believe our programme includes the possibility of building houses in that price plan.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, given what surely must be the priorities in the minister’s programme -- or so he has revealed them occasionally to the House; the alleged priorities -- does he not think there is an even greater demand for low- and middle-income housing and that it would benefit matters were he to meet specifically with the elected council of Etobicoke and put to them the government’s position that low-density housing can still be encompassed in this acreage, but with homes at a significantly reduced price, providing much more accommodation for a larger number of people who might afford it?

Does he not agree that his plans are dealt a serious blow by this land of development?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t agree with the latter, but on the other hand the hon. member has outlined exactly what our housing action programme encompasses, which is the building of low-cost housing for people in low and moderate income ranges --

Mr. Stokes: Around $100,000.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That is not our programme. And it would seem to me that the hon. member has given a much better description of it than I can here in this House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that those few lots that the leader of the NDP is referring to may very well be the only lots approved in the whole of Metropolitan Toronto this year for single-family dwellings and that you can’t buy one unless you can cough up $100,000 minimum; and if you really want to go for the bundle they have them also at $150,000?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that those are the only single-family lots that may be approved in Metro this year. It is my understanding that Metro council and the boroughs are working on accelerating certain plans of subdivisions.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There are only 12 lots in the first quarter.

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

Mr. Lewis: Well, we will see whether the government’s speculative land tax this afternoon will do what it wants it to do; and we will watch it.

LAKE ERIE PUBLIC BEACHES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker, what does he intend to do now about retrieving any of the beaches of Lake Erie for public access, given the findings of the Supreme Court and the decision which came down some time ago? I think at the time the minister indicated -- and the former Provincial Secretary for Resources Development indicated that he would want to think about it for a while and then suggest a government approach.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Well, Mr. Speaker, this matter will be coming before the government for discussion. It has not at this present time.

Mr. Lewis: It has not been discussed as yet.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South has a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: I have one supplementary, if I may. I wonder if the hon. minister is aware that as a result of the Supreme Court decision, between the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie and Point Albino --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Abino.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, when these matters come before the government, all matters will be fully examined.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South was up for a supplementary.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to know if the minister was going to bring in a bill to change in the Navigable Waters Act the description of Crown property along the lakeshore? This government has promised this, I believe, for the last 25 years. When is the minister going to get off his good intentions and do something?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is a federal Act.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member for Welland South has one before the House now.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Does the minister know he has got a committee studying this? Does he realize that?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Haggerty: Just a second! The Beds of Navigable Waters Act is not a federal Act. That’s not a federal matter. It is in this minister’s ministry.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): The government changed it in 1921.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not what the member for Welland South said.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, no wonder there are no beaches left for public use.

Mr. Speaker: Is that a supplementary question?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker: I haven’t detected it yet.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Is it any wonder that the people of Ontario have no public beaches?

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister aware that the Beds of Navigable Waters Act falls within his ministry for amendment?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that that particular Act falls within the provincial jurisdiction, but I understood the member to say the Navigable Waters Act.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Beds of.

Mr. Bullbrook: That is the Navigable Waters Protection Act. He said the right Act.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am sorry, the Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker: I don’t think any of the hon. members said “supplementary”. The hon. member for Scarborough West.

COINCIDENTAL TIMING OF HYDRO PROJECTS

Mr. Lewis: If I may, I have a last question, of the Premier. Has the Premier noted that the decision on which the Arnprior dam has been based -- the decision to go ahead on the Arnprior dam -- was reached at exactly the same period of time as the decision to build the head office building in downtown Toronto, as the decision on the original Hydro Pickering-Nanticoke corridor, and as the decision on the western Ontario transmission corridor, all of which decisions have subsequently been open to criticism of this Legislature, public repudiation or reversal by the government?

Does he not, therefore, think that the decision on the Arnprior dam should also be open to an additional public scrutiny since it involves some $80 million of public funds?

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): That was a bad month.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, while I don’t have any chronological order of decisions or tentative decisions made by Ontario Hydro, I question whether the hon. member’s mathematics on dates are quite accurate. I can only go back in memory.

The discussion initially of the proposed Nanticoke to Pickering transmission line goes back several years. It was discussed in terms of a northern route, a route that really isn’t too dissimilar to the present Solandt recommendation, which is consistent with the parkway belt. If memory serves me correctly. there was some discussion with respect to a middle route.

I think it is fair to state, and I am not here to defend Hydro, that to try to relate all of these four matters to any particular period of time is just not correct. The discussion on a Nanticoke to Pickering line goes --

Mr. Lewis: I think it is the last hurrah of George Gathercole.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just tell the member the proposal from Hydro on the Pickering to Nanticoke line goes back some considerable period of time. I would also say, in fairness to Hydro, that their suggestion as to the alignment of the Pickering to Nanticoke line certainly met with opposition. As I said in the House the other day, while I think personally there are some areas that I much prefer in the Solandt commission recommendation because they are consistent with the parkway, we would be very foolish to feel that everybody is going to be content with that line.

I think to try and relate all of these in any way is really somewhat inaccurate and perhaps even inappropriate. I just can’t trace the same degree of chronology that is being suggested by the hon. member. It just doesn’t exist, I think. Quite frankly, I haven’t even looked at it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since there is another area of similarity, that is, that two of the major projects were entered into without public, or adequate, public tendering, perhaps the Premier would respond with his experience in that regard and indicate to the House whether or not he feels that the Arnprior situation should be at least halted pending further tendering, if not a full review of the whole situation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, and I’m not an expert in the Arnprior contract, the first phase was negotiated and the second phase has, in fact, been tendered.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But the Premier is aware of the circumstances, that the company that got the negotiated part also won the tender, because they were the only one that had any information?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Because they were $2 million low.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): But they were on the spot with their work crew and their machinery; they could underbid everybody.

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

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the Minister of Energy has now reconsidered his suppression of information and has released the development engineering report on this dam, and in view of the fact that that report reveals that on Oct. 22, 1971, right after the election, Hydro’s public relations people were meeting to determine how they would manipulate public opinion to favour the dam, will the Premier now reconsider his refusal to have a public inquiry into that project?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reconsider. There has been quite a bit of discussion here. The hon. member for Ottawa and the islands has contributed a great deal --

Mr. Singer: Ottawa and the islands? That is a new riding.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to cover both his constituencies -- and, as I understand it, he is going to be making some submissions to the board related to the financial aspects, at which time I’m sure he will have an opportunity to present his point of view. But I see no purpose, Mr. Speaker, in having an inquiry. I think the facts have been presented, the hon. member has had the material, and I think that to have an inquiry at this stage would serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

Mr. Bounsall: Taken in by a rotten Hydro decision again!

Mr. Speaker: Are these supplementaries?

Mr. Singer: No.

Mr. Roy: No.

Mr. Speaker: All right. The hon. member for Scarborough West has not indicated he is finished yet.

Mr. Roy: Yes, he is.

Mr. Speaker: Are there further questions? All right. The ministry has the answers to several questions asked previously, and I think we should deal with them first. The hon. Minister of Revenue has the answer to a question asked previously.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Sargent: Time!

CORPORATION INCOME TAX PAID BY OIL COMPANIES TO PROVINCE

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the hon. member for Scarborough West asked me a question regarding corporation taxes paid by oil companies and the amount of taxes paid. Specifically, his question was: “How many of the major oil companies with operations in the Province of Ontario paid a provincial corporation income tax last year ... and in what amount?”

Perhaps I should say at the beginning that I don’t yet have the figures for 1973, so the closest year I can give anything for would be 1972. However, may I go on?

As I indicated to the hon. member on the day the question was asked, the secrecy provision of the Corporations Tax Act, 1972, as set out in

section 166 of that Act, precludes communication of any specific information obtained under the Act. And may I quote

section 166 for the benefit of the hon. member for Scarborough West and for the benefit of the hon. member for Sarnia, who injected himself into that question?

Mr. Bullbrook: Did I really?

Hon. Mr. Meen: It states:

No person employed in the service of Her Majesty shall communicate, or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled thereto, any information obtained under this Act, or allow any such person to inspect or have access to any written statement furnished under this Act.

Mr. Lawlor: It shouldn’t apply to corporations.

Hon. Mr. Meen: This restriction is similar to one found in the personal Income Tax Act. Such a restriction is necessary so that individuals and corporations can submit operating statements in confidence to the authorities of my ministry without unnecessarily jeopardizing their personal privacy or competitive positions.

In view of these provisions, I must confirm the position I took last Thursday on this matter and decline to provide to the hon. member the particulars of corporation tax paid in the Province of Ontario by major oil companies here.

Perhaps I might just go on and observe that the petroleum industry coded in our records as “extractive, refining, pipeline, wholesale and retail,” paid corporation tax in Ontario in 1972 on an allocation-of-income basis as provided for in the Act. This allocation provision applies to companies having operations in more than one province, and allows for income allocation for tax purposes to the province where the income arises. Ontario’s tax share involved a total of 1,361 corporations, with allocations to this province ranging from a low of 18 per cent to a high of 90 per cent.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: With respect, my question was completely ignored, and I think deliberately. So I will put to the ministry by way of supplementary -- and I have the Hansard in front of me -- which doesn’t violate in any sense the Corporations Tax Act, as he has indicated.

