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

April 29, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L045 - Thu 29 Apr 1976 / Jeu 29 avr 1976

JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES

KASHECHEWAN FLOODING SITUATION

JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES

LOTTERY TICKET DISTRIBUTION

LEAD SMELTERS REPORT

ACCESS TO OMBUDSMAN

NORTHERN AND CENTRAL NATURAL GAS CHARGES

PCB CONTENT IN SMELT

MERCURY CONTENT OF FISH

CRANE-OPERATING HAND SIGNALS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

COST OF SABBATICALS

WINDSOR TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

FEES OF HOMES-FOR-AGED DOCTORS

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

PREMIER’S VISIT TO HAMILTON

SENTENCES IN BEATING CASE

AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT

LOTTERY TICKET DISTRIBUTION

POST-RETIREMENT INTEGRATION OF INVESTMENT MONEYS AND PENSION BENEFIT PREVENTION ACT

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF REVENUE

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES

Hon. J. R. Smith: In my absence, on Tuesday, April 27, 1976, the hon. member for Hamilton West raised a question concerning current practice in the Ministry of Correctional Services in the use of dissociation units or segregation rooms. I will attempt in this statement to set out for the hon. members current practice, but, initially, I think it would be beneficial to remind members of the range of young persons for whom the training school programmes are designed.

Currently, approximately 900 children are made wards of the Ministry of Correctional Services each year. For the most part, they have committed an offence which, had they been adults, would have led them through the adult court process. Fortunately, it is increasingly possible, because of the development of agencies in the community, for the police to divert many young people into community placements. However, as a consequence, my ministry to a growing extent is left with a training school population which represents the most difficult children from our Ontario communities.

A great many of these young people have tested and tried every type of community intervention, from foster homes to group homes to psychiatric care. For the most part, they have truly been out of control in our communities.

With our continually improving training school programmes and opportunities for increasingly intensive follow-up supervision in the community in group homes or foster homes, and with the assistance of our probation and after-care service staff, we have decreased the average length of stay in our schools to approximately seven months.

With the population of young people whom I have described receiving the attention of a well-trained and competent staff, my ministry uses placement in segregation areas for a variety of selected purposes. Approximately half of these usages relate to children who have just been returned from an AWOL, from a group home or from a school. In other cases, our policy dictates that only in rather extreme cases may students be placed in segregation or quiet rooms.

For all children, the upper time limit for placement in a segregation room is 48 hours and this occurs only on the authority of the superintendent or his designate. Beyond this time, and for very exceptional cases, the superintendent must receive authorization from the regional administrator of schools. In most instances, during the time a young person spends in a quiet room, contact is made with him or her every 15 minutes.

The quality of interaction at these intervals is of course dependent upon the needs of the child.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: I’m sorry. Could there be a little more quiet? The statement is an important one.

Mr. Speaker: I’m having difficulty hearing too. If there could be fewer private conversations things would be more satisfactory.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Practise what you preach.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. J. R. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If a child is seriously upset, the supervisor would remain with him or her and attempt to engage the young person in conversation. If, on the other hand, the young person has requested temporary separation from his school group, possibly to bring himself under control, he will be afforded the opportunity for increased privacy unless this is otherwise indicated.

A variety of situations arise that lead to separation of the child from the larger population in any school. As the question raised relates to Pine Ridge Training School in Bowmanville, the statistics which I will quote will reflect events in that institution. For the time period, Jan. 1, 1975 to Dec. 31, 1975, a total of 101 usages of segregation placement occurred. Separation occurred for a variety of reasons, ranging from the management of individuals who had just been returned from an AWOL situation to assaultive behaviour within the school.

Of this figure, almost one half represented cases of children who had returned from AWOL situations and required a settling period and medical investigation and clearance often related to withdrawal from drugs. Approximately 10 per cent had been placed in protective segregation, often at their own request. The remainder included cases of children whose placement in segregation was a result of assaultive or other seriously disruptive conduct in the school.

During this 12-month period no child spent any more than 48 hours at any one time in the segregation area. On the average, 8.4 boys per month were placed in the area; if the numbers relating to protective segregation and returnees from AWOL are removed, fewer than four boys per month were admitted to segregation. It should be noted that the figure of 101 records the number of individual admissions. The actual number of wards involved was 58 and the average length of stay was approximately 18 hours.

Remarks have been made regarding the physical aspects of the segregation facilities. For the sake of his own safety and that of others, a young person in a state of uncontrollable behaviour cannot be surrounded with objects which he can utilize to harm or injure himself, his peers or staff.

To ensure the appropriate use of segregation facilities, each time a ward is placed in segregation a report must be prepared for and signed by the superintendent. This report must include the reasons for admission, a record of the times the ward was checked by staff and when meals, showers, etc., occurred, as well as the time of return to the regular programme. On a monthly basis, each superintendent must submit to the regional administrator a record of the use of segregation. The use of segregation is decreasing in our institutions as our supervisors become increasingly more versatile in handling children and intervening before crises develop.

Members may wish to be reminded that the Training Schools Advisory Board, which reports directly to me, visits each of our schools on a regular basis and provides an excellent appraisal and critique of the total programme and practices in each school. In addition, our inspection and standards branch provides a regular inspection of each school, plus investigative services when specific incidents occur.

In conclusion, may I reiterate the longstanding invitation of my ministry and I to all members of this House to visit all the schools. Such visits serve to demonstrate directly the extensive programmes within our facilities, the nature of the children for whom we care and the competence and the dedication of our staff. As ministers before me have remarked in this House, many questions are more readily answered by direct observations of our school programmes.

Great changes have occurred in our schools over the past 10 years as the numbers of children have dropped dramatically and as our supervisory staff group has increased both in number and in quality. Our staff now have much more opportunity for intervention on an interpersonal level which, I am sure the hon. members will agree, is usually the critical factor in reaching a troubled young person.

KASHECHEWAN FLOODING SITUATION

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, during the flooding emergency earlier this week at Kashechewan in the James Bay area, my ministry fulfilled its responsibility as the lead provincial ministry for such emergencies by coordinating and directing the evacuation of the 330 residents of the threatened community and having them received at Fort Albany.

For the evacuation, which was well reported by news media, the ministry brought in three commercial helicopters that were available at Moosonee --

Mr. Lawlor: You are being stung.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bender: -- and arranged for three others to be on standby for additional support.

Mr. Lawlor: For eight years you did nothing.

Hon. Mr. Bender: The Ontario Provincial Police helicopter was also utilized --

Mr. Lawlor: Did you hear me?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, I wasn’t listening. I happen to have the floor. If you want to speak after, go right ahead.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister has the floor, please.

Mr. Cassidy: You are being very testy.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The Ontario Provincial Police helicopter was also utilized during the emergency and, as is the custom, our provincial police have given us complete support and assistance throughout.

At the present time, arrangements have been made to move a number of the evacuees to Moosonee, because the water and the sanitary facilities at Fort Albany are being severely taxed and because there still is the potential of further flooding at both Fort Albany and Kashechewan.

My ministry staff is also maintaining a close surveillance on the river and ice conditions at Attawapiskat and Winisk where other residents may be affected if flooding problems become serious in those areas later next week.

I am particularly pleased with the cooperation received from the federal government in ensuring the safety and the welfare of the residents of the threatened community. In this connection, may I remind the members that my ministry’s role is essentially a coordinating one as well as taking the lead in responding to flood and forest fire emergencies.

As the situation in the James Bay area develops, it is our hope that on the federal level we will be able to count upon the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as well as the Departments of National Defence and Health and Welfare to assist us, if the need arises, for possible additional evacuations and for the necessary after-care for the victims, including return transportation, rehabilitation and maintaining health conditions.

I know we will have the support of our sister Ontario ministries in this endeavour, particularly those of the Solicitor General and the Community and Social Services ministry.

It is my intention to fly to the area tomorrow accompanied by my colleague, the Chairman of Cabinet (Mr. Brunelle) who, as members know, is the local member for that very large area, to assess conditions at first hand and to investigate the possibility of emergency relief measures with the local representatives.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, first, a question of the Minister of Correctional Services, in two parts: No. 1, has he seen and can he comment on the grand jury report on Pine Ridge which is distinctly at variance with his own glowing view of what happens within that training school?

No. 2, given the intermittent evidence of continuing problems in the training school setting, might he be willing now, after all the years of pressure, to consider their complete discontinuance and substitute for them settings which are far more therapeutic and generous in the provision of services to troubled kids?

[2:15]

Hon. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have personal knowledge of the grand jury report to which the member has referred.

As to the second question, I’d say the counts are down dramatically right across the system, other than at Cecil Fracer School in Sudbury. We have developed a number of very fine group homes and foster homes across this province to provide an alternate setting. Several weeks ago I announced the closure of the school in Cambridge, Churchill House. Eventually it is hoped that the Hillcrest facility in Guelph will likewise be phased out.

There are many articles in a number of publications this month related to training schools. It should be kept in mind that many of the incidents to which they are referring are those that happened five, six or eight years ago when counselling wasn’t high within the system. I assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition that from my personal observations in visiting these schools it is vastly different today than it was 10 years ago.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, I am sure that is so but it doesn’t mean we can’t improve them today.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: How can the Minister of Correctional Services tell us in such a calm tone that we shouldn’t worry about the 101 episodes of solitary confinement because half of them were because of children away without official leave who needed a “settling in period when they got back?” The notion that one requires solitary confinement in order to settle in after running away from training school is something that does not do credit to this government.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: How can the minister be so calm about simply telling us that half the time these people are in solitary confinement it is merely for having run away?

Hon. J. R. Smith: There is a policy for automatic segregation and I think a very valid one. A youngster might have been on drugs and be awaiting a visit from the physician. Secondly very often youngsters returning could very well have been in a fight or there could be abrasions on their body.

Mr. Warner: That’s an understatement.

Hon. B. Stephenson: If they are not left alone, they could --

Hon. J. R. Smith: In turn, there could be an accusation that a member of stall or another ward in the school had assaulted them.

Mr. S. Smith: That makes no sense at all.

Hon. J. R. Smith: So the policy is that they have a medical examination as soon as possible when they return.

Mr. S. Smith: I am a physician.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Physician heal thyself.

Mr. S. Smith: Ask the lady next to you.

Interjections.

LOTTERY TICKET DISTRIBUTION

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, to the Attorney General: Might the Attorney General comment more fully on the charges relating to the distribution of lottery tickets which have been laid by bringing the House into its confidence about when the investigations began and on what initiation they began? Was it as a result of questions on distributorship within the House? Was it a result of evidence brought to you by Mr. Pollock? Was it as a result of Dorothy Lipovenko’s articles in the Globe; and why was the RCMP involved so fundamentally rather than the OPP?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The investigation was initiated by my ministry as a result of information brought to it by Marshall Pollock. As to the involvement of the RCMP, the RCMP have a number of officers who are permanently stationed in Toronto who are involved in white-collar fraud matters. It does not necessarily go across provincial boundaries. There is a very ongoing relationship between the ministry and RCMP officers, who often bring matters to be prosecuted to our ministry.

