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

November 25, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L121 - Thu 25 Nov 1976 / Jeu 25 nov 1976

MOPED HELMETS

FUNDING AND TUITION FEES

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

TILE DRAINAGE LOANS

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

HYDRO NIAGARA ESCARPMENT LEASE

MINIMUM WAGE

GSW-CGE MERGER

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

OHTB BUS LICENCE

SPECIAL EDUCATION GRANT

HYDRO RATES

SEVERN PARK DEVELOPMENT

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

SERVICES DE SANTE EN LANGUE FRANCAISE

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

REPORTS

FARM INCOME STABILIZATION ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

MOPED HELMETS

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House today that the amendment to The Highway Traffic Act,

section 62, subsection 1, contained in Bill 129 passed last year, will be proclaimed in force on January 1, 1977.

This

section at present covers the wearing of approved helmets by persons operating motorcycles.

The amendment will also make the wearing of such helmets mandatory for moped drivers.

For the past year, my ministry has been studying various types of helmets to select one suitable for wearing by persons operating a moped, or motor-assisted bicycle.

As the hon. members are aware, we did this with a view toward making the wearing of helmets compulsory once one was chosen which met the ministry’s safety specifications.

Mr. Cassidy: It took eight months.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We examined moped helmets of many designs and materials, including those used in other countries.

In the end, we did not feel that any of them possessed significant advantages over the helmets currently worn by motorcycle riders, and hence the same helmet standards will apply to both types of vehicles.

According to the most recent ministry statistics, four moped drivers were killed and 203 injured on Ontario roads during the first nine months of 1976. Happily, these figures represent a 50 per cent decline in fatalities and a 53 per cent drop in injuries over the previous year.

However, the select committee on highway safety wrote to me a few weeks ago voicing the feelings of representatives of all three Ontario political parties and very strongly urging that the government, without delay, take action on the compulsory wearing of helmets by moped drivers.

I am announcing a change to The Highway Traffic Act, making it mandatory, effective January 1, 1977, for all who drive mopeds or motor-assisted bicycles to wear helmets of the type approved as motorcycle helmets.

In The Highway Traffic Act, an approved motorcycle helmet meets the standards of the Canadian Safety Association, Snell Memorial Foundation, the British Standards Institute or the United States of America Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218.

Such helmets must bear the appropriate monogram or certificate identifying them clearly as one of the four approved motorcycle helmets.

Hopefully, this change in the law will help bring about an even greater reduction in the number of deaths and injuries experienced among moped drivers thus far this year.

FUNDING AND TUITION FEES

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce funding levels for 1977-78 for the universities and colleges of applied arts and technology and to announce an adjustment to fees.

With regard to funding the university system, I have accepted the advice of the Ontario Council on University Affairs. We will provide operating funds of $703 million in 1977-78, a $52 million increase over this year’s projected expenditures of $651 million.

The colleges will receive operating grants totalling $250 million, up from $230 million in the current year.

We believe the increased costs faced by universities and colleges should be borne in part by the students who use them and in part by the taxpayer. Consequently, we have suggested that universities increase their tuition fees for a two-term academic year by $100. Tuition fees for a similar period in the colleges of applied arts and technology will be increased by $75. This will be the first increase in five years.

Average academic fees in the universities have been frozen at slightly less than $600 since 1972. The increase I am asking for in 1977 will result in an average annual increase over five years of 3.2 per cent.

In the colleges, fees have been fixed at $250 since 1972. Next year’s increase to $325 will mean an annual average increase over five years of 5.4 per cent.

These figures, 3.2 per cent for the universities and 5.4 per cent for the colleges, compare to an annual average increase in the consumer price index of 8.1 per cent.

Looking at it another way, fees currently make up 14.4 per cent of universities’ incomes from fees and grants, down from more than 17 per cent following the 1972 fee increase. The 1977 increase will result in tuition fees amounting to 16.1 per cent of this income.

This means that even after the increase university students will only be paying, on average, about 16 per cent of their educational costs. Taxpayers will continue to pay about 80 per cent with the remainder coming from private sources.

Similarly, in the colleges, fees were roughly 13 per cent of income in 1972 and they are about 10 per cent of income in the current year. After the increase next year, students will again be paying 13 per cent of the costs of their education.