I asked if he knows how many of the major oil companies with operations in the Province of Ontario paid a provincial corporation income tax last year. The minister would not be revealing anything to give us the names of the oil companies that paid a corporation income tax in the last year for which he has figures.

So, my supplementary is, will the minister give us the names of those companies? Not the amounts, but the names of those companies?

I asked in further supplementaries if, he was unable to give us specific dollar figures, if he would give us the total that the industry paid? Again, this would not violate any of the specifics indicated in the Corporation Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, it gets to be a good question as to what is a major oil company. We have 1,361 corporations in these various categories.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Now if they are talking about retail sales --

Mr. Lewis: Come on; enough of this.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Why doesn’t the minister try --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): We will settle for the top seven.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I can certainly name on the fingers of one hand, plus one or two, the major oil companies; okay?

Mr. Lewis: Fine; tell us.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I am not prepared to tell the member what they paid; I am not prepared to tell him what the total was, because --

Mr. Lewis: I got that.

Mr. Bullbrook: He knows that.

Mr. Deans: Why?

Hon. Mr. Meen: All the member would need to do would be to look at their retail sales and apportion matters accordingly; I am not in a position to depart from the confidence, imposed in my ministry.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Just how long do these apologists and defenders of the oil companies get away with it in this House?

Mr. Havrot: Quit grandstanding.

Mr. Lewis: Why does the minister deny public information that is clearly ours to have; collectively ours to have? Why can we not know which of those oil companies pay tax?

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the Province of Quebec --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: All right; on a point of privilege, let me say that the Province of Quebec released this information publicly, which as a matter of fact is why I asked the question. If it can be done in the Province of Quebec, by way of an answer to a question, why can the minister not do it in Ontario; and how would it impair the oil companies were he to tell us their total revenue? How long can the minister be the bond-holder of the oil companies?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

An hon. member: All we have to do is put the --

Mr. Lewis: Well, will we get the information? Will the minister give us the information?

Mr. Speaker: I think we should finish dealing with this one first.

Mr. Lewis: Will the minister give us the information? Will he tell us which oil companies paid a corporation income tax?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I can look into the matter of what corporations have paid corporation income tax.

Mr. Lewis: What does he mean, “what corporations”?

Hon. Mr. Meen: What oil companies have paid corporation tax.

Mr. Roy: Don’t strain.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment has the answer to a question asked previously, two questions in fact.

DEEP WELL POLLUTION

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, a question was asked by the hon. Leader of the Opposition concerning a report to which he made reference.

Mr. Sargent: The minister must have a speech writer.

Hon. W. Newman: There was really no report on private well contamination in Innisfil township, Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out that responsibility for private water supply rests with the local MOH. My ministry has assisted the local medical officer of health by gathering water quality data in the area and has made the information available for action and release by the medical officer of health.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a problem in this area for some time involving both private water supplies and private waste disposal systems. In recognition of this problem, the Simcoe county district health unit of the township of Innisfil designated a special policy area in which buildings and private waste disposal facilities were brought under strict regulations.

The ministry is aware of the general conditions that gave rise to the imposition of these restrictions and has retained a firm of consulting engineers from Collingwood to prepare a conceptual brief and preliminary report on the various methods of providing water and sewer services to all or parts of the problem area. This report is now under preparation. The ministry will continue to work with the township and the local medical officer of health to help solve the problems in this area.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Does the report indicate that 60 to 80 per cent of the wells are contaminated, depending upon the area of the township concerned?

Hon. W. Newman: We just collect the data, we don’t have a specific report. I don’t know of the report that is referred to, but there is a problem which we are working on with them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister has -- supplementary? There are several more answers from the ministry; the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Spence) will be first when we are finished with them.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): He has been saving them up for a long time.

Mr. Roy: We waste a lot of time with all those statements.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the minister rehearse those things? Why doesn’t he give direct answers at the time the questions are asked?

Mr. Roy: Why doesn’t he give us a direct answer?

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to questions directed to me yesterday by the hon. members for Scarborough West and Ottawa Centre.

The hon. member for Scarborough West asked if I would table the inquiry officer’s report on the Ontario Hydro application of Jan. 23 for approval to expropriate property in the area of the Arnprior dam project for the relocation of the CPR line; and whether I had turned the inquiry officer’s reports over to the Attorney General (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, it is not the practice of this ministry, when acting as approving authorities under the Expropriations Act, to make public the report or inquiry officers. The signed inquiry officer’s report to which the hon. member refers was received in my office April 2. This report is now being considered and it is my intention to make a decision within the 90-day period allowed under the Expropriations Act.

When the decision has been made, copies of it -- together with my reasons -- will be sent to the parties of the hearing and to the chief inquiry officer, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. It is not the practice to forward Ae report of the inquiry officer to the Attorney General.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre --

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary to that?

Mr. Speaker: Is this the same question?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, there was a supplementary, and I’m going to answer the supplementary at the same time.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary to the original question?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: I think the minister should complete his reply, if the hon. member for Scarborough West does not want the first supplementary.

Hon. W. Newman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre asked if I was aware of further applications for approval to expropriate in relation to this project. I have not yet received further applications. I understand that an application will be made shortly by Ontario Hydro covering several parcels of land, parts or all of which may be affected by the project.

At the time an expropriation authority makes an application to an approving authority under the Expropriations Act, all the registered owners affected by the application are given notice and notice to the public is published through the local newspapers.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Could the minister explain how long it took for the usual practice not to make the reports of the inquiry office available, how many inquiry officers’ reports has he received, how many has he been asked for, and is this not the first one he has refused to release?

Hon. W. Newman: I believe, since I took over this ministry, this is the first one I’ve received.

Mr. Singer: Yes. And to the minister’s knowledge has his department received any other?

Hon. W. Newman: Oh, I expect that they have over a period of time.

Mr. Singer: When did the practice grow up and did he find any foundation for it in the statute? I’ll tell the minister there isn’t any. It wasn’t the intention of those who had something to do with the statute that that should be a secret report.

Mr. Lewis: Well, it’s not secret if he puts it out.

Mr. Singer: He doesn’t. He puts the decision out.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister confirm that the inquiry officer’s report, in at least one of those cases, was critical of the amount of land that Hydro wished to take? And, if so, will he then explain whether we will have full disclosure of the contents of that inquiry report whether or not the actual report is tabled?

Hon. W. Newman: When I make my report I will give my reasons.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: The minister is surely not saying that he would deny a copy of the inquiry officer’s report to the citizens whose land is being expropriated by Hydro?

Mr. Singer: That’s exactly what he said. That’s exactly what he said.

Mr. Lewis: I mean, I can see him saying to us in the Legislature, “I’ll not give it to you until I’ve released it to them” -- but he’s not going to deny them a copy of the report of the authority before whom they appeared, surely?

Mr. Singer: That’s exactly what he said.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is getting himself into incredibly deep water.

Mr. Singer: It is a practice just established this afternoon.

Hon. W. Newman: This first and foremost report got on my desk yesterday, and I haven’t had a chance to study it in detail.

Mr. Singer: The minister doesn’t want to answer in detail.

Hon. W. Newman: The member got an answer in detail. Yes, he did; and when I’ve had a chance to look it over then I’ll let him know.

Mr. Singer: First he gives us the answer, then he backs out.

Mr. Cassidy: What is the value of the day in court that is being given to people of the area when, in fact, the officer before whom they appear never publishes the report on the basis of the inquiry? What use is the day in court that they get? It’s a kangaroo court on that basis.

Mr. Roy: He doesn’t want to answer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There have been four supplementaries. The Minister of Agriculture and Food has the answer to a question asked previously.

CROP INSURANCE

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) asked me a question concerning the dropping of the final seeding dates from crop insurance plans for Ontario. The answer is yes, the commission has dropped the final seeding dates because it is of the opinion that with the inclusion of coverage for unseeded acres in the spring crop lands -- which is now inclusive in all plans this year, Mr. Speaker -- the date of the final seeding is best left to each individual farmer. I think that makes it much more uniform and, perhaps, it will lead to better farm management than we’ve had in the past with those specific deadlines.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing also has the answer to questions asked previous.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on March 15 the member for Port Arthur asked: “Can the minister tell the House if OHC has alternative plans for providing senior citizen housing in Thunder Bay due to cancellation of the project at Fort William ...?”

In reply to the hon. member’s question, the OHC is presently negotiating for a number of city-owned sites which are suitably located for senior citizen housing. OHC is also in the process of rezoning its own Donald St. site and has appointed the architectural firm of Ranta and Tett to prepare preliminary drawings. It is anticipated that about 70 units may be developed at that location.

In addition OHC is interested in the Cumberland St. community housing project. Construction has not yet commenced but OHC is negotiating for a considerable percentage of units in this 242-unit development for its rent supplement project. I’m informed that more than half the units will be suitable for senior citizen housing.