As to why the RCMP were involved rather than the OPP, I simply don’t have that information at the present.

Mr. Lewis: Really, oh! By way of supplementary, could the Attorney General clear up again, more specifically, when the investigation began, when this information was brought to him. And could he tell us, as a result of the investigation so far, the charges that have been laid and the charges that are pending, all least according to the Attorney General. Is he now looking at the propriety or authenticity of the distributorships across the province, to determine whether or not there are similar transgressions?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The investigation to the best of my information, commenced approximately two months ago. I can obtain better and more accurate information. I don’t know the exact date, although I could find that out very easily; it was approximately two months ago. The Ministry of the Attorney General is not an investigative agency. If any matters are brought to our attention which might indicate criminality, we will assist in prosecutions. As to the propriety of the Wintario setup, I have no information on which to criticize the propriety of the setup, but it’s certainly not a matter for the Ministry of the Attorney General in any event.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary: Does the Attorney General not agree that the time has possibly come for the government to give us the basis on which these Wintario distributorships are made?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not supplementary to the original question. The member for Cornwall.

Mr. Samis: Can the Attorney General clarify whether or not further charges are being contemplated, and if so, charges of what nature?

Mr. Yakabuski: We warned the minister a year ago.

Mr. Singer: Like Lebel in Sudbury?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: That’s a good one, Paul.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, there is an ongoing investigation and, therefore, there is the possibility of additional charges. I cannot state at this time that there will definitely be additional charges.

LEAD SMELTERS REPORT

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of the Environment: Now that he has the latest and the most conclusive report from the lead data analysis task force, is it not time, four years after the event, that he finally accepted the suggestion made by my colleague, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) on at least half a dozen occasions in this House, that the topsoil be changed in all the area in the vicinity of the plants in order to remove once and for all the hazard that comes from that soil?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the report to which the hon. member refers is not the latest and most conclusive report. This is a task force study. I am hoping the report that is going to be filed, resulting from certain hearings during the past year, will, in fact, be even more conclusive than this report. Both of them together, however, will be a complete report. Both reports will deal with the question of topsoil in the area of those plants in question, and if recommendations regarding removal or treatment of the soil are made we will be expected to act on it.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, what is the minister waiting for? Is the evidence not now sufficiently conclusive that he should finally do what he has been asked to do for years? Why doesn’t he just initiate it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I want to table both of these reports, and I expect to do it at the first of the week. Members haven’t seen the hearing report as yet; hopefully that will be done early next week and then we will act on those recommendations.

ACCESS TO OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Lewis: A question of the acting Minister of Health: Does she think members of the staff of the psychiatric hospitals under her jurisdiction should have direct access to the Ombudsman, or should be able to reply directly to the Ombudsman if answers are solicited from them, without checking through higher authorities in the ministry?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, like any other citizen of the Province of Ontario, any member of any staff of any ministry, I am sure, should expect to have direct access to the Ombudsman.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, if the Ombudsman approaches a member of the staff of a psychiatric hospital, should that not be a direct transaction without a member of the staff going further?

Hon. B. Stephenson: If the Ombudsman is requesting patient records of a psychiatric hospital, I should think that there might be some special concern related to that request. I would expect that the psychiatrist or the staff member of whom the request is made would have consultation with other members of staff, or of the ministry I would suppose, to decide whether in fact it would be appropriate. To release patient records is a different kettle of fish from almost any other kind of document, particularly psychiatric records.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, does the acting Minister of Health believe that the members of her staff, the same as all the civil servants, are bound by the Ombudsman Act and have to act in accordance with it, without vetting what they are going to do with higher authority in advance?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not a legal expert as is my hon. friend across the floor.

Mr. Yakabuski: He doesn’t rate big retainers anyway, we know that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There is some special status accorded to psychiatric patient records and those records are something which, perhaps, would have to be looked at in a different kind of way. I am not suggesting that any record requested by the Ombudsman should be dealt with separately or differently, except that this is a specific problem which I think might have to be. I’m suggesting that perhaps that possibility is there.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Can the minister take a close look at what’s on the bulletin board of the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, re Ombudsman investigations, saying that Dr. Maynard, director of the psychiatric hospitals branch, has informed the hospital that investigations by the Ombudsman will be made from time to time and that the information, when requested or compiled, must be forwarded to the head of the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital before it is relayed further?

Can the minister indicate to what extent she intends to muzzle -- not the minister -- to what extent she will tolerate the muzzling of the right of individual civil servants to deal directly with Ombudsman staff?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that any directive -- I have not seen that one, I will have to confess -- to the staff of a psychiatric hospital is primarily in the interest of patient confidentiality and nothing more.

Mr. MacDonald: Not necessarily; the Ombudsman will respect that.

NORTHERN AND CENTRAL NATURAL GAS CHARGES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker. I ask it because it is in the nature of a setup. The Minister of Energy, the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), and I are engaging in this prearranged question. I ask the minister: Is he going to investigate the installation charges for residential customers of Northern and Central Natural Gas?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that was exactly as I wrote it.

Mr. Lewis: Actually, that’s not fair. I added “is.”

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: At the request of the hon. member for Lake Nipigon I did investigate and I’m pleased to report to the House, and through the House to the member and his constituents, that as of this morning Northern and Central Natural Gas has agreed to stop the practice, to withdraw it. It is going to meet with the staff of the ministry and of the Energy Board in the next few weeks to discuss the problem it has.

Mr. Lewis: Another victory for socialism.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: For the moment, and I think permanently, the problem is solved.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton West.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: This is a little better reception than your friends gave me yesterday, anyway.

PCB CONTENT IN SMELT

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, my first question is directed to the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the minister planning to issue a warning to Lake Ontario smelt fishermen, advising them not to eat the fish from this year’s catch because of the possibly excessive levels of PCBs?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to inform the House that the Ministry of Natural Resources -- at least, the employee who made comments recently concerning PCBs, was basing his information on data gathered in 1974. The statistics are not valid because only 10 smelt were really analysed.

Mr. Cassidy: Only 10?

Mr. Breithaupt: That is not much of a sample.

Mr. Cassidy: Your restraint programme is going too far.

Mr. Ruston: I get more than that in my boots and I wouldn’t want to eat them.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The lab of the Ministry of the Environment is now testing a much larger number of these fish and the results should be known in a couple of days.

Mr. Singer: And you’ll issue a warning in 1978.

Mr. S. Smith: Does somebody want a supplementary on that? I’m going to ask a separate question.

MERCURY CONTENT OF FISH

[2:30]

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the Liberal Party knows very well that the Ministry of Health has, in fact, informed the natives of Grassy Narrows and other reserves that they should not eat the fish from those rivers. They have been supplied with alternative fish sources and other protein foods in order to help them to overcome the possibility of eating fish from those rivers.

In addition, we have asked, in fact pleaded with, the resort owners to provide the guides with an alternative meal at lunch time -- since that is the meal they are most likely to eat when they are out with sport fishermen -- as an alternative to the fish which they might eat at that time. And we have also asked them to make sure that the guides do not take fish caught in the rivers home with them, so that neither will their families be eating those fish.

There is a limit, as the member knows, to the number of fish which the fishermen who are there as sport fishermen may take home with them. It is considered reasonable that they might eat, perhaps, one meal of fish per day while they are there for four or five days, and take the six-fish limit home with them. But as far as the guides are concerned, we have made every effort to ensure they will not have to use that source, fish, as their main source of protein, or as any source of protein in their diet. Alternative sources have been provided for them.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary question: I appreciate the answer, but is the minister aware that the chief of the Whitedog reserve has made it a point to say that it’s difficult for the guides to stop bringing home the fish to their families, even though their children’s mercury levels are very high. The reason is that they see these American fishermen coming and taking home carloads of fish to eat back home, and they don’t see anything wrong with it. What kind of a sport is it to fish for mercury poisoned fish? Isn’t it about time the minister put an end to it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is not supposed to be debating the matter; he is asking questions.

Mr. Cassidy: He is always debating the matter.

Mr. S. Smith: I enjoy debate.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the fishermen who do arrive for sport fishing are not allowed to take carloads of fish home with them. As I have said, they may take six -- which is one day’s catch -- that is all they are permitted to take home. The native people of that area, I am sure, have been very well informed about this; and I have great respect for them. I believe they are aware of the hazards. I believe they are aware of the alternative sources of protein. I believe they are aware that we are attempting to assist them in this area.

Mr. S. Smith: Forgive me, Mr. Speaker; I haven’t yet developed the ability to debate in an interrogative tone -- but it will soon come.

Mr. Samis: We will see about that.

CRANE-OPERATING HAND SIGNALS

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Minister of Labour: Does she have some information about the fact that a standard set of hand signals exists, intended to ensure the safe operation of cranes on construction jobs? If she does, can she tell us whether she intends to have any licensing procedure or training programme to make sure that nobody will operate on a construction site as a lookout for a crane operator unless they are perfectly well aware of these hand signals?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware there is such a set of signals. I am also aware that it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure that the operator of that crane is in fact capable, knowledgeable and willing to comply with all of the rules and regulations before he hires that crane operator on any site.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: It is not just a question of the operator, though. Does she feel that the licensing regulations are adequate with regard to those who act as lookouts for the crane operators, so that they know about it? She is undoubtedly aware of the coroner’s jury investigation of a 29-year-old worker who died. The foreman who was giving the signals said he never even heard of these standard sets of signals, yet no charges were laid in this situation. Can the minister explain that?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am also aware that the Ministry of Labour has some concern about that remark made by the workman on the site, and that the labour services branch is presently involved in ensuring that other individuals on such sites will be knowledgeable about those signals.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Mr. S. Smith: Another question for the same minister but in a different capacity, now back to the acting Minister of Health: in view of the recent disclosure of nine deaths due to cancer of the liver, angiosarcoma, among vinyl chloride workers in the Goodrich plant in Shawinigan, can the minister assure the House that a similar situation does not exist ha this province? Can she give us the figures she has in this matter?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, we have no figures which would support the study which has been reported from Shawinigan. However, I can tell the hon. leader of the Liberal Party that of the four items which the special committee on occupational health has directed the ministry to become actively involved with, vinyl chloride is one of the items. It is not the top item, but it is one of the important ones and we shall be beginning our investigations in that area

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, if I could just ask a two-part question: First of all, have the figures of the deaths for the area of Sarnia and Niagara Falls been looked at in the same way that the Shawinigan deaths were looked at, to see if there are any unusual incidences of liver cancer there? Secondly, is the minister now prepared to proclaim an occupational standard consistent with the United States standard of one part per million, instead of the present Ontario standard of 10 parts per million?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the entire study has been done on cancer-related deaths for areas such as Sarnia. I can tell the member we are awaiting the recommendation of the council on occupational health regarding that acceptable standard for the province.