This increase in tuition fees does not change the government’s commitment to ensure that students’ access to post-secondary education is not limited by their financial resources.

As in the past, students who can’t pay their full share of education costs may apply for financial assistance from the Ontario Student Assistance Programme.

Mr. Bain: They will never get it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Higher tuition fees will be taken directly into account in assessing these students’ financial needs. The assistance programme’s budget for grants provided by the province will be increased from $61 million in the current year to $74 million in 1977-78.

Currently students are required to borrow $1,000 before they can receive non-repayable funds from the province. I am pleased to confirm that this level of required borrowing will not have to be increased.

The fee increase is dictated by two obligations: First, the obligation to maintain a responsible attitude toward public expenditures; and second, the obligation to maintain the quality of the post-secondary education system so that it will continue to meet the needs of the people of Ontario.

The province’s financial situation does not permit us to meet necessary funding levels wholly from provincial revenues. We can see no acceptable alternatives to the one we have chosen. In the circumstances, I believe the taxpayers of Ontario, the institutions and the students themselves are best served by the moderate fee increase we have proposed.

In conclusion, I will emphasize again that we intend, through the Ontario student assistance programme, to continue our firm policy that no deserving student will be denied, for financial reasons, a place in Ontario’s post-secondary educational system.

Mr. Cassidy: More and more of them have been turned away.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will meet with the student council presidents in two weeks’ time to reassure them about this policy and to discuss any other concerns that they may have at that time.

Mr. Cassidy: They can’t go, because they can’t get jobs. It’s true; 20 per cent of them can’t get jobs. There were none, that’s why.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, on November 10 the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) asked for an explanation of the land speculation tax exemption that was granted to the Ronto Development Company on its sale of lands in the city of Brantford to George Wimpey Canada Limited.

When this question was raised, I indicated that since the matter had occurred some months earlier and was quite complex, I would like to refresh my memory before reporting to the House. I am now prepared to make a complete report.

The grant of exemption to Ronto was made under Ontario Regulation 340/76, dated April 15, 1976. Since that time, it appears that the merits of the action taken in the Ronto case have been somewhat obscured in various media reports of the matter. I am pleased, therefore, to have this opportunity to explain the matter fully so that the House may be assured that the exemption was justified.

Mr. Sargent: Sure it was!

Hon. Mr. Meen: At the outset, I would like to say that exemptions granted by way of a regulation for a specific transaction, such as the one involving the lands sold by Ronto, are uncommon. Such a grant of exemption is considered only where there are extenuating circumstances not specifically covered by the legislation and where the grant of exemption is in conformity with the main intent of the legislation and serves the public interest.

One important aspect of the land speculation tax legislation is that an exemption from the tax may be earned by an owner who services or develops land for residential purposes or for other beneficial uses prior to sale. An exemption for such servicing or development, subject to certain conditions, was specifically provided by the Legislature in

section 4(

k) of The Land Speculation Tax Act.

Mr. Sargent: The first thing you have to be is a Conservative.

Hon. Mr. Meen: An alternative way of stating this principle is to say that the legislation was not intended in any way to impede the servicing or development of land for residential or other beneficial purposes. Indeed, since the land speculation tax was not designed primarily to raise revenue for the province, we could be criticized if the legislation were not applied in a positive way to remove any unintended impediments to development.

This point is worth stressing. Although there was, in the Ronto case, the possibility that some or all of the land speculation tax payable by Ronto might be added to the eventual cost of the housing, a more basic justification for the exemption was the need to ensure that the extenuating circumstances in this case, for which there was no specific provision in the legislation, would not impede the important objective of expanding the supply of housing.

Mr. Bullbrook: You can’t be serious with this.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Let me outline briefly what these extenuating circumstances were. Ronto first came to the attention of the Revenue officials shortly following the death of Mr. Ron Todgham in December 1975. Mr. Todgham had been the chairman of the corporate partnership carrying on business under the name of the Ronto Development Company and in that capacity was intimately involved in its management.