Construction on the 121-unit senior citizen building which was halted because of winter weather is expected to resume in the near future. A contract has been signed for 101 units on Rowan Ave. and the builder is now on the site.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kent is next.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Did the minister inform us yesterday that 40 official plans of municipalities have been dealt with since planning came under his department? Is he considering restoring the power to grant consent to those municipalities whose plans have been approved by his department?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, at the present time the power to grant consents is within the ministry. There is a programme and a policy announcement to phase delegation of that type of authority back to regions and restructured counties. As far as I know that programme is carrying on. However, it is not anticipated that it would be referred back to --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Nothing much has happened yet.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- area municipalities which are not either regional or reconstructed counties.

Mr. Sargent: If a place isn’t regional what does it do?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre is next.

FIRE INSURANCE FOR ROOMING HOUSES

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

An hon. member: That’s just the beginning.

Mr. Cassidy: Has the minister examined the fire insurance payments to rooming house owners, as in the case of fire damage or destruction by recent fires in Ottawa and in Toronto, and is the minister prepared to consider legislation which would deny insurance coverage to any rooming house operator whose unit violated municipal bylaws or housing standards in order to stop the kind of destructive situation and loss of life which we’ve been experiencing in Ottawa and in Toronto?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware at this moment whether the superintendent’s office has in fact looked into the matters touched upon by the member for Ottawa Centre. I will, however, look into it by inquiry and find out if that is the case and get back to him.

With reference to the second portion of the question, no, I have not considered that; I have not heard it advanced. I would feel it might well not serve the purpose for which it was intended in that it may be extremely discriminatory against a certain class of person who can be prosecuted under other avenues of the law for breaches of any particular statutes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron is next.

FARMERS’ CONCERNS OVER LOCATION OF NUCLEAR PLANT

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker; a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board has met with him to express its concern over the proposed nuclear power plant in Huron, somewhere south of Goderich, what steps does he intend to take to meet the board’s requests?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: First of all, Mr. Speaker, there is no proposed nuclear power plant south of Goderich. There are exploratory considerations going on by Ontario Hydro and I know that location has been suggested but several sites have been under consideration. To my knowledge there is no site chosen and to my knowledge there has been no decision made whether it would be a nuclear plant or a fossil-fuelled plant; no one has any idea about that as yet.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Did I hear the word supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, yes. Why is the minister playing that game with the Legislature? He knows that Ontario Hydro indiscreetly made the mistake of letting it be known it is looking for a site in that immediate area. Therefore is it not now legitimate to indicate what he is going to do with the groups of residents who are extremely concerned about radioactive waste; about Inverhuron Park happening elsewhere; and about all of the things that are generated when the government sets up a nuclear plant? Why does the minister pretend it doesn’t exist when things are now proceeding, according to Hydro?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am not pretending they don’t exist. Obviously a statement had been made that there was consideration being given. After meeting with the people from Huron yesterday and with the officials of Ontario Hydro, it was made abundantly clear to us that there has been no such decision. It is purely in an exploratory state. Consideration is being given as to where sufficient power would be developed that would meet the requirements 10 to 15 years hence. There is no positive statement at all. So I am not in any way misleading or playing any games with the House. I am as much concerned as anyone would be with any ill effects --

Mr. Lewis: Yes, serious consideration.

Mr. Stokes: Does the minister support the farmers?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- that might emanate from any such generating station, whatever the type might be. But until there is some indication that there is going to be such a plant, then I think it is presumptuous that there will be, as was indicated in the question of my friend from Huron. We are concerned, and I can assure members that our ministry will be having major inputs into any decisions that are being made regarding any possible ill effects that would emanate to the farm com- munity from such a plan.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: There are only three minutes remaining, I think perhaps we should restrict the supplementaries. In any event, the hon. member for Port Arthur is next.

LAKE SUPERIOR OUTFLOWS

Mr. Foulds: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of the Environment. Has the minister been notified yet by the federal government of this country and that an agreement in principle has been reached between Canada and the United States regarding the regulation of outflows from Lake Superior? What has his response been to that contract?

Hon. W. Newman: I am sorry, I didn’t hear the first part of that question.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister aware, and has the federal government through the Department of External Affairs, made representation to him that an agreement in principle has been reached between Canada and the US through the IJC regarding Lake Superior outflow of water. What is his response to it?

Hon. W. Newman: My response is that at the federal-provincial conference in Ottawa I asked the federal minister to bring this matter up and to deal with the matter.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker; Is the minister not aware that the attorneys for both sides last week on April 2 in Washington announced this agreement in principle and said that they were awaiting confirmation from Ontario? I think the minister owes it to the Province of Ontario to let this Legislature know what Ontario’s stand is on the question.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): He doesn’t exhibit a new awareness.

Hon. W. Newman: I am certainly aware of the outflow of all the lakes. I will be glad to bring the member more detailed information on this particular item tomorrow.

Mr. Foulds: A final supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: I think we should accept that as a reasonable number in view of the fact that time is just about up.

The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I did recognize the hon. member for Downsview. I think the entire second row of the Liberal Party was up simultaneously. So the hon. member for Downsview has the floor.

Interjections by hon. members.

LAND TITLES OFFICE

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Has he yet had a chance to look into the situation at the land titles office at Toronto, which I discussed with him a few days ago? Can he tell me if any steps are being taken to add to the staff and to make more efficient the operation in that office, the present situation being that complete chaos exists, particularly on the last working day of each month and the first working day of each successive month?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I caused an inquiry to be made as a result of the member’s question directed to me a week or 10 days ago. I was advised that the demand on that particular facility at the end of March was indeed particularly heavy, and in the experience of the staff at that particular land titles office it was unduly onerous in terms of past experience.

As the hon. member knows, registrations are up, I believe somewhere around 15 to 17 per cent. The director of titles had, prior to my inquiry, made arrangements for additional staff in the persons of summer students. They have had a programme of summer students for a number of years but they are increasing it. I have certain other alternatives that I am considering at the present time in an effort to alleviate it.

I should point out that this is not the only facility in the province which has been strained in this fashion, particularly on those popular closing dates -- the 15th, 1st, or end of a particular month.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has now been exhausted.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, could I make a motion to extend it 15 minutes?

Some hon. members: No, no.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: They are afraid to; that’s why.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Let the member for Ottawa East ask for unanimous consent.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I have asked for unanimous consent.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Mr. Reid from the standing public accounts committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee recommends that it be provided with a copy of the Provincial Auditor’s report on the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and Star Transfer Ltd. for the year ending Dec. 31, 1973, concurrently with copies of the same being provided to the commission and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

Your committee further recommends that the chairman of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission furnish the committee with a copy of the internal audit reports completed by the staff of the internal audit branch of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications during 1973 for the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and Star Transfer Ltd. within two weeks of this date.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion to extend the question period by 15 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: I believe it is reserved for the ministry. I am sorry.

Mr. Shulman: He is allowed to ask for unanimous consent.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the estimates of the following ministries be referred to the standing administration of justice committee: the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary for Justice, the Ministry of the Attorney General, and the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Mr. Bullbrook: Prior to that particular motion I would like to ask a question of the government leader.

Mr. Speaker: Did the motion carry? The member wishes to speak to the motion?

Mr. Bullbrook: I’d like to speak to the matter by way of a question. I am wondering if the House leader could explain why he hasn’t put on Consumer and Commercial Relations and referred them to the standing committee on justice? It would seem to me that the main thrust of that particular operation does deal in the justice field, especially in connection with the operation of the land registry offices now.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): That is correct, Mr. Speaker. The ministries not mentioned in the motion will be heard in the House. I would like to inform the House too that the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Welch) is ready to be heard.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Roy: Could I move my motion, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No. I have explained to the hon. member that the motions under this routine proceeding are reserved for the government.

Mr. Roy: Just for the government?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Roy: But if I had the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion --

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is no television here.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Do you deny unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: There is no way that the hon. member could do this at this point in time.

Mr. Roy: You are protecting these guys, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am following the rules of the House -- the standing orders which have been agreed upon.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, sir, at the end of the question period surely the member was perfectly proper to ask for unanimous consent to extend it for 15 minutes? You should put that to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Well, there were objections. Certainly the hon. member --

Mr. Shulman: You never put it.

Mr. Speaker: I heard objections when it was suggested.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You sure did.

Mr. Speaker: I heard objections which indicates to me that there would not be unanimous consent, so why waste the time of the House?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They wouldn’t withhold unanimous consent surely? They just impede democracy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We just did.

Mr. Roy: All those against it stand up.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

FARM PRODUCTS GRADES AND SALES ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves second reading of Bill 20,

An Act to amend the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t have many comments with respect to this bill; we support it. It does have a number of principles in it.

The first part of the bill has to do with revoking the power to make regulations with respect to the licensing procedures and in its stead it provides for the various criteria to be set out in the bill itself in regard to licensing. On this side of the House we have long felt that many of these bills should be more explicit; many of them should deal in more precise terms with what exactly is intended and, further, the powers in a bill should be contained in the bill rather than in the regulations.