COST OF SABBATICALS

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) has raised a concern about the value of sabbatical leave in Ontario universities and I would like to give him some general information at this time. This matter is clearly an internal university matter and any interferences on my part, I think, would jeopardize the independence of the institution --

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: Resign.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- which this government feels is essential for freedom of academic endeavour.

The general rationale for sabbatical leave invokes the opportunity to intensify scholarly research and publication; the provisions of research opportunities at primary sources of data; improvement of the quality of teaching through the development of new materials and techniques; and the opportunity to gain practical experience in the setting of other institutions in Canada and abroad.

Sabbatical leaves are an historic tradition in this and most other countries, and are commonly accepted as a primary condition of academic employment.

Mr. MacDonald: He is a subversive destroying our traditions.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The hon. member may wish to look all the handbook of the Canadian Association of University Teachers --

Mr. Deans: Are you going to send somebody along to read it?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I wish the opposition would be quiet. I’m trying to talk to one of my hon. friends and I think he has been put off on two occasions.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: He won’t understand you anyway.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor. Fewer interjections I think would be better for everyone concerned.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member has raised a question for which he has a genuine concern and I would like to reply in detail.

Mr. MacDonald: It is obsolete to begin with.

Mr. Cassidy: We will see that he takes a sabbatical.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The hon. member may wish to look at the handbook of the Canadian Association of University Teachers which has established a number of guidelines on sabbatical leave policies.

Each university is responsible for its own policies on sabbatical leave. It is common for universities to consider granting one year of leave after six years of full employment, and often with the proviso that the faculty member must be tenured, and sometimes with the restrictions that a minimum rank had been attained previous to that occasion.

Remuneration terms also vary, although a common arrangement seems to be six months at full salary or 12 months at half salary. In other cases, faculty members are eligible up to 75 per cent of salary, the precise amounts presumably being determined on the basis of their plans for their leave of absence.

While I do not have specific data on replacement of faculty members who are on sabbatical leave, I understand this also varies from institution to institution. In some instances teaching loads are assumed by colleagues; in others, visiting professors may be retained for a year or a term, as indicated by their own institutions. Many universities encourage, and some require, faculty members on sabbatical leave to secure research funding from alternative sources. Some fellowships, such as the Canada Council leave fellowships --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. With fewer interjections we could get on with the business of the House.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- may defer the entire --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- may defer the entire cost of the sabbatical leave, thereby saving the university the full amount of the professor’s salary for that year.

I hope I have provided a satisfactory response to the question raised by my colleague. I would, however, like to emphasize again that under each Act establishing a university the powers to determine remuneration, tenure of office and working conditions rest with the board of governors of that institution. I would like to forward to the hon. member a statistical fact sheet compiled by my university affairs division --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’ll deal with that in a moment.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- and which contains the basic information of each university.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Not just for the moment. Order, please.

May I suggest that an answer of that length is too long to be given as an answer during the question period and might better have occupied the time of the House before the question period. I shall therefore --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. No, it was a lengthy statement basically -- even without interruptions, one might reply. We’ll add three minutes to the question period.

I will allow a supplementary from the member for Renfrew South.

Order, please. We’re wasting the time of the House. The member for Renfrew South.

Mr. Yakabuski: Firstly, I would like to put to the Minister of Colleges and Universities that he has not convinced me that it is not a rip-off.

Interjections.

Mr. Yakabuski: Secondly --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re just wasting valuable time of the House. Now could we have -- order, order! Do I have to name someone this afternoon?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have a question, rather than a debate?

Mr. Yakabuski: I have a number of questions.

I’m not sure whether the Minister of Colleges and Universities --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- is aware that there were almost 1,000 of the academic staff of universities and colleges on sabbatical or leave of absence in 1974-1975 --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re debating a matter. Will the hon. member ask a question for further information if he has one?

Mr. Yakabuski: Would the minister also feel that the public, the taxpayers of this province and of Canada, would be shocked to know that eight per cent of the university staff was on such leave at any given time?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Yakabuski: Would the Minister of Colleges and Universities feel --

Mr. Singer: This is a terrible abuse of the House -- a terrible abuse of the rules.

Mr. Yakabuski: Would the Minister of Colleges and Universities feel that --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If the member has a question he’ll ask it and we’ll have the hon. minister -- order, please, the Speaker has the floor.

Mr. Makarchuk: It is a very simple process -- ask a question and get an answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I need no assistance from the member for Brantford. Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Now, we’ve wasted quite a bit of time. I believe a question has been asked. Would the hon. minister care to reply to it?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure all the citizens of this province are very interested in the activities of our universities; I’m one of those citizens.

As the Minister of Colleges and Universities, I do have a great deal of concern but I want to reiterate that the basic policy is that established under the Acts which form each university. I think I would have to ask my hon. colleague to investigate further his concerns with the individual institution. I would also say I think we should recognize genuine concern on the part of an hon. member from this side of the House.

[2:45]

WINDSOR TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. Burr: I have a question of the Minister of Education regarding the Windsor secondary school situation. What has been the response of the teachers and the board to the minister’s request that the schools open on Monday?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any response as to what their position is in regard to the proposition I put to them. I have been informed that the teachers will have an answer for me at 8:30 tonight. I don’t know what that answer will be. I haven’t heard from the board since they received my letter.

Mr. B. Newman: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In one of the conditions that the minister stated to the two parties, he makes mention that the teachers suspend their strike and resume their full teaching programmes with no sanctions on May 3. Does the minister not mean suspend on May 3 their strike, or does he simply mean sanctions on May 3?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I guess, Mr. Speaker, it can be whichever way the hon. member wants it. I mean suspend the strike as of May 3.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I think this is a matter of grave concern to the teachers because they might be willing to accept the minister’s recommendation --

Mr. Speaker: And your supplementary question is?

Mr. B. Newman: -- but they want to know whether he means the May 3 belongs to sanctions, only for the date of May 3, or does it mean to suspend their strike as of May 3?

Hon. Mr. Davis: You don’t give your colleagues much credit.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can tell my friend that it belongs to both actions. I think the word that may be bothering him is “suspend.” It belongs to both actions, and what it really means in simple plain terms is that the schools open and the full programme begins on May 3.

Mr. Bounsall: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not feel that by mentioning May 10 as the day, if the contract has not been negotiated, when the mediators would expect to make recommendations to him for terms of a settlement -- by mentioning that date, just a week beyond Monday, May 3, that this would have a detrimental effect in terms of the parties reaching a negotiated settlement if one of them should decide that all they have to do is hold off yet another week before some more action is taken here through the mediators?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I take the opposite view to this process. This is the innovative process I was talking about and which my friend asked about the other day. This is an attempt to get both parties back at the bargaining table and to put some kind of pressure on both parties to bargain.

Mr. Bain: Just like our reasoned amendment.

Mr. Lewis: You’ve just taken our policy, that’s all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, no. This is just a little more innovative because it isn’t compulsory bargaining.

Mr. Deans: Because you’re introducing it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right, because I’m introducing it. It’s a little more innovative.

Mr. Deans: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: But the whole point is that the term used, “and suggest terms of settlement” is, I think, the relevant thing. In other words, we’re not suggesting that those negotiators suggest some other form of mechanical action but that those people suggest the kind of agreement that should be made by the parties if they can’t negotiate it at that time, It’s a sort of conciliation report.

Mr. Deans: That’s a step in the right direction.

Mr. Lewis: It’s almost our position.

FEES OF HOMES-FOR-AGED DOCTORS

Mrs. Campbell: My question is of the acting Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of report No. 11 of the social service and housing committee of Metropolitan Toronto, particularly item 2, fees for service for homes-for-the-aged physician?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, I don’t remember having read that specific item.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary if I may: To shorten the question, I would like to read into the record a portion of that report. It is dealing with the rearrangement of financing of physicians in these homes.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question following this?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: It’s very brief, thank you.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I’m entitled to put the point, at least, so that I could ask the question.

Mr. Speaker: I agree. The hon. member may proceed.

Mrs. Campbell: The example cited in the report is Bendale Acres, which is only one of the homes for the aged. Is the minister aware that in 1975 the physician in all of these homes, but specifically in this one, was paid $13,000 a year on a shared basis between the Ministry of Community and Social Services and Metropolitan Toronto? And is she aware that under the new arrangement, based on the visits of 1975 and the OHIP programme, the payments to the physicians will be $25,831.20 -- $19,410.60 being directly payable by OHIP? And the reason for this 100 per cent increase --

Mr. Yakabuski: Question.

Mr. Eaton: Speech; speech.

Mrs. Campbell: I am asking the question and I intend to continue, Mr. Speaker, with my rights. Efforts have been made for the regulations on the homes for the aged to be amended allowing for an increase in the --

Mr. Yakabuski: Statements.

Mrs. Campbell: -- rates set, which have been in existence since 1967 --

Mr. Yakabuski: Statements from the shadow cabinet.

Mrs. Campbell: -- but have been rejected. Would the minister advise what the ramifications of this kind of change in programme will be for her ministry and hew she sees this fitting into the goals of the restraint programme, which are to reduce provincial cash requirements in 1976?

Mr. Martel: What was the question?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I shall attempt to develop a detailed answer for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest an answer requiring so much detail might better have been placed on the order paper.

The hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick has a question, I believe.

Mr. Grossman: My speech is also for the attention of the acting Minister of Health.

Mr. Mancini: When is the member going to resign?

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Grossman: On April 14, the minister wrote the president of the board of Doctors Hospital, stating:

“The government will expect neighbouring hospitals to be responsive with respect to clinic and admitting rights for physicians displaced by a hospital closing.”

In view of the fact that physicians are to stop admitting patients within two weeks’ time --

Mr. Mancini: When is the member going to resign?

Mr. Grossman: -- I wonder if the minister could tell us how many physicians have been accepted at the neighbouring hospitals? And if not very many have -- as I know to be the case -- what is going to be done in the next 14 days?

Mr. Singer: She will resign.

An hon. member: Both ministers should resign.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member seems to have the answer right at the moment, I am wondering about the question. However, I can’t tell him the exact number, since approximately one-half of the staff of that hospital held dual appointments with other institutions, and it would be logical to anticipate that they would, in fact, be accepted as full staff members in the other institutions.