Up to that time, Ronto had been proceeding to develop the lands in question with a view to selling these lands to builders as fully serviced lots. Had the development work been completed, there was every expectation that the eventual disposition of the lands by Ronto would have fully qualified for the automatic exemption provided in the land speculation tax legislation.

[2:15]

Indeed, by December 1975, the development work had been underway for some time. For example, to facilitate the annexation of the land by the city of Brantford, Ronto had participated in the preparation of the economic base studies and had assisted in the preparation of other official plan amendments. A draft approval of a plan of subdivision had been received from the city and Ronto’s engineer had prepared the engineering designs and specifications for servicing the subdivision and had received approval for these from the city. Development had, in fact, proceeded to the state where Ronto had called for tenders for the installation of services on a portion of the property.

Mr. Bullbrook: All of which increased the value.

Hon. Mr. Meen: All that was required to complete the development work was to install the services.

Mr. S. Smith: To improve the land.

Hon. Mr. Meen: However, the extensive financial involvement of Mr. Todgham at the time of his death, coupled with the requirement of his estate to liquidate his financial obligations, made it difficult if not impossible for Ronto to continue the financing of the installation of services to the point where the company could have qualified for the automatic exemption from tax.

The offer of Wimpey to buy the property and continue with the development and installation of services to the point where building permits were available, provided the assurance that Ronto’s difficulties would not unduly impede the completion of the work already in progress. Furthermore, Wimpey also gave its undertaking to the Minister of Revenue to proceed with the building of housing units on the serviced lots and to sell these units to the public. I might also mention in passing that the completion of Wimpey’s undertaking in this regard has been ensured by a lien upon the lands in favour of the Crown under a land transfer tax deferral that was granted to Wimpey in accordance with

section 16(1) of The Land Transfer Tax Act. That’s order in council 892/76, dated April 7, 1976.

Given these various circumstances, I now ask the House to consider the alternatives confronting us when the matter of a possible grant of exemption to Ronto was first raised. Although Ronto had already proceeded in good faith with a substantial part of the work necessary to complete the servicing and development of the lands, the work at the time of Mr. Todgham’s untimely death had not yet reached the point where building permits would have been available, and where an automatic exemption from land speculation tax would thus have been earned by the company without the need for any special regulation.

The question, then, was whether it was in the public interest and within the intent of the Act to impose the tax strictly on the basis that building permits were not available, as was required under the automatic exemption provisions of the legislation, or to recognize the extenuating circumstances and grant a specific exemption in order to remove an unusual and unforeseen impediment to the development of housing, as was clearly authorized in the regulatory provisions of the legislation.

Thus, on the one hand, if the decision were made to deny the exemption, then, in view of the inability of Ronto to carry out the servicing and development necessary to obtain building permits, there was the prospect that either the land might not be sold quickly or that, if sold, the use of the land for housing might be considerably delayed.

On the other hand, if the decision were made to grant the exemption to Ronto, there was a firm undertaking by the purchaser, Wimpey, not only to complete Ronto’s obligations to service and develop the lands, but also to produce and sell approximately 2,300 homes to the public by June 30, 1983.

It was, of course, evident that a substantial gain would be obtained by Ronto on the sale of the property and that the exemption would provide a large tax relief. However, this relief was considered to be of secondary importance in view of the extenuating circumstances relating to Mr. Todgham’s death: the work already completed by Ronto, the inability of Ronto to continue with that work, and the certainty that the completion of the sale to Wimpey would provide Ontarians with this new stock of housing.

We concluded there was a strong case for using the power provided in the legislation to grant the exemption so that this substantial housing programme would be certain to proceed.

Mr. Nixon: Friend of the developer. Ten million dollars. Friend of the developer -- remember that phrase? Friend of the developer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Finally, I would like to clarify one other matter raised by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith). He suggested that Ronto had derived a profit of some $10 million from the sale of the land. Such a figure may, of course, be obtained by subtracting the consideration paid by Ronto from Ronto’s proceeds of disposition of some $12 million. These amounts are available in the public record.

However, I would like to correct any impression that $10 million would have been the amount to which land speculation tax would have applied if the exemption had not been granted. Although the conveyance of the land to Ronto was not registered until June, 1974, the land was actually acquired by Ronto in 1973.