Many of the powers given in statutes and bills we pass through this Legislature are expanded and, in some cases, negated to an extent by the regulations. We really have no power in making those regulations although we have a regulations committee which, I believe, reviews the regulations from time to time.

I don’t mind shouting, Mr. Speaker, but --

Mr. Speaker: Would the Legislature come to order please? The hon. member for Huron-Bruce has the floor and we would like to hear what he has to say on the second reading of Bill 20.

Mr. Gaunt: Okay, I will talk to the minister (Mr. Stewart); I am sure he can hear me.

In any case we welcome that particular change in the bill. The power to make regulations is still inherent under the terms of the bill with respect to issuing, or renewing I should say, licences and their suspension and so on, and the conditions involved in fixing fees and so on, and the conditions involved in fixing fees and so on. That is still done by regulation. The prescribing of forms and providing for their use is still done by regulation.

The point is, there is a step forward in this bill to accommodate, I think, what we have long said on this side of the House, that more power should be set out in the bill rather than by regulation. This bill does precisely that with respect to licensing, or most of the licensing procedures.

The second thing this bill does is to make provision for a produce licence review board. That concept is something with which we agree and I think we can certainly support that principle.

The other thing that strikes me about the bill is that it establishes a Produce Arbitration Board to arbitrate disputes arising out of contracts, such as when a company contracts with a farmer and part of the terms or all of the terms of that contract are breached for one reason or the other. I gather that under the terms of this bill, given those circumstances, the farmer can now appeal to the Produce Arbitration Board to arbitrate the dispute between the fanner and the company.

If, in fact, the terms of the contract have been breached the Produce Arbitration Board has the power to indicate to the company that it will have to follow through on the terms of the commissions and the terms of the contract which it undertook with the farmer. There is an appeal to the courts from the award of the board.

There are really three forms of appeal in this particular bill with respect to licensing. The director has a form of appeal, in that he can review the matter again; so that really is a form of appeal. Then it can go to the appeal board and thence to the Supreme Court, as I understand it. So there are three levels of appeal. If a person feels that he has been harshly dealt with, or if he has been aggrieved in any way, shape or form, he has that option open to him in the issuing of a licence.

I think that’s all I have to say about the bill. We feel that it’s basically a housekeeping bill, although it does make a number of new provisions, such as the removal of the regulations with respect to licensing and the creation of the Produce Arbitration Board and the Produce Licence Review Board. These are things with which we agree and we support the bill.

Just before I close, I would like to get the

interpretation of the minister with respect to this Produce Arbitration Board. I hope that my

interpretation of its function is correct, because we have had a number of cases where farmers have felt that a company has actually reneged on the terms of an agreement and they have had no legal recourse. Under the terms of this bill, I would presume that they would have recourse to that board.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): As my friend, the member for Huron-Bruce, has said, there appear to be a number of points that are covered in the bill. I take it that, for practical purposes, there are three principles to the bill.

The first one is to provide for the marking of motor vehicles which transport farm produce and to provide for a system of markers that will be issued as well to prohibiting anybody from transporting farm produce unless there is a marker on the vehicle.

I take the second principle of the bill to be to incorporate in the Act the present provisions which are set out in the Revised Regulations of Ontario, No. 289, with respect to licences. The Act, as I understand it, as and when it is passed, will provide for three types of licences -- a licence as a dealer, a licence as an operator of a controlled-atmosphere storage plant and a licence as a packer of controlled-atmosphere fruit.

I would like to have the minister’s assurance that there will be no other types of licences issued by way of regulation, because if such licences were issued by way of regulation, the licensees would not appear to have the benefit of the provisions incorporated in the Act with respect to the Produce Licence Review Board.

A cursory review of the regulations in the Revised Regulations of Ontario, No. 289 and following under this Act, would indicate that at the present time all of the licences which are provided for by regulation are now being transferred into the Act, and in addition a licence is now being provided for a dealer in farm produce.

It seems to me to be very important to be clear that while the wording of the Act will permit regulations to be passed with respect to other forms of licences, the intention of the Act appears to be that provision for any new licences to be issued for different categories will come by way of amendment to the Act and will not be done by way of regulation, so that any licensee under this Act will have the benefit of the provisions of the Produce Licence Review Board if there is a refusal to issue, or if there’s revocation or a suspension or a failure to renew a licence. I take that to be the scheme that the minister proposes under the Act.

The third item is, as my friend, the member for Huron-Bruce has pointed out, a provision for a Produce Arbitration Board so that any dispute under any contract between a licensee and a producer of farm products will automatically be subject to arbitration under the Arbitrations Act, with the additional provision, as is clearly stated, that there would be an appeal from the decision of the arbitrator to a judge of the Supreme Court and, if necessary, to the Court of Appeal.

I take it that the evil sought to be cured is the situation in which disputes either rankle and go unresolved between a licensee and a producer of farm products, or in which they have to have direct recourse to the courts in order to get the matter settled, which undoubtedly is an expensive procedure.

I am curious as to whether or not the minister believes the arbitration provision will, in fact, be substantially cheaper for the parties to it than the normal court process. I interpolate that it would appear the minister is satisfied there has to be some different intermediary step for the settlement of disputes between producers of farm products and licence holders rather than having them, as I say, either rankle without going to the courts and remain unresolved, or requiring the parties to them to take the contractual dispute to the court.

It would appear to me that the provisions which are set out in the bill covering these three principles -- that is the incorporation into the Act of the provisions with respect to the issuance of the three types of licences; the provision with respect to the Produce Arbitration Board -- are well merited and the bill would have our support.

I am curious that the Produce Licence Review Board is to consist of not fewer than three people and that none of them is to be a member of the public service in the employ of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. My curiosity asks why should it be necessary to have any member of the public service sitting on the Produce Licence Review Board, whether that person be in the employ of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food or any other branch of the public service.

I also note it is specifically provided in the Produce Arbitration Board’s constitution that it’s to be made up of one dealer and one producer of farm products. Presumably, the one dealer would be able to represent the other licensees -- namely, the licensees who would be the ones holding licences as operators of controlled-atmosphere storage plants or licences as packers of fruit in controlled-atmospheres -- and that it would not be necessary to provide specifically for that particular type of interest to be represented on a Produce Arbitration Board set up to arbitrate a dispute with respect to such a storage plant.

With those comments, it would appear to us that the bill merits the support of this party and we would so support it on second reading. I do hope the minister will take the time to answer the two or three questions which I have raised during the course of my remarks.

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

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): I hadn’t intended speaking on this piece of legislation as I thought it looked quite acceptable to the people in my area, but there are one or two areas which have sort of whetted my imagination and I would like some clarification from the minister.

It relates to

section 2 and the principle contained therein concerning issuing markers for motor vehicles owned or leased by persons licensed as dealers and prohibiting any person from transporting the produce unless there is a marker on the vehicle. As I recall from my days in the produce business, there were numerous itinerant dealers with numerous types of vehicles marked and unmarked, and so forth.

I just wonder what effect this is going to have on the transactions in the fruit and vegetable industries. I assume it’s not going to affect in any way a recognized dealer who is going to transport his produce to the Ontario Food Terminal or elsewhere through PCV carriers that he has engaged for many years. I’m just curious to ask for a little further explanation of this particular section.

There is one other area that bothers me, since we are trained in the British sense of justice, I know this is common in other bills, but there is a clause here that the applicant may or may not be granted a licence if there is “reasonable ground for belief that the business will not be carried on in accordance with the law.” This tends to bother me and I realize that the minister and his officials have many years of experience in dealing with people in the business, some of whom have flouted laws of the province.

No doubt these are the matters that are taken into consideration in this regard, but it still bothers me as a Liberal to prejudge a person who is going to enter into business as to whether he will conduct his affairs ethically or otherwise.

The other matter is in relation to the operators of controlled-atmosphere storage plants. The owner or the operator of the controlled-atmosphere storage plant must now hold a licence as an operator and similarly he must be a packer of controlled-atmosphere fruits, according to what I read into this.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, there’s a very special onus on a person who has a CA facility in that for long periods of time they do store the produce of many other growers in the area, so they are a special entity. I think this is good that they have to be licensed to know what they are doing for the protection of the other growers whose produce they are holding in storage.

I just wonder if there is any other special onus on these people in regard to liability once the licence has been given to them. Is this covered by insurance and so forth in case of malpractice? I assume there would be none if the person were so licensed.

My colleagues have commented on the Produce Licence Review Board and the Produce Arbitration Board, and I think setting up these two boards is worthy. The only problem in this regard is that there are numerous people in my area who are both growers and dealers. I just wonder if they are excluded from possibly being appointed into the Produce Arbitration Board. As indicated, they must be a holder of a licence as a dealer and I assume that this would apply to both grower-dealers and straight dealers.

I conclude with these few remarks, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): The member for Essex South has discussed the point that I was going to bring up.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to speak on Bill 20 before the minister replies?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. members opposite with regard to the bill. The function of the Produce Arbitration Board, if I may deal with that one in general terms, is really to try to resolve some of the points of argument that can arise out of disputes over the sale of produce without having to go through the formal procedure of an application to the courts.