Of the remaining one-half, I do not have figures at the moment regarding acceptance by other institutions, but I have been assured by the chairman of medical staffs and by the administrators of those hospitals that they would be receptive.

I anticipate I shall be able to get that information from administrators of the various other hospitals. I have not had any communication from specific doctors at the Doctors Hospital regarding this kind of application or their success or failure in achieving a hospital appointment.

Ms. Bryden: Why don’t you keep the hospitals open instead?

Mr. Grossman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary, yes.

Mr. Grossman: Since the ministry has set up the Evans committee to be sure that the doctors do have a place to practise by the time they have to stop admitting patients on May 15 --

Mr. Lewis: Doctors and other workers.

Mr. Grossman: -- doesn’t the minister think the ministry ought to know seriously, as the thing progresses day to day, how many doctors, as of today, for example, will be without any admitting privileges at any hospital on May 16? And could the minister report back tomorrow or Monday as to the total of doctors who do not have dual appointments and who have not yet been accepted at other hospitals?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will try to obtain that information.

PREMIER’S VISIT TO HAMILTON

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

Interjections.

Mr. Deans: I was trying to decide whether to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor) a question but we’ve wasted enough time today. I wonder if the Premier might tell us why he is having difficulty getting invitations to speak in the Hamilton area these days?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m having difficulties?

Mr. Lewis: Careful, careful.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t the foggiest idea. I know that I’m going to be in that great community, I think, next Tuesday at noon.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a question of urgent public importance?

Mr. Riddell: Urgent public support.

Mr. Deans: It is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I plan to be there.

Mr. Deans: Can the Premier tell us what is this matter of urgent public importance that the Premier is about to speak about in Hamilton that would justify writing and asking the Chamber of Commerce to set up a meeting for the purpose?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that any time anything is said in that great municipality it is a matter of urgent public importance and I’m sure it will be of interest to the citizens of that community. If the member would like to be there, I’d be delighted to see him.

Mr. Lewis: Answer the question.

Mr. Breithaupt: He is going to have to renew his membership.

Mr. Deans: Just as an aside while he is there, is it possible the Premier might be prepared to explain to the citizens of Hamilton the Ministry of Health’s activities with regard to Chedoke and the Minister of Social and Community Service’s activities with regard to the Children’s Aid Society, as it is not getting adequate funding?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: How does that relate to the previous question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I may touch on those items. I may also become somewhat non-partisan in my observations as to the real danger inherent in a socialistic government taking over the Province of Ontario as represented by the party of the hon. member. I could cover a multitude of things.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: If the Premier is having trouble being invited to Chambers of Commerce, could I offer my assistance?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition on many occasions, though he perhaps doesn’t know it, is increasingly becoming of greater assistance to this government, and we appreciate it.

SENTENCES IN BEATING CASE

Mr. Mancini: I have a question of the Attorney General. Is the Attorney General aware of the light sentences given to a Mr. Price and a Mr. Beneteau in the savage beating of a Mr. David Comeau from Tecumseh, in view of the fact that Judge John Wheelton of Windsor called the incident, a savage, brutal, cowardly and unjustifiable attack, and then proceeded to sentence Mr. Price to 60 days to be served in the evenings and Mr. Beneteau to only 30 days?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Ask the judge.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Why don’t you call the judge?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t think I’m familiar with the facts of that case.

Mr. Kerrio: Neither is the Minister of Housing.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If the sentence was handed down less than 30 days ago, I’m quite prepared to have my senior law officers review it in order to consider the possibility of an appeal, if the member would like to provide me with additional information.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: In view of the fact that it was reported that Mr. Beneteau “jumped on him,” on Mr. Comeau, “pinning his arms and proceeded to beat him in the face with both hands. Mr. Comeau was blinded with blood, still lying on the sidewalk being beaten. It was at this time that Mr. Price came up and stomped him in the face -- “

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question based on the answer that was given? You are now debating. You are giving a lot of information and that is not the purpose of the question period.

Mr. Mancini: No I’m not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Please ask the supplementary question.

Mr. Mancini: I just want to show the Attorney General how serious --

Mr. Speaker: No, you don’t need to show it. You’re supposed to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Mancini: Is the minister aware of all of this, and if he is not would he mind looking into the situation and see if he can launch an appeal?

An hon. member: He told you he would.

[3:00]

AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Last Friday the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) asked a question regarding a meeting of the American Indian Movement held recently in Sudbury.

He wanted to know whether surveillance by the Ontario Provincial Police of native people is being done with either my blessing or direction.

I understand that the Ontario Provincial Police superintendent at Sudbury did direct a constable to contact a reporter who had attended the American Indian Movement meeting. They subsequently discussed the meeting by telephone. The force certainly does not have all native people and native groups in the province under surveillance.

However, the American Indian Movement was involved in the unrest at both Wounded Knee and Anicinabe Park near Kenora. It is, therefore, the duty of the force to be aware of the activities of such groups.

Mr. Lewis: What?

Mr. Martel: What about the submarine park, John?

LOTTERY TICKET DISTRIBUTION

Mr. Samis: A question to the Minister of Culture and Recreation: In view of the charges laid by the Attorney General, and certain debatable practices within the distributorship system, does the minister not feel it’s time to reassess the whole system of distributors with a view to allowing service clubs and public organizations to become distributors, to publicly advertise any vacancies or any future distributorships, and to reassess the whole system of the districts for distributorships the ministry has set up?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in view of the present investigations it might not be appropriate to comment at length on the question, but may I assure the member and the members of the House that, following this, I am sure the Lottery Corp. will be reviewing the entire matter.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: Can the minister confirm if it is Lottery Corp. policy that the distributor cannot give an interview without written, prior consent from the Lottery Corp.?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I don’t know of any such instructions, but I’ll take that matter up with the Lottery Corp.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Lawlor from the standing private bills committee presented the committee’s report, which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr26,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill Pr6,

An Act respecting the Welland-Port Colborne Airport.

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Your committee would recommend that the time for presenting reports by the committee be extended to Friday, May 21, 1976.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to release the 1974 edition of Municipal Financial Information, or as it is more commonly known, the Blue Book. The 1974 publication has been completely revised with the objective of making more information available to readers interested in making inter-municipal comparisons. A variety of new statistics and

summary tables has been introduced. Information on the use of these statistics may be found in the introduction, which has been greatly expanded to aid those using this publication for analytical purposes. Some data shown in previous Blue Books has been omitted from this edition in the interests of producing a more compact publication.

Mr. Speaker, while I’m on my feet, and since I missed “Statements,” I might just also, for the sake of the record, point out that the parkway belt west hearings will begin in Woodbridge on Monday. Three members of the Ontario Municipal Board have been appointed hearing officers, namely Messrs. McCrae, Ball and Dyer. They will move the hearings to Oakville about June 28 and to Richmond Hill about July 27. The plan is a composite of many ideas from both inside and outside the government. Two advisory committees representing municipalities and interested groups and residents have considered the draft plan and have submitted their reports to me, and those reports have been made public.

In providing their views, the advisory committees and others have made a substantial contribution to the final draft plan, which will be the subject of next week’s hearings. To ensure that all interested individuals and groups have access to the draft plan, some 5,100 copies have been circulated to the municipalities and the landowners in the area.

We look forward to receiving a

summary of the public’s recommendations and the officers’ final report following conclusion of the hearings.

Thank you, sir, for allowing me to transgress in that way.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

POST-RETIREMENT INTEGRATION OF INVESTMENT MONEYS AND PENSION BENEFIT PREVENTION ACT

Mr. Laughren moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to prevent Post-retirement Integration of Insurance Moneys and Pension Benefits with Increases in Government Social Security Plans.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prevent the reduction of moneys paid out under an insurance or pension plan because of a general increase or cost of living increase in a government social security plan with which it may be integrated.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Samis moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Samis: The purpose of this bill is to require all candidates at the municipal elections scene to reveal all election contributions beyond $100.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF REVENUE

On vote 904: (concluded)

Mr. Chairman: I think we are taking items 1, 2 and 3 together. Is that the understanding of the committee?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think under that vote it is satisfactory.

Mr. Chairman: The minister was in the process of replying to some questions.

Hon. Mr. Meen: To tell you the truth, Mr. Chairman, I thought I had concluded the replies that I was making at the time when we rose.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I believe the member for Sudbury East had some questions.

Mr. Martel: You can realize how anxious I was to speak on this issue. It is a burning issue and having started the comments the other day I want to return to them. They deal primarily with the assessment of the mining industry and I am delighted to see the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) stay around.

Mr. Laughren: Not that he’ll change his mind.

Mr. Martel: No, because he has always taken the position we are going to tax them out of existence.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I was making a few brief points the other day indicating that the regional municipality of Sudbury came together with the present Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), then Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the main reason was to get a fair shake of the assessment dollar that should have gone to the Sudbury area. With that promise, of course, came regional government and in three short years we now find ourselves with a debt of $132 million and that municipality simply cannot afford to continue along that vein.

The profits of the industry have been rather substantial, but the assessment locally of the industry has been, to say the least, niggardly -- such that today, as I say, we have, just at the regional level, a debt of $132 million.

It is intriguing to me when I talk to people and they tell me such as the following: The assessment on the Trade Winds Hotel -- that’s in the riding of my friend from Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) -- is greater than the assessment on the new plant at Falconbridge valued at $135 million. There is just something crazy about it all. I tried to talk to the Treasurer during a bill last fall on this and he said, “Talk to the Minister of Revenue,” and that he would possibly see the light. It can’t go on. You can’t have a hotel paying higher taxes than an industry where one building alone is valued at $135 million, and come up winning on that one.

We have to start to assess the underground operation, both at Falconbridge and Inco, and we have to start to do that in the rest of the mining sector. In fact, we have to do more than assess the walls and the foundation and the roof of the buildings that Inco and other mining companies am using. in other words, we have to get a bigger assessment if we are to provide the amenities in the Sudbury basin and in much of northern Ontario that are at present here in the south.

My understanding is that most of the mining companies would welcome the opportunity to pay more municipally, because they could write it off in the federal tax field and more of the earnings that are being accrued in those areas could stay in the localities affected. I want to ask the minister if there is any intention on this government’s part to assess the equipment above ground, and also if they are willing to start to assess the operations underground, because there are entire cities underground, as fair as I am concerned. I would appreciate knowing what the government’s intentions are in respect of both those areas.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The hon. member is quite right that at present we assess land surface and the buildings. We do not assess plant and machinery, be it in the buildings or be it underground. I suppose what the hon. member is getting at is the question of the machinery occupying huge caverns underground, which I suppose are a form of buildings. I don’t know whether he is thinking in terms of that, or whether he is thinking more in terms of the assessment of the machinery.