Tax would therefore have been computed by reference to the “net taxable value,” after deducting the April 9, 1974, fair market value and all other adjustments authorized in the statute from the proceeds of disposition, including the very large expenditure to develop the land.

Mr. Bullbrook: What was that difference? How much was the difference?

Mr. Nixon: You are not concerned?

Mr. Bullbrook: Did you calculate the difference?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. minister has a statement.

Mr. Bullbrook: What value did you put on it? As of April? You didn’t even go into the April value?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sarnia is out of order.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Regrettably, I am unable --

Interjection.

Mr. Bullbrook: He didn’t as minister. He didn’t even go into the April value.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Regrettably, I am unable to provide the specific amounts submitted to the ministry by Ronto since I am bound by the secrecy provisions of the statute.

However, I can assure this House that although the exact figures were not totally verified by ministry officials because of the granting of the exemption, the actual net taxable value to which tax would have applied would not have been anywhere close to the figure mentioned by the hon. member.

Mr. Nixon: You didn’t even find out how much you were going over.

Mr. Bullbrook: You don’t even know yourself how much you have lost.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I believe this may be obvious, in view of the escalation of land values that occurred in the months immediately prior to the introduction of the tax in April, 1974, and during which the land in question was held by Ronto.

Mr. Lewis: Before we enter the question period, could the minister read that last paragraph again?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I shall read it immediately, Mr. Speaker, if that’s in order.

However, I can assure this House that although the exact figures were not totally verified by ministry officials because of the granting of the exemption, the actual net taxable value to which tax would have applied would not have been anywhere close to the figure mentioned by the hon. member. I believe this may be obvious, in view of the escalation of land values that occurred in the months immediately prior to the introduction of the tax in April, 1974, and during which the land in question was held by Ronto.

Mr. Bullbrook: How did they know about it? You didn’t calculate your loss.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are going to eliminate the whole thing.

TILE DRAINAGE LOANS

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the members that the government will be making $18 million available to municipalities for tile drainage loans in the 1977-78 fiscal year. The interest rate will be the same as it was this year -- six per cent.

Early in December I will be sending letters to the municipalities informing them of the amount that will be made available. The amount each municipality will receive is being calculated on a pro rata basis covering its borrowing for the previous three years. For the purposes of this calculation, the figure being used for the current year is the amount a municipality would have borrowed had the government restraint programme not affected the total amount available. A small part of the $18 million will be set aside in a special fund for those municipalities that have not made tile drainage loans in the past three years.

Throughout the year, Mr. Speaker, we will be reviewing these allocations and adjusting them, so that if some municipalities do not need their full allocation the money can be made available to those that need more.

For example, this year we monitored the funds in the tile drainage programme and found that about eight per cent of the budget -- approximately $1.3 million -- would not have been spent. These funds were then reallocated to municipalities requiring additional funds. We will follow the same procedure in 1977-78.

The importance of tile drainage is well recognized. It is one of the most effective single means of increasing crop yields.

I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is an ongoing programme and in the last three years ending March, 1977, the government will have made $45.5 million available for municipalities to lend to farmers.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, before the oral questions, I wonder if I could rise on a point of privilege?

At 10 this morning, sir, I was called by a Mr. Don Southcott, indicating that he was going to hold a press conference in the buildings here at 11:45, and I was asked to be at that press conference.

I went down to the press conference at 11:45, and although the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Henderson) gave a very brief introduction, he turned the press conference over to Mr. Don Southcott to explain his involvement in the transfer of Severn Park to the town of Grand Bend and the township of Bosanquet. Now I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if the member is not abusing his privileges by setting up a conference --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You were embarrassed.

Mr. Riddell: -- by setting up a press conference for one who is no longer involved in the government? Granted, he is still a member of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s like Darwin Kealey, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, on a --

Mr. Bullbrook: Sit down, the Speaker is on his feet.

Mr. Speaker: I am not familiar with the names of the gentlemen you mentioned except, of course, the one who is an hon. member of the House. I am not sure whether we have a point of privilege here. It doesn’t seem so to me but I will take it under advisement and if so, I will so advise the member in the House.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: On a point of privilege, I think the members of the Legislature should be made aware of the fact that the hon. member who just made a comment made a statement in the Legislature Tuesday afternoon that in the transfer of certain public lands to another public body in the Grand Bend area, certain political overtones were involved.