There is, of course, the final right in the bill to take the matter to the courts if they wish to, but we felt that this would be a somewhat more informal procedure and, as my friend from Riverdale mentioned, we think it will be perhaps less expensive to the people involved. In some cases there are not --

Mr. Paterson: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a question for clarification?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Paterson: Would this involve disputes where, say, something is sent in on consignment for sale and this type of argument may exist between the grower and the consignee?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, it could, Mr. Speaker, but we have envisaged that it might be more applicable where a trucker goes around the country buying potatoes, or apples, or whatever it may be, and some sort of a verbal agreement has been reached in the past that either party may have misunderstood in the rush of the hour at harvest time and disputes arise. Sometimes there are misunderstandings that, I think, may have been honest misunderstandings.

But I’m afraid that, based on some of the evidence that we have had brought to our attention by the people involved in the trade, there have been attempts made in some cases to circumvent the terms of the agreement. So this Produce Arbitration Board, which is really a new approach, should work and, we think, will help to resolve some of those difficulties.

As to the matter of markers on vehicles, it’s the same as now. It is required now that there be markers on these vehicles and I believe that it does expedite the inspection procedures to have the marker on the vehicle indicating that that vehicle is one that carries the particular produce in question.

Mr. Renwick: Is that presently in the regulations?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, it’s presently in the regulations, so there is really nothing new about it. It’s just re-emphasizing it and re-wording it.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: There will be no other types of licences issued other than those referred to in this bill, so that that matter is cleared up. We felt if any other type of licence is required to be issued by some other type of the industry, then that will necessitate an amendment to the Act.

Mr. Paterson: I would like a clarification again, Mr. Speaker. May I ask if, in a pinch, certain vehicles are not available and a produce company leases a vehicle, are these licences transferable to leased units on a short-term basis?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Does the member mean the markers?

Mr. Paterson: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I see no reason why they shouldn’t be, but my director of inspections is back here under the gallery. That’s a neat legal question and I’m not sure. I see no reason why they shouldn’t be, but I’m not sure whether that’s possible. Is it or not? Yes, I’m told that it is possible, but I would think that we wouldn’t encourage that to be done if possible.

With regard to civil service representation on both the Licence Review Board and the Produce Arbitration Board, I have some reservations about civil service representation there. I’m always afraid that somebody might say that someone within government is trying to influence a decision that was being made, and I think we want to relieve ourselves, and any minister who might happen to be handling the ministry, of any such insinuation which might come from some place. I would hope that it wouldn’t.

The matter raised by my friend from Essex South of the applicant being granted a licence or not granted a licence on the basis of ethics, is, plain and simple, a matter that I think has to be left to the discretion of the director, with his knowledge of the applicant’s past business dealings in the community. There have been some real fly-by-night operators who have fleeced producers right, left and centre. I think we have to be very sure that those people are not granted a licence by this government, or by any other government, to go out and carry on that type of a nefarious practice.

Based on his knowledge, if the director says “No, you don’t qualify for a licence” and he simply sends in his son, or his brother, or his wife the next day to apply for a licence -- and we know it’s the same outfit that’s involved -- I think that the director has every right to question the validity of that application and whether or not it should be granted.

Now, of course, there is the right of appeal and that applicant has the right to take that to the appeal board where both sides have the opportunity -- the applicant and the director -- to clearly state before the Licence Review Board why they should or should not receive favourable consideration in the application for the licence.

I would say this, that we have gone over this legislation pretty carefully with the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association marketing board executive officers and we have also discussed it, as I understand it, with several of the responsible produce dealers in Ontario. So that both sides are reasonably knowledgeable about what we are trying to do here and I think both have a keen appreciation for an honest effort being made to come to grips with the situation, which has been something less than desirable over the last few years.

But I would think that there is an onus on the producer to see that he does negotiate a deal with whomever it is he is selling the produce to and then have that deal marked down in writing -- not on the back of some envelope or a cigarette package, but a legitimate type of a contract, a bill of sale; and then the Produce Arbitration Board has something to work with.

I’m afraid that all too often in the past there may have been these informal types of deals made that have ended up in misunderstandings for all concerned and some pretty hard feelings have evolved out of it all.

In the final analysis they come to our ministry’s inspectors and say to them, “Now you resolve this thing, this is my side of the story.”

Our people, who really have no obligation to try to resolve these matters in technical or statutory terms, but simply because they know the parties involved, in an attempt to resolve the issue may contact the other party and find that there is really nothing to go on.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are urging that there be some type of formal agreement drawn up between the various parties to these deals; and I think that that would just make good common sense. So I appreciate the support of the hon. members opposite, Mr. Speaker, on second reading.

Mr. Spence: May I ask a question of the minister in regard to clarification?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Spence: Now this doesn’t mean that if the producer delivers his vegetables or fruit or whatever to a plant, he doesn’t need a licence to do that, or that he doesn’t need to have a marking on his vehicle.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, I should have that recorded in Hansard, Mr. Speaker; the answer is “no” to that.

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 20,

An Act to amend the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act.

AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves second reading of Bill 21,

An Act to amend the Agricultural Societies Act.

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

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, just a few brief comments about this bill. Essentially it is a housekeeping bill. There are a lot of changes being made, but not really fundamental changes, so I don’t think that I’ll use the opportunity to launch a --

An hon. member: Go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, there are. They are great.

Mr. Gaunt: Well, there are changes, but are they fundamental -- raising the membership from $1 to $2?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, no.

Mr. Gaunt: There are some things that are more significant than that one, but I don’t want to use this opportunity to launch a long speech on the role of agricultural societies in the community and the changes that should be made in regard to making their role more effective, and on the position of the small rural fair as opposed to the large county fair. I don’t want to get into that discussion, although I think I could on a bill of this nature.

On the matter of the fee required by organizing members, I am curious why that is being raised. It’s not a major change, but the point is that the fee is not normally considered to be a money-raising device within the society. I am wondering what the theory is behind the change in the members’ fee from $1 to $2. It’s just a curious note that I inject into the matter at this point, Mr. Speaker. I really couldn’t find a reason why that would be done other than to raise more money and, as I say, the raising of money through this particular device within the agricultural society is pretty limited to say the least.

Regarding the other changes, I am pleased to see that homestead improvement competitions carried out by agricultural societies are now grantable. I think that is a good change and one which I am sure will be welcomed by all agricultural societies across the province. Many of them have undertaken these competitions, and I think that the agricultural benefits as well as the community under whose ambit the agricultural society comes, because it improves the countryside and the appearance. I think it is a good thing, and its a good direction in which to move with respect to this kind of thing.

I am pleased to see that that is now grantable and the Act has been broadened to recognize that new role of the agricultural society. It used to be that the agricultural society was a one- or two- or perhaps three-day event in the minds of people. I think that has changed.

The agricultural society now is becoming more of a year-round activity in a lot of communities throughout this province. I think that is a good thing, essentially because the small rural fairs were having a very difficult time to make ends meet. They were faced with a dwindling rural population, with reduced revenues on fall-fair day, and in many cases they just couldn’t see their way clear to keep going.

But they have broadened their approach in many cases. They have got into the homestead improvement competitions, amateur nights as well as events surrounding horse racing and, in some cases, horse shows. All of these things tend to come at various periods throughout the year, so that rather than having a function once a year, the agricultural societies, particularly the smaller and medium-sized ones, are holding what used to be considered so-called extracurricular activities throughout the year. In this way they are involving their people pretty well on a continuous basis, which is all to the good, I think.

This bill recognizes those shifts and changes in the role of the agricultural society, and for that I am grateful.

I noticed that the bill takes into account the matter of enforcement. I don’t think it has been a frequent occurrence, but there have been some occasions when the so-called hucksters have tried to invade the fall fairs, and the directors have been placed in a very difficult position to try to keep them out. I think on a few occasions they weren’t able to keep them out. So I think this is a good change.

I see that the penalty is raised from $50 to $100 where an offence has been committed. I’m wondering if this is high enough. I pose that question to the minister. Perhaps it should be $200 or $300 because some of these people are very persistent and, particularly at a larger fair, they know they can make a good dollar quickly and they are prepared to take their chances. I would suggest to the minister that perhaps that amount should be reconsidered. I don’t think $100 is any great deterrent to these people who are bound and bent on getting in regardless of what they are told.

The grants or loans given by municipalities to agricultural societies are, I think, a very important aspect of the operation of an agricultural society. I think that during the lifetime of these societies, most municipalities have given grants and/or loans to these societies, and the municipalities have played a pretty important role in the success and the growth of agricultural societies throughout the provinces.

As I understand the Act, as presently drafted, the limits placed on municipalities in regard to grants and loans are removed; they can now give whatever they deem to be proper by way of assistance through grants and loans to the agricultural societies. I think that is a move in the right direction, as well.

Basically, then, we support the changes. We hope that they will result in the growth of fall fairs across the province. We hope that they will result in improved quality at the fall fairs.