That would be a complete departure -- and the hon. member is nodding his head, that that’s what he intends -- it would be a complete departure from the principle at present used in the Assessment Act and the taxing principles of the province. You must remember that businesses are assessed a further assessment for business tax purposes, but within the principles of the Assessment Act as it stands they are no more liable for tax on their production machinery than is the Ford Motor Co. in Oakville or a knitting mill somewhere else. Its plant and machinery is not subject to assessment for realty purposes.

To change the one, and I think it would be only fair if it were done, would necessitate a change in principle whereby plant and machinery themselves were taxed. That’s not something that 13 have under active study, but I would think it happens to be implicit in the whole and full look which the commission would be giving to our taxing picture.

I don’t know whether they would be doing that in the course of looking at our suggestion that business tax be a straight 50 per cent rather than the multitude of rates applicable to different types of business. I suppose it is something that the commission might want to take a look at and give the province the benefit of its advice on, but presently, as the hon. member had indicated, it certainly is not the case that plant and machinery are subject to real estate tax.

[3:15]

Mr. Martel: If I might just pursue it for a moment, Mr. Chairman. Two points: It is my understanding there is some work being done, a number of studies being done, in respect to whether or not we should be looking at the possibility of taxing equipment. The other thing I want to come back to is if you’re not going to go to the assessment route, what do you intend to do to ensure that municipalities in northern Ontario, of course, have the revenues available to them which would provide the amenities?

I’m sure you have to agree that in the year 1976, we’re still putting sewer and water in the city of Sudbury. Billions of dollars come out of it; billions of dollars in profit have come out. We’re putting sewer and water in 1976 in Sudbury Most of the outlying communities in my colleague’s riding and in my own riding are now, in 1976, getting sewer and water.

We don’t have moneys with which -- for example, in a place called Valley East which has 20,000 people -- to help those municipalities which don’t have sewer and water -- they’re not even on the books for it -- because we’re over $133 million in the hole in three years of regional government. That’s not talking about the local debit. Most of it is as a result of the policies of this government over the years, as it’s centred on the type of taxation which has been allowed over the years.

I’m sure even the Minister of Natural Resources, who sits with us today, agrees there has to be some type of alternative in order to get moneys back into the north to provide those amenities. Don’t tell me the $5 million extra in the budget last year for northern municipalities is the type of funding --

Mr. Laughren: That was a joke.

Mr. Martel: -- which is going to provide those amenities which are lacking. You simply can’t sit on your hands anymore; you’re going to have to introduce some sort of programme. You’re not only dealing with the organized areas: what are you going to do with the unorganized -- where you’re starting from scratch -- with the present way you people are allocating funds for the north? You have to do it either through some form of assessment or some other programme but you can’t sit any longer.

You’ve been reduced to four seats in the north in eight years. Next time around it’ll be less because you have given short shrift to the north and they aren’t buying the nonsense any more. You’ve got to come up with an alternative.

I suggest to you that one of the best routes would be through the assessment of equipment -- including underground -- because the mining industry has said it’s willing to go that route to make sure more money is saved in the municipality because it can write it off toward the federal taxation system. You’ve got to do something.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, certainly we recognize that there are problems. The hon. member was referring to Valley East. I’m not conversant with the current problems of Valley East. I recall hearing a couple of years ago that there was something like a $50 million account which the municipality was going to have to incur for sewage facilities which had been necessitated by some strip development which occurred through there in a rather unplanned arrangement.

Mr. Martel: You allowed it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: What has happened there, I don’t know; perhaps that was partially supported by Ministry of the Environment grants, which I presume to be the case. I know that the total picture, as I heard it then, was around $50 million, which is a lot of money and obviously couldn’t be produced by Valley East. It couldn’t be produced by the whole of the municipalities in the north, I would expect, in any short period of time. I can tell the hon. member that the government has been aware of some difficulties which arise when one doesn’t tax production machinery.

I had a discussion with Dr. Victor Goldbloom a year ago last October or November in Montreal; I think he was at that time both the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of the Environment. I think he was holding both portfolios. In any event, he was interested in this question. We met at that time with the Minister of Municipal Affairs for New Brunswick and discussed -- not in as great detail as I would have liked, frankly, but at least for a short period of time -- the question of assessment of industrial property of one sort or another.

The staffs of our three ministries in the three governments have been meeting over the intervening months. I don’t have a current report on this but certainly we’re aware of this. As I indicated earlier, I would expect that the commission may have some words of advice for us and perhaps we’ll have some information that we can pass to them by the time the commission begins its meetings.

In any event, we’re not unaware nor certainly are we unsympathetic to the fiscal problems of the north. The immense expenses that they incur in the installation of services in their areas, I suppose in the colloquial, have to be seen to be believed, but those of us who have had the pleasure and the privilege of spending a little time now and again in the north know the kind of problems that you’d encounter in putting in your sewers and your water mains through bedrock, as you have had to do in so many of your municipalities.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, when the ministry refers to the commission, I would hope that the minister would not wait for the commission to make recommendations on taxation but that he, indeed, would make a suggestion to the commission that this be something that it look at in considerable detail.

I think what’s important here, as well as the things which my colleague from Sudbury East brought up, is that it really doesn’t matter to the mining companies whether they pay their taxes at the federal or provincial or municipal level. Certainly, given the public relations programme that the large mining companies, namely Inco, is conducting in the Sudbury area now they would probably prefer to pay their taxes to the local municipality as opposed to the federal government. It would certainly enhance their standing in the community if they were seen to be paying a fair share of their taxation.

I suspect that what’s required, if you don’t want to change the entire legislation in Ontario dealing with production machinery and equipment, is that you make an exception for the mining industry, or that you negotiate with the mining companies special grants to the tune of $5 million or $6 million a year, to go at the municipal level, which would then be deductible from their federal taxation.

I went underground at Inco about two or three weeks ago and I was absolutely flabbergasted at the kind of installations that are underground. I had been underground before, but at the particular location I was in they were building a new crusher plant to crush the large rocks. The crusher plant runs for about 65 ft. from one level to another. It consists of a huge conveyor system, a huge crushing system and all the equipment that’s required to tie in with that. The investment that’s underground in the mining industry is truly remarkable.

If I was running the mining company and I had an opportunity of puffing in an installation underground or putting it above ground and took a look at the taxation, I would probably do the same thing. What needs to be done surely is an assessment of the total investment in buildings and/or machinery or the equivalent thereof that needs to be taxed. That’s not happening now.

It’s very hard to accept when you go to an area within the regional municipality of Sudbury and, in the wintertime, you see people melting snow in order to have water. And the simple fact is that in the summertime when the wells run dry they just simply have no water.

The regional municipality is at the limit on its capital borrowings. They say they can’t do anything about it. You’re quite right when you say that there is about a $50 million investment in sewers and water in Valley East. That will service what, $25,000 or 30.000 people, I suppose? That’s for $50 million. The York-Durham region trunk line is going to cost in the neighbourhood of $200 million I think and that is going to service up to a million people.

Look at the contradiction in numbers where, in southern Ontario, you can service enormous numbers of people per dollar as opposed to northern Ontario. It’s for two obvious reasons: one, the bedrock that the minister referred to that they have to go through to put in the sewers and water; and, second, the way the communities have been allowed to develop with strip development.

Mr. Martel: And the government allowed it.

Mr. Laughren: This government must assume the responsibility for allowing that to happen. I’m not excusing the behaviour of the local politicians either, but surely the government had the overall responsibility in years gone by to ensure that that was not allowed to happen.

Probably the strongest argument that can be made is that the mining companies really don’t care to whom they pay their taxes. They would probably prefer to pay them at the municipal level. I see no reason at all why the minister cannot assess them in order to provide more services at the local level.

I’m the first to admit that the quantity of grants which have gone to the regional municipality of Sudbury in recent years is substantial. As a matter of fact, this government has probably ensured that regional government survives in the Sudbury region by its influx of grants but it sure as heck isn’t enough to cope with the kind of services being demanded.

The backlog built up over the years was enormous and it’s simply not good enough to say we’re in a period of constraint now and we’re not going to allow these kinds of services to take place. We are in 1975; this is not the time to talk about the unorganized communities where there’s no assessment but I can tell you the general feelings of neglect in northern Ontario are not something we opposition members in Queen’s Park express for political purposes alone. They’re there. We articulate them for our constituents and they’re very real, and if the government thinks otherwise it does so at its own peril.

I would urge the minister to put the position to the Treasurer and to the commission looking into municipal taxes and to realign the whole assessment of the mining industry. There surely should be some relation to the wealth created and the wealth which remains there. We know for a fact that 20 billion lb. of nickel have been taken out of the Sudbury basin in this century.

It’s hard to put a dollar figure on that today when it’s occurred over 75 years but surely we recognize the incredible wealth that represents? When we, on this side, talk about bringing those natural resources under public ownership, it’s not simply a knee-jerk ideological reaction on the part of a socialist party. It’s because we know that if we did have public ownership of those resources we could then process the resources there or have more control over the processing of resources. That, in turn, would give us an increase in assessment because of the installations required to do that sort of processing.

Mr. Martel: Rather than send them to Norway.

Mr. Laughren: It’s not a case of saying public ownership for the sake of public ownership. We’re tired of seeing that wealth shipped to Norway; or the ores being shipped out in semi-processed form and it’s not getting much better.

I urge the minister, as strongly as I know how, to change the assessment policy of the government and for once -- for the first time -- allow a portion, a proper portion, of that creation of wealth to remain in the Sudbury basin. I’m sure the minister would agree that only with the creation of wealth can we provide the kind of services this province demands and has a right to. Unless that wealth creation takes place we can’t deliver the services. We don’t question that.

We’re saying to you that there needs to be more wealth creation using those resources and you need to tax the resources in a much stronger way than you have in the past.

I wonder whether the minister could respond to what extent he’s willing to make the case to the commission -- not just to respond to the commission but to make the case to the commission -- that we need a new kind of assessment in the Sudbury basin?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I’m not really sure whether it would be appropriate for me or any other minister to appear before the commission. We certainly want them to have the fullest information available. Certainly, there will be staff support available and the information can be got to the commission. I certainly would like to reassure the hon. member that the commission will have the benefit of all the information we’ve been able to work up on this subject over the last few years if it feels it can put it to use.

You’re asking if I’ll take the initiative. Certainly we will see that this information is at hand for them and that they know it is available. Staff themselves will certainly be apprised of the fact that it is available and they will, I’m sure, see that it is utilized.

I’m advised that staff is now in course of preparation of material for me -- I haven’t seen it -- to consider the extension of assessment in cases like this to include foundations. This is a possibility which could as much as double assessments for real estate purposes. That’s quite surprising to me but that’s what I’m advised: that that kind of extension of principle would double assessment in cases of mining operations, where it wouldn’t necessarily have a significant bearing on assessment of manufacturing properties, which is an interesting situation.