Basically, if that purpose is accomplished, then I think the rural communities throughout Ontario will be the big beneficiaries of the changes in this Act.

While I am on this topic I’ll take this opportunity to say to the minister -- and I think he believes it; certainly his director has said this on a number of occasions -- that a small rural fair is a very important event in the life of a community. I think that it galvanizes and pulls together the people in that community the way nothing else does. People who hardly ever see one another all year round end up working together at the fall fair.

I think that if the small fairs throughout the province ever disappear, which I hope they don’t, it will be another stumbling block in the way of better rural-urban relations. And I think that we will have driven another nail in the coffin of a small rural community if it loses its fall fair.

The fall fair is a very important event. I think this government and the federal government should be doing everything they possibly can to ensure that these fall fairs are encouraged to continue, to grow and to become more active. Thank you very much.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have only one question and a comment or a warning about the bill. My question is, I am most curious as to the way the ministry decides upon the size of the grants which are going to be made, and I would certainly appreciate it if the minister would refer to the specific $300 grant under the one clause and a grant of not more than $500 and then $200 and $75 and a maximum of $1,500. Presumably there must be some sort of arbitrary decision as to what the amount will be, but I would be interested to know why those particular figures were selected and what the reasoning behind it would be in making the selection of those particular figures.

The word of caution that I want to indicate is, that the bill provides for the board of directors of one of these societies appointing special constables on a pro-tem basis for practical purposes during the course of the operation of the fair. The Act as it presently stands provides that it would be the justice of the peace in the area who would, in fact, appoint such persons to act on a pro-tem basis as constables. The reason I raise it is that I question very much whether or not the board of directors of a society should either be given the authority or saddled with the responsibility of making that kind of appointment.

It would seem to me to be more proper that perhaps the board of directors would nominate the persons whom they suggest but that the actual appointments should be made either by the justice of the peace, or by the judge of the county or district court, or by the senior police board in the area, in order to make certain that the persons who are appointed both recognize the responsibility that they have to discharge and are aware of the danger of the liability which they might incur if they were to discharge their duties improperly.

Under the two sections where those persons are given authority to act in addition to any regular constables who may be in attendance, they have the power -- in the one case the language referred is “to remove” and in the other case the language used is “to eject” -- and of course the power to remove and the power to eject is, within certain time limits, in substance, the power to arrest, that is, to forcibly take hold, arrest or assault, and that means to take hold of someone forcibly to remove him from the premises.

In most cases perhaps there is no question that it would be done both properly and reasonably, but at the same time the persons who are appointed as special constables run the risk that they may use more force than is necessary for the purpose. They may injure some person. They may very well improperly exercise their duties.

It would seem to me that, rather than have the board of directors themselves appointing those persons to act as constables pro-tem, the appointment of them should be made perhaps on recommendation of the board of directors, either as to the number who are required or to the persons who might fulfil the role, and to have the appointment, in fact, made by a person holding a judicial responsibility in the area in order to make sure that there would be some occasion or some opportunity to instruct the persons within the limitations of their authority, the way in which they are to conduct themselves and the scope of their authority, so that they do discharge their responsibilities properly as and when the occasion may require and so that they do not incur the kind of personal liability that they might very well incur if they were to abuse or misuse the authority which is granted to them in the bill.

Perhaps it is just a word of caution, perhaps there is no significance to it, but I wanted to mention it because it could very well be a situation which could lead to substantial difficulty, and I am not quite certain where the actual liability resides. It may well be, in a situation like this where constables are appointed pro-tem, that there may possibly be an adequate provision made for some kind of grant of immunity if they act in good faith and in a reasonable way in the carrying out of their duties, or some such protection for them. I don’t pretend to know all the ramifications but I am concerned that the board of directors should have this authority.

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

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support what the minister is trying to do in connection with the agricultural societies. They certainly play a very important role in my own community. We have had problems there, though, because of the increase in land values and the constraints of space. In Markham, for example, they have sold the fairgrounds and they are going to be moving to a new area.

There has been a lot of rivalry, both in Markham and Richmond Hill, between urban elements -- or what I call the city people -- moving into the area and the interests and pressures they bring, and those who are the established people who have run these affairs in the past. Sometimes newer people have a lot of difficulty understanding the special knowledge and expertise of those who have been in the community a long time.

Those rural people who have been there a long time understand the agricultural aspects of the fall fairs and what’s needed to make them successful. Sometimes it’s lost on those coming into a community who don’t understand and don’t support those people who, to my mind, have made these fairs the great success and the important attraction they have been to a city like Toronto.

In connection with one clause; I want to get clarification from the minister. That is the matter of clause 5 which says:

Where a society exhibits a display of a farm product that is produced on a commercial basis or holds a fieldcrop or other competition ... is approved by the superintendent ....

Is that a requirement that it must be approved or is it just a situation that when they are looking for grant support it has to be approved by the superintendent?

It is not clear from the wording and perhaps it does mean that if the province is going to give a grant, naturally the superintendent should have some say as well as receiving a report afterwards. Other than that, I am pleased to see the limit of support to municipalities is removed. Certainly in our area it will be important that we have very substantial municipal support in order that these fairs ran continue to exist and flourish.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lanark.

Mr. D. J. Wiseman (Lanark): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like, on behalf of the five fair boards in the area I represent and the two just outside my riding, to thank the minister for bringing this legislation forward. Any of us who attends these fairs knows that the light horse shows in the area have become very popular and there are a lot of young children who have horses and show them. The fair boards have found it difficult to arrange for prize money and I think this maximum of $500 will certainly go a long way to help them.

As for the amateur entertainment, I think most of our small fairs have found this to be quite an expense and there again I would like to congratulate the minister.

I would like to say, though, that in the bigger fairs like the Toronto exhibition and the Ottawa exhibition -- I know we give a lot of money and it’s not in this bill -- if we could put some restrictions on their entertainment or try to talk to them about bringing in American entertainment in place of some Canadian it would be worthwhile; I think we need a good combination of both. I would like again to thank the minister on behalf of our boards.

There is one thing that bothers me. Will these grants be available to all fairs regardless of size in the area, regardless of the class A fair or B or whatever it might be? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Paterson: Mr. Speaker, there is one area in this bill which bothers me. That is

section 7 and the principle of that concerning the power of the officers of the agricultural society to regulate, prohibit and prevent certain things happening within 300 yd of, or on their particular exhibition grounds. I concur certainly with the intent of this -- that they prohibit theatrical, circus or acrobatic performances or exhibitions within that area -- and the following line indicates that they may regulate or prevent huckstering or trafficking in fruit. I wonder if that should be fruit and vegetables.

The other point that I would like to make in this regard is as to whether this particular legislation supersedes a transient trader’s licence that may have been granted to what well term a huckster or an itinerant sales person by the municipality in which the fair is going to take place. I can think of many instances where transient traders’ licences are given out, much to the worry or chagrin of the retail merchants in that community. It’s bothersome for them and I’m sure it would be to the officers of an agricultural society who have a very few days in which to carry out their year’s activity.

Would, in fact, this legislation supersede the case of, say, a local person who has a transient traders licence, who possibly has an ice cream or popcorn vending wagon from coming within 300 yd of that exhibition or not? I would like to know the legal ramifications of this and have that clarified today, so that proper enforcement may take place if such is the case.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak before the minister replies? Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very keen about this bill, quite frankly. I really believe that this not only goes a very long way to assist the people of rural Ontario in the agricultural societies to govern their own affairs more appropriately than they have been able to do in the past, but it expands their sphere of influence within the local community.

Perhaps the local agricultural societies and the fall fairs -- some 240 of them across the Province of Ontario today -- are providing one of the last vestiges of real community life as we have known it throughout generations in this province of ours. To some degree the local communities have disappeared in many respects. There isn’t the same community spirit. I’ve said this before in this House, Mr.

Speaker, and being a rural person yourself you will understand, that the advent of the combine and the forage harvester to my mind had more to do with the abandonment of the community spirit as we knew it, when we got together as gangs of people working together as a community effort. That’s all over with.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That’s been augmented to some extent by the introduction of regional government.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh, of course. But the introduction of regional government didn’t have nearly as much to do with it as the centralization of township schools. That’s where it really started off in that degree. The local school was the centre of the community, just as the local rural church was. And all of that we predicated on how far you could drive a horse or walk on a Sunday. But with the advent of the car this is altogether different today. The advent of the school buses and the centralization of schools has to some degree removed that spirit of community effort that we used to have.

The agricultural societies, being strictly representative of the rural communities, have continued on. As someone has said this afternoon, they have expanded their sphere of interest and they’ve grown. Contrary to the predictions that were made by many people that they would disappear from the scene of rural Ontario, they have strengthened their positions, because they have kept up to date with the local communities in many cases.

Those societies that have recognized the fact that many urban people have moved out, that there’s a changing characteristic to rural Ontario today, and have focused their attention on catering to the new interests that we find in rural Ontario have been able, I think, to provide an even better service than we ever had in the past.

We look upon the Act in the housekeeping clauses to which hon. members have referred. My friend from Huron-Bruce asked why the organizing fee went up from $1 to $2. At the same time we reduced the numbers from 25 to 10 to organize the society. So, really, there are not many dollars involved. But I suppose that the executive, when they asked that this be done, felt that $1 in 1974 and on really wasn’t a very significant amount, nor I suppose is $2. So we were pleased to grant that request of the agricultural societies to be able to go ahead on that basis.

The hon. member for Riverdale raised a question that was of concern to me, I must confess, when the bill was first discussed with us by the executive officers of the Ontario Association of Agricultural Societies. I suppose that that is one of the strongest organizations we have in rural Ontario today. Their annual meeting is something to behold believe me; with well over 1,000 delegates, it is quite a major exercise.

The special officer status prompted me to refer the whole matter to the law officers of the Crown, and we reviewed it thoroughly. Quite frankly, these are not special constables; they have no real police powers, and yet my friend from Riverdale did suggest the power to remove or eject does connote physical effort and the necessity of probably taking hold of a person and ejecting him if the occasion warranted such action.

On the other hand, these special constables would have the same power to remove or eject as any property owner now does when someone is on his property improperly, and as such they are agents of the owners of the agricultural society or the fairgrounds. In other words, they are the people who own that property.

Now, we really don’t believe that the powers of appointment of police officers have been exceeded. As a matter of fact, we have the approval of the Attorney General’s office for this legislation, and it has been carefully worded to do just what they have asked to be done and to meet with the approval of the law officers of the Crown.

I would suppose -- and I am not prompted to suggest this by any notes that have arrived on my desk -- that several of the security firms that now provide this service probably could be employed to provide this service to the various exhibitions. Some of them are now doing it. Others are not. In some cases, they have used Ontario Provincial Police officers, but there are just not enough to go round in the fall fair season.

The matter of the increase of the fine to more than $100 is something that prompts me to wonder if that $100 is enough, quite frankly. It is not much in today’s economy and, as my friend from Essex South mentioned, there are people who come there who are -- for want of a better word -- so-called hucksters, who could find themselves in the position of making a very fast dollar, and perhaps in a bit of a slippery way, and I am wondering if indeed the $100 fine is enough.

On the other hand there is the right of the fair board to have its security people or those who are carrying out the enforcement of the regulations of the fair within 300 yds. Perhaps that’s sufficient. The same regulations pertain to fairs like the CNE or the larger shows like the Ottawa and London exhibitions, so perhaps there is no real problem there. But the matter of the fine does prompt me to wonder a bit if perhaps we should be looking at that matter.

One other matter that was raised is how the grants are arrived at. This is indeed an arbitrary figure. In order to set a budget, we take the number of exhibitions in the province and base it on their indication of what participation they will have -- and that’s based a bit on their past experience as well as on other things. But of course this is new, and we simply set these figures as being what we can live with within our budget and that’s simply one-third of what they will pay out up to this maximum.

Frankly, I think that the opportunity to develop these farmstead improvement competitions is one of the best and most far-reaching steps for the betterment and improvement of rural Ontario that I can think of. Every one of us is fully aware of what happens as far as the international plowing match is concerned, where we have the farmstead improvement competitions associated with that, and the betterment of the rural communities is abundantly evident for all to see.

Unfortunately, it only moves around from county to county in the various parts of the province; and many other parts of the province, with a little bit of inspiration and enthusiasm and support and initiative from some local body, could perhaps achieve the same degree of success. We’re simply making it possible in this amendment to assist the focal agricultural societies to do what the international agricultural societies’ executive have been able to do for some time.

With regard to amateur shows, I’ve been impressed, Mr. Speaker, with the tremendous wealth of talent we have throughout rural Ontario. We have so many young people who are far more talented, I guess, than we were in our day, and I think they should have the opportunity to display their talents. Perhaps they only require the opportunity to present whatever they can do before the public and, surely, there’s no better place than through the local fair boards’ activities. So that is why this has been introduced.

The special grants available to the light horse shows have been introduced simply to keep pace with the new look in rural Ontario, where we have many people now having pony clubs and light horse shows, and I think that this legislation will help to come to grips with all of these matters.

I’d like to refer the bill, if I might, Mr. Speaker, to the committee of the whole House, because there may be, after further consideration, an amendment that I would like to make at that time, which would be consistent with a suggestion made by the Provincial Auditor.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding that the bill is to go to the committee of the whole House.

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1

Clerk of the House: Government notice of motion No. 1.

Hon. Mr. White moves that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): That’ll never carry.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Lots of enthusiasm for that.

BUDGET ADDRESS

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Economic and Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, needless to say I’m very privileged, indeed to have the opportunity once again of presenting a budget to the legislative assembly and to invite the support of the members.

As I do so, I point out something that may not be universally known, namely that this is the last day that Ian Macdonald will be Deputy Treasurer of Ontario, and while he has been praised by the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the leaders of the opposition parties, I would like to pay my personal respects and give my personal thanks to him for his assistance to me over the years, and more particularly in the last 15 months. He is a man who is clever, wise and good and I know hell do well at York. He’s taking applications for honorary degrees.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Is the Treasurer first on the list?

Hon. Mr. White: I think not.

He will be a special adviser to the Premier until the end of June. Our regret at seeing Ian leave is mitigated to some extent by his successor, who is sitting behind him fittingly enough, Mr. Kendall Dick, who will become the Deputy Treasurer tomorrow. I look forward to working with Mr. Dick in this new capacity.

May I take a further moment to thank Dr. Terry Russell, assistant deputy minister; Mr. Duncan Allan, executive director; and Mr. George McIntyre, executive director; and their staffs, for the untold hours they put into the budgetary preparation, indeed for 11 months or more. I thank them very much for their unstinting help and the enormous dedication of their staffs. Thank you very much indeed.

I’m glad also to point out that in the Speaker’s gallery as guests of Mr. Speaker, together with my wife Beatrice, are friends of mine from Ontario, from Quebec and from Bermuda. We hope they’ll find this an interesting session for them all, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): The Treasurer won’t have any after today.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): The member would be surprised.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, the most important problem facing us today is inflation. The year 1973 is one of record growth in Canada and in Ontario, but excessive price rises eroded much of the benefit which should have accompanied this strong development. Prices have accelerated steadily and we are faced with the prospect of 10 per cent inflation in 1974.

This worldwide phenomenon is threatening the stability and growth of the economies of the industrialized world. The growing shortage of basic raw materials and energy supplies is adding to inflationary pressures. There is little prospect for an early return to price stability unless all jurisdictions employ the powers at their disposal with new determination and courage. The government of Ontario is willing to use every practical measure within its constitutional jurisdiction to combat inflation in the expectation that other responsible organizations in the public and private sectors will do the same. This is our promise and this is our challenge.

The forces of inflation are durable and persistent. To beat back these forces requires concerted action by all levels of government. Ontario will provide the leadership by initiating a course of forceful action which includes: New measures to offset the effects of inflation; new measures to restrain inflation, new measures to stimulate supply; new measures to share with the public the profits of inflation; and new measures to share resources with local governments.

Our success in controlling inflation will depend on the co-operation of the wage earner, the consumer and the businessman. But it will also depend greatly on leadership and action by the federal government to puncture the myth that inflation is inevitable and to restore confidence in the belief that every Canadian will share in rising prosperity.

All members are aware of the inequitable impact of inflation on low-income families and other groups on relatively fixed incomes. The first part of the government’s strategy for dealing with inflation consists of proposals for substantial new programmes to offset the effects of inflation.

These are: A guaranteed annual income programme for the elderly, the blind and the disabled; free prescription drugs for elderly persons with low incomes and for all individuals on social assistance; enriched tax credits, including a doubling of the property tax credit to take into account the increased cost of heating; and a broadening of exemptions under the Retail Sales Tax Act.

I am proposing a new guaranteed annual income system, to be known as GAINS, for the elderly, blind and disabled in Ontario. The GAINS programme will guarantee an income of $50 a week for all single persons and $100 a week for all married couples who are aged 65 and over, and for those who are blind or disabled and receive family benefits. This represents a guaranteed annual cash income of $5,200 a year for a married couple and $2,600 a year for a single person. In future, the guaranteed income levels will be increased periodically in order to maintain the purchasing power of these benefits.

This programme will commence July 1, 1974. In this fiscal year GAINS will provide $75 million in increased cash income for people in need. More than 310,000 people will receive Ontario GAINS cheques in July, 1974. This will include 270,000 pensioners who are eligible for the federal Guaranteed Income Supplement and a further 10,000 low-income elderly who are ineligible for GIS because they do not meet the federal residency requirement of 10 years. No fewer than 120,000 pensioners will receive the maximum GAINS entitlement. With the introduction of this programme, blind and disabled persons will be entitled for the first time to the same income guarantee as those who are over age 65.