[3:30]

It would tend to overcome the basic misgiving I would have about just trying to roll right in and tax all machinery, because then you really would be hitting a lot of manufacturing industries, which obviously then would have to pass that along in the cost of their product -- and, of course, so would Inco, I suppose, if they received a substantially increased assessment.

Mr. Martel: That’s a federal matter.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Okay. That’s the point. It would come off Ottawa. I understand some discussions have been held with Ottawa as to whether some other mechanism, such as a municipal grant to the municipalities by the mining company, would not be deductible for purposes of federal income tax -- corporation tax under the Income Tax Act of Canada.

I am advised that the federal government would not give them any such assurance that it would be classed as a deductible. I think we would treat that as a gift to the Crown and would class it as a deductible, but that’s only 12 per cent. It is that other very big bite that comes on the federal income tax that would be the far more significant thing to the taxpayer than the relatively minor 12 per cent which we would be contributing, in effect -- but that’s something that we are going to be looking at.

Coming back to what I was saying, the paper that my ministry staff is working up for me to consider in the next month or two involves a question of the extension of assessment to cover foundations. Whether that would be practical in the long run, we won’t know for a while. But it’s a distinct possibility, it strikes me, and I find it a rather attractive route to consider. When I have a chance to review it, then I would expect that if I find it satisfying, I will pass it along for discussion with my colleagues in cabinet to determine Whether it will be an appropriate route to go by way of amendments perhaps later on in the year.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, if I might speak briefly, I would feel much better about a policy that legislated assessment, as opposed to a grant from either the government or from the industry. I am nervous about the whole concept of grants from the government, because it isn’t enshrined in legislation. I would urge the minister not to do it that way. It is the old tin cup approach that the municipal politicians in northern Ontario seem to think is the answer for the development of the north. We in this party don’t agree with that. We are saying that the municipalities are entitled to a better shake, and it shouldn’t take the form of a grant.

Hon. Mr. Meen: May I just repeat; I was not suggesting that. I was saying that had been explored -- I gather by the companies on their own -- but I have not contemplated that myself. I am just saying what had happened when they tried that route. I agree with the hon. member; I don’t think it is a practical way to go either.

Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question regarding the proposals in the 1976 budget regarding assessment in which the Treasurer talks about assessments of 50 per cent of the market value for residential, 100 per cent for commercial and 50 per cent for business. I attended a meeting in Parry Sound a couple of weeks ago, and this matter was brought up. There is some concern, particularly from the tourist operators, about the 50 per cent business assessments when they operate only two or three months of the year.

On several occasions, the travel associations and so on have made overtures to the government regarding their assessment as it now stands and they are fearful that the 50 per cent is going to eliminate some of them completely, as far as business is concerned.

I am wondering if the government and the minister would consider, when these proposals are being discussed by the commission, remaining with the 50 per cent of business assessment, as was indicated in the budget statement, but assessing it on the basis of the number of months that they operate? I am wondering if that would be a fairer way, as far as business assessment is concerned, not only for tourist businesses but for any other business that might be a seasonal business. Could I have your comments on that, please?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, the whole principle of market value assessment, I think, would take that into account. Indeed, I’d feel uncomfortable with the principle of market value assessment if it didn’t take factors like that into account.

I am advised that, several years ago, a committee was set up in the assessment standards branch of my ministry, together with the tourist operators, to try to develop a base for assessment that reflected seasonal activities of this sort and to recognize the vicissitudes, I suppose, of weather and other circumstances of tourist and campground activities.

I am told that the committee wasn’t able to recommend a particular formula, short of using the income approach for campground and tourist operations which, when capitalized, can give a form of valuation that is far more, realistic.

It recognizes the peak periods of income and the many months when perhaps there is no income from these operations, because it takes the income stream itself into account when you value the lands and the buildings. it is, I suspect, a much better way than anything else and, of course, it would overcome the inherent problem that one might fear of the occasional property being sold for too large a sum, the operator perhaps not recognizing the income stream and buying it with other factors in mind. It would overcome that if they did it on the income stream basis.

That’s the route I would expect valuations would go in determining the worth of tourist camp operator’s properties, their campgrounds and their basic facilities.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young), is not able to be here, but he feels he has not received a complete answer on two questions that he asked in the earlier session Through you, could I ask the minister if he can give us the answer to the two questions raised by the member for Yorkview?

First, he didn’t feel we had pinpointed the electronic data processing money in the various parts of this vote. I think he wanted the figures broken out, and a comparison made with last year, as to how much is being provided for electronic data processing.

The second point on which he wanted a reply has to do with a point he raised in his leadoff speech; that is, the great number of appeals of business assessment which big businesses, in Toronto particularly but in other communities as well, are undertaking against the interim assessments under which they are operating right now. They are able to challenge a lot of those interim assessments on the grounds of inequities, which are there because we have taken so long to bring in market value assessment.

A great many of them are succeeding in appeals against their assessment, reducing their assessments and therefore reducing the tax take of the municipalities in which they live. What the member for Yorkview wanted to know was, what is the cost to the ministry of fighting these appeals by businesses in the various municipalities and how many personnel are involved in fighting those appeals?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I don’t have a complete breakdown but to the best of our ability, since the hon. member asked a question about cost of appeals, I can advise that this year we expect about $5.5 million as the expenditure for our costs on the appeals. That is, our assessors’ time, both in preparation and at the appeals, and all other costs my ministry would bear; about $5.5 million. That is pretty consistent. I am advised that that was about the figure for last year and the year before that.

Let me clarify one point. An interesting thing is one of the other points my staff had advised me about and that is that the actual number of appeals is only sunning to about 60 per cent of previous years.

Ms. Bryden: They must be big ones then.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That’s the point and they are costing us more because the cost is running at about the same in terms of dollars. The appeals coming forward presumably are not the little ones but those of some substance requiring more investigative time and consequently more time in the courts.

Ms. Bryden: I have a supplementary, Mr. Chairman. Could I ask the minister how many personnel -- I think that was part of the question -- are involved in these appeals and are there outside lawyers as well who are hired on a contract or a fee basis?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I am advised that those who are retained for this work are all outside counsel. I do not have the numbers of staff involved. I told the hon. member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) I would get that information for him. Although, to the best of my ability, I have been able to get some of it, there might be other details he would want as well and I hadn’t expected to have that available today. I will get it as soon as I can.

Ms. Bryden: May I ask if you have the computer information, or were you intending to get that for Mr. Young also?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I have some information here from management systems under the assessment division, the computer information for development standards branch -- no, I guess you are not terribly interested in that. The standards assessment system is $141,600 for computer costs and for research, $34,700. The operation is $1,211,200 and for maintenance, under the standards assessment, $158,000. Therefore, coming across in a total line, you might say, for standards the total is $299,600.

For research the total is $101,100. I may not have given the hon. member the cost for operations in research, $66,600, which, aggregating with development costs of $34,700, gives the $101,100 figure. The valuation file has the one figure for operations total, $1,211,200; the total for all being $1,611,900.

Ms. Bryden: May I ask how this compares with last year?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I am advised that is 10 per cent lower than last year.

Mr. Williams: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. minister: With regard to budget paper E, dealing with reform of property taxation in Ontario which was referred to a few moments ago by my colleague, in speaking at some length on this matter the other evening I commented on the 15 proposals for reform which are enunciated in the paper. There is one that gives me some concern -- item No. 9, return of assessment rolls, which will extend the period from the one year period as is the present practice to two years to coincide with the municipal election period. This makes good sense and I think will obviously bring about economies.

My only concern with regard to that measure, however, Mr. Minister, and perhaps you can comment, is whether or not this might have any adverse effect on the municipalities in that it might bring about some delays in bringing on stream the increased assessment through the levying of the supplementary assessments because of the more prolonged period. To put it another way -- will this necessitate in your mind the need to accelerate the initiative presently taken by the assessment authorities to record supplementary assessments so that there won’t be any adverse time lag arising out of this extended period?

Hon. Mr. Mean: I can understand the member’s concern, Mr. Chairman, but in short the answer is no. I don’t think there will be a problem.

The supplementary assessments still relate back, when ultimately made, to an apportionment to the very day of occupancy, shall we say, when the property was first assessable under

section 43, and they are relatively effective in recovery to the municipality of the full amount of the taxes. The return of the roll every two years will save something like, if memory serves me, $4 million, or $3.5 million to $4 million. It is an economy that I guess we would all like to see effected. There are some disadvantages to it I guess, but in the long run it sounds like an interesting proposal and we want the commission to think about that one as well.

I don’t think the hon. member needs to worry from the standpoint of the municipalities about their getting the supplementary assessments. They will get them and they will be taxable from the day when they became taxable.

Mr. Williams: Just one supplementary point, Mr. Chairman. The last comment on that particular proposal states, “Provision will be made to record changes in school support.” This seems to imply that this is not presently being done. If it isn’t presently being done it’s contrary to my understanding of the situation. I thought that the school support amendments are being recorded, virtually on a per diem basis.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We recognize that the school boards would like to have that information annually, so they may not be too keen on going on the two-year period. That was one of the disadvantages to which I was alluding. Nevertheless, we would like to think that we can work out some way to record alterations in the rolls for school support purposes, perhaps accommodating the school boards. That is not thoroughly worked out and it is just another matter that the commission will doubtless have to spend a fair amount of time on, I should think.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, just following upon the computer costs, it seems strange to me that they would be down 10 per cent in a year when we are coming into completing the impact studies of the result of the market value assessment, and also completing all the parts of the assessment that haven’t been done but which have to be done by October if we are going to bring the new market value system in for 1978 taxation.

I wonder if this is one of these symbolic cuts and if they will be back with supplementary estimates later on, or is the minister confident that they can operate on 10 per cent less money, in view of the work of the commission and the requirements it will have, as well as completing the work in time for the new system coming in in 1977?

Hon. Mr. Meen: One of the doubts -- if I have any, Mr. Chairman -- is that when these estimates were prepared, the appointment of the commission hadn’t been formally resolved in our minds -- as to just how we were going to cope with the communication with the municipalities, how we were going to have these discussions with them and gain the input and do the studies that would be necessary. So the computer estimate does not include an allowance for computer time that may be necessary to assist the commission.

But subject to that, it’s simply some efficiencies and some economies -- some streamlining that we have been able to achieve in the computer work that I am advised has derived the otherwise accurate figure of 10 per cent reduction. In other words, the total figure that we have I think is something with which we can live and perform effectively and obviously more efficiently, and yet I do have to qualify that with respect to the operation of computer services for the benefit of the commission, a factor I don’t think anyone can put a dollar figure on yet.

Ms. Bryden: Just one more question, Mr. Chairman. If fighting the business assessments has cost $5.5 million a year for the last three years, has the minister any estimate also of how much it has cost the municipalities in the way of reduced assessments in cases that have been won by business?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I am advised that in very rough figures the assessments that were under appeal aggregated about $500 million a year. So a cost of $5.5 million is roughly one per cent.

In generalities again, those assessments are preserved. I am advised that the assessments that have been preserved for the benefit of the municipalities have been maintained; the losses on the appeals have been less than one per cent average reduction on those appeals. So it strikes me that the cost to the province incurred in protecting and preserving the assessment base for the municipalities is itself running at roughly one per cent. That’s relatively modest, I should think.

I am afraid I do not have any figure for the cost of any work done by the municipalities. Indeed I should think they could stay out of the picture pretty well until the assessment matter had been resolved, so I would expect that their costs are negligible.

It may be that the hon. member was referring in terms of cost to lost revenue from reduced assessment. A one per cent reduction in revenue from $500 million worth of assessment would be the figure we are talking about to municipalities.

Ms. Bryden: One final comment, Mr. Chairman. It could be said I suppose that some of this $16 million that’s been spent could have been avoided if we had managed to get market assessment in quicker, but that of course is a matter of whether it could have been done or not. I would just like to make that observation.

Mr. Wildman: I wonder if the minister could clarify for us the present rather confused situation regarding assessment for mobile homes regarding Judge Vannini’s decision? It appears that in Sault Ste. Marie at least mobile homes situated inside the city limits are being assessed for taxes while the mobile homes in mobile home parks outside of the city, in the unorganized territory, are being taxed for educational purposes on the basis of the old system of a licence fee.

I wonder what determines, in the ministry’s policy, what is a permanent residence, since in my estimation most modern mobile homes are very permanent and not very mobile. I am wondering if it requires the wheels and the chassis to be removed, or if it means they are simply put on a more permanent type of structure to stay in one place, and that determines whether they are permanent. If that’s the case, why is it that this policy is not being applied similarly both in organized municipalities and in areas outside of organized municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Meen: The Vannini judgement which, if memory serves me, was in June or July, 1974, adopted a principle which my ministry hadn’t been following and determined that, if the running gear had been removed, it would follow then that the mobile home was up on blocks. Certainly I agree with the hon. member for Algoma, it sure isn’t very mobile when it’s got its running gear out from under and it’s up on blocks.

In that case Judge Vannini decided that that house therefore becomes part of the real estate. It was my opinion, and my colleagues agreed with me, that that was a very sensible judgement. What we did was to alter our practice and that is precisely what we have been doing ever since, so that a home that has had the running gear removed, following the rationale of the Vannini judgement, is then affixed to the realty and it’s assessable for realty purposes.

If it is still on its wheels -- and we made this very clear -- it is not then assessable for realty purposes, but is subject to a licence fee. We amended the Municipal Act to provide that the municipalities could do one or the other, that is, if we assessed, they could not charge a licence fee; if we did not assess for realty purposes, they could charge a licence fee and in that way, hopefully, bringing some kind of order out of what did appear to be a chaotic situation which we had been struggling with for some time.

I am reminded that unorganized territories are not under our jurisdiction for assessment purposes. Consequently, they may still in areas unorganized -- frankly, I don’t know how they assess a tax if they are unorganized. In any event, I wonder since the hon. member for Algoma may just happen to be talking about some unorganized territories if that’s where the confusion still arises. I believe we have accomplished it in any area over which we have jurisdiction.

Mr. Wildman: If I might be allowed to clarify that, there are two small mobile home parks within the city of Sault Ste. Marie. It is my understanding that they are now being assessed in cases where it is judged that the mobile home is a permanent situation.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That’s fine.

Mr. Wildman: The situation in many of the parks outside or north of Sault Ste. Marie in unorganized townships is that the Sault Ste. Marie and District Board of Education is charging a licence fee for education taxes for mobile homes. Frankly, I think that the board of education would like to be relieved of this because it has led to a lot of problems.

There is one problem that I have in that I understand that in the situation within the city, where they are now being assessed, there apparently were some cases of people who have their homes on semi-permanent foundations but still have the wheels attached who were also assessed. They apparently went to the assessment appeal board, and I don’t know what happened, but it appears that they didn’t win their cases. I was wondering, if I could get the information to the minister, if he would investigate that.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I would suppose that if the running gear is still attached -- the hon. member talks about semi-permanent foundations, and I don’t know what that would mean. I suppose a few blocks up under the corners might be sufficiently --

Mr. Wildman: Blocks that aren’t cemented in.

[4:00]

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- impermanent, yes. They could pull them out fairly readily, but they can’t put their running gear in and out all that easily. Presumably, with that left in there, the rules that I have instructed to be followed are that that property would then not be assessed under the Act, but rather it would be subject to licence fee by the municipality.

I understand, too, that in the unorganized territories if there is an education tax implication, as there may well be, we do have the authority to go in and assess, and I’ll see that our people do go in and do that work in that area. If the hon. member can direct me to any particular areas I would be pleased to get the information from him because we may just be able to clear up that -- whatever one would call it, not necessarily inequity, because they’re paying tax one way or the other, I suppose, but at least get some consistency of approach across the whole of the area; and any other areas, for that matter, in which the situation still may prevail.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on vote 904?

Vote 904 agreed to.

On the Province of Ontario Savings Office:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, my concern is really directed toward only one area, and that is the inability of the government to realize what an important role is played by the Province of Ontario Savings Office. It’s an increasingly important role. It’s almost as if that kind of a financial institution is having the same relatively phenomenal growth that credit unions and co-operatives are having -- particularly credit unions.

I had occasion last year to correspond with the Province of Ontario Savings Office to get some information, in broad outline form, of the original purposes for which the savings office was set up when it was incorporated in 1921, and what its secondary purposes are, how it operates and what use could be made of the funds. By a letter to me in the latter part of October, 1975, the director of the Province of Ontario Savings Office gave me the information which I requested.

I am concerned that, so far as I can understand it, there have been no new Province of Ontario Savings Office branches opened up throughout the Province of Ontario since the 1930s. My first inquiry is, how many offices are there now in the Province of Ontario? I’m told that there is the head office and 21 branch offices. I would like to know the distribution of those branch offices, the date on which the last one was opened, and why it is that there are not a substantial number of new offices being opened, consistent with the expansion of the business which is taking place in the old established branch offices.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I’ll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s words are music to my ears because I would like to get on with doing some more of this. There are 21 operative branches. The head office is not an operative entity in the sense of taking deposits and dealing with customers, so we have 21. At one time there were 22. I think one was closed, or maybe a couple were closed and one opened, but the net balance is 21, as I understand it. I think the Province of Ontario Savings Office provides a terrific service to the government in making available to the government moneys at a lesser rate than --

Mr. Renwick: Just leave that aspect out of it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Okay, my sales pitch comes later, does it?

Mr. Renwick: When was the last office opened? What is the distribution across the province?

Hon. Mr. Meen: The latest office opened was actually a removal of the branch at St. Clair and Yonge to a new branch over on St. Clair Ave. We still call it the St. Clair Ave. and Yonge branch, but it has moved along.

Mr. Renwick: The last new office?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think one would go back 40 years or so, into the late 1920s or so.

Mr. Renwick: Not the first one; the latest one opened?

Hon. Mr. Meen: In terms of no branch being a replacement of another one closed for any other reason, I think one could go back decades.

Mr. Renwick: To get to a time when there has been any expansion of any kind?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes. I think that is fair enough, in terms of numbers.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t need to know the locations at the moment but I would certainly ask, when your estimates are over, that the appropriate person write to me and set out the present locations of the 21 branches and the dates on which they were opened.

My next question is that while I didn’t intend my remarks to be so pleasing to the minister, could he now tell me what plans there are to expand the Province of Ontario Savings Office operations?

Hon. Mr. Meen: One could be very brief on this point; in light of the present constraints I have no plans, at present at any rate, for expanding the numbers. What I do want to do with a number of them is to modernize their facilities and their appearances. I was astonished -- no, I really wasn’t astonished; I was pleased but not all that surprised -- at the very dramatic increase in the volume of business in the St. Clair Ave. branch when we moved it from a quite antiquated style of building to new quarters. There was a 73 per cent increase in a period of three years.

That thrust itself, to my mind, is probably one of the first things we should undertake and I have been advocating this with all the branches, all the ones which are not of a modern style at the present time. The Dundas and University branch, I think, will shortly be moving into new quarters of a similar modern style and I would expect a similar kind of dramatic increase in its deposit activity, too.

Mr. Renwick: Not being a banker I may not use the right term but the question I would like to ask is what was the net balance on deposit with the Province of Ontario Savings Office, in aggregate, for each of the last five years so I can get some conception of the magnitude of the growth of the business of the savings office which has taken place?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I don’t know whether I have that for the last five years. I can tell the hon. member what the moneys on deposit were at March 31, 1973. He might want to make a note of this. It was $154,712,000. At Jan. 31, 1976 -- that’s the most recent date I could obtain for the benefit of these estimates -- it was up to $240,078,000, an increase of 55 per cent.

I can give the hon. member the figures for 1974 and 1975 if he would like to have them. Comparable figures to the $154,712,000 of 1973 are: For March 31, 1974, $183,122,000; March 31, 1975, $225,947,000. There has been quite a significant increase in each of those years.

Mr. Renwick: I think this leads me to the next area I would like to speak about.

When you consider that it has gone up by that significant amount each year for the last five years, I want to now ask the ministry some specific questions about these funds, which are guaranteed so far as the depositors are concerned by the Ontario government and which pay a significant current rate of interest on the accounts of 7¾ per cent, where there is an obvious net float of the deposits of a significant number of millions of dollars; when one bears in mind that the original purpose of the Ontario Savings Office was to supply funds for rural credit, and that has long fallen into disuse, why are the funds simply turned over to the Treasurer of Ontario for such uses as he may determine rather than being used for the purposes of mortgage lending at a rate significantly lower than the going market rate?

Bearing in mind that the Province of Ontario Savings Office must make a profit on its operations by whatever the spread may be, I suppose my first question is: What is the rate of interest which the Treasurer of Ontario pays to the Province of Ontario Savings Office for the use of these substantial sums of money? Are they earmarked in any way by the Treasurer for any specific use? And what would be the rate at which a significant portion of those moneys on deposit could be used for mortgages for low and medium income people in the province for home purposes?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I would advise the hon. member that -- I guess his information was obtained before March 1 as to the activity of P050 -- the rate for deposits is now 8½ per cent rather than 7%.