In addition to GAINS, Ontario will initiate a new programme to remove the burden of high drug costs on needy pensioners. For all people who receive the guaranteed income supplement and those on provincial assistance programmes, the government will provide free prescription drugs. This programme will begin in September and will cost $12 million in the current fiscal year. Details will be announced by the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller).

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Why not now?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Why wait until spring? Do it now.

Hon. Mr. White: Because it can’t be done now; it has to be organized.

Mr. Speaker, I am also proposing a substantial enrichment and improvement of Ontario’s tax credits to minimize the burden of shelter costs for those families most vulnerable to the eroding powers of inflation.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. White: The property credit will double from $90 to $180. The pensioner credit will increase from $100 to $110 and the maximum tax credit entitlement will be raised from $400 to $500, with the offset rate being increased from one to two per cent of taxable income. These improvements will ensure that maximum benefits flow to those most in need of relief from rising living costs, including home heating, and will further reduce the burden of property taxes.

Ontario’s fair sharing tax credit system will now provide $375 million in benefits to Ontario families and individuals compared to $305 million in 1973. It is also becoming increasingly important to increase the scope and flexibility of the Ontario tax credits so that the administration of the tax credit system and GAINS will be fully integrated. Initially, GAINS will be administered separately by the Ontario Ministry of Revenue; however, in recognition of the advantages which accrue in the long run through the integration of the income security and tax credit systems, Ontario plans to assume the full administration of its tax credit system.

An hon. member: All the publicity --

Hon. Mr. White: As a further measure to help restore the purchasing power of the consumers’ dollars. I am proposing to remove the retail sales tax from a broad range of items. First, I propose to exempt a number of personal hygiene items such as toothpaste, baby powder, soap, deodorants and feminine hygiene products.

Secondly, I propose to exempt a broad list of household products used for washing and cleaning purposes. A detailed list of the new exemptions is included in the appendix A list, budget statement.

The value of these sales tax exemptions is estimated to be $28 million in this fiscal year. Ontario’s exemptions are more extensive than those granted by any other Canadian province employing sales taxes, or by neighbouring states in the USA.

Thirdly, I am proposing the full exemption of all footwear sold for $30 or less. This will remove the sales tax from all children’s shoes and most adult shoes, as well as from lower-priced skates, cleats and athletic footwear.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: That’s so the Treasurer can skate around a little better.

Hon. Mr. White: Until now children’s shoes up to size 6 have been exempt. The value of this new exemption is estimated at $15 million a year.

Children’s clothing presents a taxation problem similar to that for shoes. The use of a size criterion for exemption inevitably means that the sales tax bears on clothing for larger than average children while the exemption is enjoyed by smaller adults. The government is interested in correcting the situation so that all children’s clothing is free of the retail sales tax. I’m considering a tax credit mechanism, but invite any other ideas to achieve this desired result for the 1975 budget.

These sales tax cuts will lower the cost of many important items to Ontario consumers by $43 million in this fiscal year. The changes will take effect after the necessary legislation is passed by the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the proposals which I have made for decreasing the effects of inflation are comprehensive and long-lasting. The sales tax exemption will be a benefit to all of our people. The GAINS programme will ensure that Ontario’s elderly citizens enjoy a good standard of living during their retirement years and that our blind and disabled people are guaranteed equal income benefits.

The enriched tax credits will further reduce the burden of property taxes and home heating costs; and free prescription drugs will provide significant assistance to those in need.

The GAINS programme and the improved tax credit system are an important step toward a comprehensive guaranteed income system for Ontario citizens. The government intends to build on these advances and invites the suggestions of interested groups for improvements to these programmes in the future.

In

summary, the measures I propose involve an additional $200 million to offset the effects of inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to describe three important new measures to restrain inflation. They are designed to stabilize land prices and encourage Canadian ownership of Ontario real estate, and to freeze public transit fares.

One cause of present inflation is the rapidly escalating price of land. Some increase in land prices is to be expected because of the steady process of urbanization and the need to accommodate 100,000 new families in Ontario each year. There is no doubt, however, that speculation, both by Canadian residents and by non-residents, bids up prices artificially, increases the cost of housing and generates unwarranted windfall gains.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am proposing a new tax to discourage this speculative activity. This tax has two objectives: To reduce the escalation of land and housing prices and to recover for the public a major share of windfall gains from land speculation. The land speculation tax will go into effect at midnight tonight. It will impose an additional 50 per cent tax on the increase in value realized on the sale of designated land. Over and above this tax, normal personal and corporate income taxes will apply. The speculation tax is designed to bear most heavily on owners of land and properties which are purchased and resold without any real value being added.

There is a table, sir, in the statement, showing that the maximum rate of tax on corporations will thereby go to 87 per cent and on individuals to 81 per cent, providing they are Canadian residents.

The government does not wish to discourage development and construction of industrial, commercial, or residential buildings. Accordingly, exemptions will be provided in the following instances:

Sale of property used for commercial and industrial purposes, including tourist establishments, will be exempt;

Sale of property where the vendor has complied with a subdivision agreement and constructed residential or commercial premises, will be exempt;

Sale of property where the vendor has purchased serviced land and constructed residential or commercial premises, will be exempt;

Homeowners will be exempt from the land speculation tax on their principal residence, including 10 acres of land;

A principal recreational property, including 20 acres of land, will also be exempt.

This latter exemption will not apply, however, when the purchaser of the recreational property, such as a cottage, is a non-resident of Canada.

People who trade in non-principal properties will be taxed on any gain which they realize from the sale of these non-principal residences.

Persons who effectively dispose of land through transfers of corporate shares will also be required to pay the tax.

Family farms will be exempt from the land speculation tax when the farms are transferred within the family and continued in agricultural use. When disposed of outside the family, these farms will bear the tax on the appreciation in value after April 9 in excess of 10 per cent compounded annually. This feature will help to retain land in agricultural use and also ensure that the tax does not apply unfairly to farmers, whose income, capital and pension stream is largely tied up in the form of land.

The following features will also be incorporated into the land speculation tax:

Acquisition cost will be the fair market value on April 9, or the actual cost if purchased after April 9, 1974;

In determining the increase in value after April 9, capital improvement costs and reasonable carrying charges not exceeding 10 per cent per annum will be allowed as eligible deductions. These eligible deductions also apply to family farms;

The land speculation tax will not apply in the case of expropriations, sales to all governments and agencies thereof, nor to Canadian resource properties in Ontario.

The government of Ontario recognizes that strong measures are required to curb the excessive land speculation now occurring. We are determined to proceed with firm action. At the same time we recognize that this is a complex matter and unforeseen problems may emerge in administering this new tax. Thus, during the first year of operation I envisage a series of amendments and refinements to the land speculation tax bill. This bill will be tabled immediately after this address by my colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen).

By introducing this land speculation tax I hope to deflate, or at least slow down, land price increases and thereby contain costs for housing and other development projects in Ontario.

The success of this speculation tax will be inversely related to its revenue yield -- the smaller the revenues the greater the desired impact on curbing speculation. For this fiscal year the revenue yield from the speculation tax can be little more than a rough estimate, which I have set at $25 million in keeping with my optimism that the tax will indeed produce the anti-speculation result the government is seeking.

Half of the revenue from this new tax will be shared with Ontario municipalities utilizing a method to be designated by the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee. Recent experience with the fiscal arrangements sub-committee of the PMLC has proven the value of this form of provincial-municipal co-operation. I will require that these additional local revenues be correlated with the municipalities’ success in providing new housing at reasonable cost for our people. The government of Ontario expresses its appreciation to the co-chairman and members of the PMLC for their co-operation in financial and legislative matters during the past year.

In examining the problem of rapidly rising prices for real property in Ontario, it has become increasingly apparent that large-scale acquisition of land by non-residents of Canada is a significant factor. The matter of control of non-resident ownership of Canadian land is a current constitutional issue which has not been fully resolved. The problem has been studied, however, and has been reported on recently by Ontario’s Select Committee on Economic and Cultural Nationalism.

The government of Ontario recognizes that positive action on this matter is required now in order to maximize Canadian ownership of our real estate. The government has decided therefore to take interim steps using the instruments at its disposal. Accordingly, I am proposing to increase substantially the land transfer tax on purchases of land by non-residents of Canada, to 20 per cent from 6/10 of one per cent, effective at midnight tonight.

In proposing this measure, I wish to emphasize that we continue to welcome the flow into Ontario of mortgage and debt financing from abroad. I emphasize also that it is not our intention to penalize industries which seek to locate or expand in this province, although we would encourage these established companies to broaden Canadian equity participation.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. White: To ensure that industries which contribute substantially to the Ontario economy will not be penalized, I propose to establish a review procedure whereby the additional transfer tax may be rebated in certain instances. The Minister of Revenue will table the bill immediately after my budget statement.

In order that the tax on non-residents does not curtail the operations of foreign companies which play an important role in developing our stock of housing and commercial realty, I propose to forgive the additional tax when vacant land bought by a non-resident is sold back to Canadians within five years in the form of housing or developed commercial premises.

The increase in land transfer tax to 20 per cent on purchases by non-residents will complement and reinforce the land speculation tax. Speculative pressure on land prices