Mr. Renwick: Eight and a half?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes. We increased that on March 1, because we endeavour to stay about a half of one percent above the trust company non-chequing accounts.

Mr. Renwick: The trust company non-chequing? Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Perhaps I can come at the question. The Treasurer is able to use the funds from banking operations at better than one per cent below what he could do on the bond market -- in 60-day, 90-day notes, whatever. He pays, at least I believe it works this way; it’s charged through at a rate of one per cent above the rate we are paying to depositors. So he is being charged at a rate of nine and a half per cent on the current basis.

The money goes into the general revenue fund, which is not earmarked, and it’s there for the purposes of the Crown and whatever priorities the Treasurer and the government may establish for its use. Specifically on the hon. member’s question of why the Province of Ontario Savings Office does not get into loans of one sort and another: He talks of mortgages, but he might just as readily talk in terms of general loans to depositors -- it is simply --

Mr. Renwick: It is constitutionally impossible.

Hon. Mr. Mean: No, I was not about to say that, because as a matter of fact I took a trip out to Alberta to see how they do it and they have been able to set up quite a number of branches of the Alberta Treasury -- Treasury Branches I think they are called -- and they do make loans to depositors. The action has never been challenged; well there have been two cases in the Alberta courts, both of Which upheld the constitutional authority of the Treasury Branches of Alberta to operate as “near banks”, as they call them, but as nearly as “near banks” can get --

Mr. Renwick: It hasn’t changed since the Thirties.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- without getting into the banking function under so-called federal exclusive jurisdiction. In any event, neither of those cases vas ever appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. They were Alberta trial court cases and I don’t know quite what would happen -- neither do they -- if they were appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. There is no appeal on either of those. Those cases are of some long standing. But when I went out to see them they pointed out to me that to go that route would take quite a number of years, because you just don’t train loan officers overnight. Their experience was that it took at least five years to train a loan officer.

[4:15]

Mr. Renwick: May I comment?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, I would be pleased to hear from you.

Mr. Renwick: I was not thinking of the Province of Ontario Savings Office engaging in the loan business. I am interested in the minister’s remarks that there may be some way in which one could skate around the constitutional prohibition, if one wanted to do so. I am thinking of a sizable amount of money; about a couple of hundred million dollars. Presumably if you doubled the number of branch offices from 21 to 42 in carefully selected locations, and an expansion programme was done in an orderly way, then in a very short time I would assume that the Province of Ontario Savings Office deposits would rapidly increase to about $400 million or $500 million over a period of time.

Now if those funds can be given to the Treasurer of Ontario for his use at a percentage point above what is being paid by the Province of Ontario Savings Office to their depositors, then there is no reason why it cannot be given either directly to the Ontario Mortgage Corp., or indirectly through the Treasurer and routed into the Ontario Mortgage Corp., which has the expertise and knowledge with respect to making mortgage loans.

The funds could be available as a pool of mortgage money, obviously on some criteria of those persons who would qualify for that assistance, at a rate which presumably would run somewhere under 10 per cent; which is a significantly lower figure than the going rate for first mortgage money in the province, as the minister is well aware.

I just cannot understand the government, which got so hung up on the question of providing some subsidy to pick up some portion of the mortgage interest rate -- and I am going back now to the statements made by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) last June or July in his supplementary budget. They were going to dash out and meet with the financial institutions and either cajole or twist their arm, or persuade them or beg them to make more moneys available for mortgage purposes.

I am going back to the election time. In those desperate days prior to the Sept. 18 election -- desperate, I say, for the Tory party -- there was a sudden announcement of the mortgage interest rate subsidy; and then it was reflected in the Throne Speech, if I remember correctly. But then nothing happened about it, and it didn’t appear again in the Throne Speech of this session.

I am asking the minister why it is not possible, in a time of extreme shortage of mortgage funds -- availability only at extremely high rates of interest -- why these funds cannot be made available through the Ontario Mortgage Corp. in such a way as to provide a very substantial pool of funds, if you can’t get it from any of the other financial institutions?

It doesn’t run contrary, you know, to the competitive operation which is so near to the minister’s heart and those of his colleagues in the marketplace. We wouldn’t dream in this party of interfering with the marketplace.

But I would suggest that if this government, through Province of Ontario Savings Office deposits, made the funds available to the Ontario Mortgage Corp. in the magnitude I have spoken about, $300 million to $400 million, over a period of time and in a wise investment way with respect to first mortgages on house properties, it would enter the market in competition, and the competitive virtues of the marketplace would be enhanced by that competition with the other financial institutions which are making funds available.

In so doing you could give significant assistance of immense importance to a large number of people to allow them to own their own homes.

Those are the comments I wanted to make and I am most anxious to hear what the minister’s comments are. If it could be done at its inception without interrupting the market system and the free enterprise system of 1921 by providing funds for rural credit in the field of agriculture, when it was originally incorporated under

an Act known as the Agricultural Development Finance Act, then it seems to me it is consistent that the government in a different time could use it for mortgage credit purposes in the home field.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know -- going back into antiquity, to 1921, when it was the farmers’ union that brought in this legislation, as I’m given to understand -- whether they ever did make any loan in accordance with the original intent. Certainly there’s no evidence now of any such activity. It’s been a dead issue for a decade.

If one were to pursue the activity along the lines I thought the member was talking about originally, namely that the Province of Ontario Savings Office branches would act as loan offices for mortgage purposes, we simply don’t have the expertise. I think that it would take upwards of five years, from the advice I received out west, to put in place any such skills as that in any meaningful way -- and it would have to be in all branches, I would suppose. So I don’t picture that as a function.

I’m also advised, incidentally, that once that happens -- and I’m sure the hon. member would understand this -- that no longer would any significant amount of moneys that are presently available to the province be then available to the province. For every $10 you had in on deposit you would have $8 or $9 out on loan, so you would then lose the advantage that accrues to all the people of Ontario by having this money available to the province at relatively attractive interest rates.

Mr. Renwick: Naturally, you can’t use the same money twice.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Of course -- well that isn’t available to the province.

If the hon. member is saying that out of the moneys that are got in in this fashion there should be designated a similar quantum for the benefit of the Ontario Mortgage Corp. or some similar operation, then that’s fine except that that question should be directed to the Treasurer. This money going into the consolidated revenue fund is at his disposal and his priority.

Mr. Renwick: He will undoubtedly read my remarks.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Oh, yes. He’ll have the pleasure of reading the hon. member’s remarks in Hansard just as the rest of us will in the fullness of time.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I only have one other comment about it. Will the minister give serious consideration to the expansion of the savings office branches, in carefully selected expansion programme terms, over a period of time in order to make this facility more available to the people throughout the Province of Ontario and not only to those who happen to be able to deal with any one of the 21 branches?

Surely, it’s Catch-22 in the sense if you talk about the curtailment of the restraint programme which doesn’t permit this to be done, when at the very same time one obviously knows from the record of this institution over the past five or six years that if you do open up these offices you’re going to get more and more funds and they’ll be available to the Province of Ontario one way or another.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I’d be less than candid if I didn’t tell you that I agree with the sentiment expressed by the hon. member. It’s a matter of constraint and, at this time, I don’t have the money to do it, but I can tell you that the first time a few thousand dollars show up, where I can talk my colleague, the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld) into letting me use a little bit more of these moneys for this kind of purpose, once we have modernized these branches then that certainly would be the next step.

There’s nothing in the north; I’d love to have some there. I’m told -- I think I’m correct on this -- there was a branch in Sault Ste. Marie, but I think that’s the branch that was closed down, for whatever reason.

Mr. Renwick: I understand that too.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That’s an area where one could seriously consider an operation. You can have another one in Sudbury, in North Bay -- I can think of the major centres.

Mr. Renwick: Thunder Bay.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Sure, sure, Thunder Bay; maybe even in Kenora and in many other parts of this province.

Mr. Renwick: Riverdale?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think the hon. member has one or two in Riverdale now.

Mr. Renwick: No, not in my riding.

Hon. Mr. Meen: On Danforth Ave. Yes, there are two on the Danforth. If they aren’t in the hon. member’s riding they must be awfully close to it -- and I will tell him something, I don’t have one in my riding yet. In any event, I think the hon. member can see that I have every intention of pursuing this, at every opportunity, to expand this operation. It is a matter of fiscal constraint at the moment.

Mr. Renwick: All I can say is I am glad the Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Auld) was here.

Mr. Good: On this subject, Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell me the nature of the debt instrument between the Ontario Savings Office and the province? I notice that in the Treasurer’s statements he doesn’t show any of the non-public borrowing as coming from the Ontario Savings Office. I am just wondering what is the nature of the debt instrument.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I must say, Mr. Chairman, I don’t know the nature of the debt instrument. I honestly don’t know what arrangement that is.

Mr. Good: What is the amount per year? It is not shown in the non-public borrowing.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well it is not a repayable matter. The money is lent to the province and the province has it on an ongoing basis, with the Province of Ontario Savings Office retaining enough for day-to-day and week-to-week liquidity plus operating expenses.

Mr. Good: What would be the accumulation of the deposits to the credit of the province for use, on which they would pay interest?

Hon. Mr. Meen: It would be very close to the $240 million on deposit at Jan. 31.

Mr. Good: On an ongoing basis?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes.

Mr. Good: Where does this show up? I guess this would more properly be asked of the Treasurer. I fail to find where this shows up in the Treasurer’s scheme of financing.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I can’t answer that question. I think the hon. member should ask the Treasurer.

Mr. Makarchuk: On the same subject again, the expansion of the Ontario Savings Office was the subject of a motion that was introduced by myself about five or six years ago in my last tenure in this House. At that time Mr. Eric Winkler, who was the minister responsible, also told us pretty much the same thing that the minister is repeating now -- that yes, you were interested in expansion; yes, you are going to go ahead and expand; and, of course, you are going to move on it; and now you are telling us exactly the same thing.

I am not at all convinced of the sincerity of your government to expand in this field, particularly in view of the record and in view of the past promises or past indications. I have a feeling that the reason you people are not prepared to move in this area is the fact that you will, in a sense, be involved in a public enterprise which will be in competition, or should be in competition and definitely could be in competition, with the trust companies and the banks, that you will have an economic tool in your hands or at your disposal which could to some extent affect interest rates in the market right now.

You will agree there is limited or no competition in that area, and I feel this is really the reason behind your reluctance to deal with this problem. I have a feeling -- and I would have to see the figures -- that in most cases the POSO branches are self-supporting. It is not an extra charge on the taxpayer. You have a figure of $2 million, but I would like to hear the minister comment on whether the profit that is made is adequate to pay for this, or whether it is subsidized here. Even if it is subsidized, in this case by this $2.6 million, I am sure that if t