Mr. S. Smith: He asked a question.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He made accusations --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- regarding a certain individual, a Mr. Don Southcott, indicating that there was political hanky-panky. This morning at 10 o’clock, Mr. Don Southcott was here as a citizen of this province to defend himself and to clarify that there was nothing of the kind and nothing wrong. He should be given that right.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I have made the only comment which is appropriate for me at this present time.

Mr. Lewis: I’ll be bringing Cliff Pilkey in tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m sure you’ve met before. He lets his views be known.

Mr. Lewis: I agree. And you can hear him for miles around.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Revenue, first, an opening question: Has there ever been any other specific exemption granted, under extenuating circumstances or otherwise, which was granted apart from the provisions within the Act? Is this the sole instance in which a particular exemption was granted outside the provisions that exist within the Act?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that question is “Yes, it is the only one. No, there have been no others.” But I would want to check that one. It certainly is the only one that comes to my recollection at the present time.

Mr. S. Smith: I have a supplementary; I intended to put it during my own question time, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister confirm that what he was basically saying about this particular exemption is that the main reason this was given was that there was an intention on the part of the company -- of which one of the principals died -- to go ahead and develop the land, and that was considered the main reason for actually exempting them from a tax which is on the statute books?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that there was a body of reasoning and it wasn’t related to one item only. Certainly, one ingredient in all of this was that the company had not been speculating. They were in the course of developing the land for residential accommodation and had every expectation that they would have reached that in a short while. Had this exemption not been granted there was every expectation that goal of further housing in the market would not have been accomplished or would have been significantly delayed.

Mr. Makarchuk: A supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I think we will allow the member for Hamilton West with his second supplementary, but --

Mr. Bullbrook: I have a supplementary, I believe.

Mr. Speaker: Well in the first place, the original question had to do with further examples, so if there really is a supplementary, I believe it would be better if the hon. member for Hamilton West would save it for his leadoff questions on that subject because it was his original question. I am sure he will want to pursue it further.

Let me see now -- did we have an answer to that? I think we had better have this supplementary. The member for Brantford.

Mr. Makarchuk: To the same minister. Is the minister aware that implied in his statement was the assumption that Wimpey bailed out Ronto? Is the minister aware that there were other buyers for that property and --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Makarchuk: -- the property was sold to the highest buyer?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. For the same reason, that is not a supplementary to this particular question.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I attempt one?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: Based on the original question which had to do with any other development of this policy, I understand that the minister’s two bedposts for coming to his conclusion were: One, the intention to develop; and two, the need for liquidity. Since when has it become a policy of this or any other government that the taxpayer’s need for liquidity is a consideration in granting an exemption?

Mr. Speaker: Order please, this would be related more to another question, which I’m sure some member will ask later.

Mr. Eakins: Let him try it.

Mr. Speaker: If we could stick to this particular question at this time, you’ll have the opportunity later.

[2:30]

HYDRO NIAGARA ESCARPMENT LEASE

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Minister of Energy: How is it that Ontario Hydro leased 700 acres of its land which it holds in the Niagara Escarpment to the Rose Community Development Company -- I think the principal is one Peter Lush -- for the purposes of a major development on that land, that is to say a golf course at the minimum, without once consulting with either the Beaver Valley community and the Beaver Valley official plan, or the Niagara Escarpment Commission?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’m not familiar with the individual named by the member. I’m aware there was a lease arrangement entered into recently. I will check into more of the background as to what contacts were made. So far as I know, the firm referred to approached Hydro, months or a year or two ago, to express an interest in leasing the property to further develop its recreational programmes. I’ll get more information on it and report back.

Mr. Sargent: The minister must be aware that over the years Hydro has spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars in developing that whole area. Why does the need to help Mr. Lush out supersede the needs of Hydro?

Mr. Davidson: Because he’s a Tory.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the property in question is one which Ontario Hydro has held for a great many years and at this point has no plans whatsoever to develop. As I said in answer to the original question from the member for Scarborough West, the particular firm in question approached Hydro a long time ago -- I really don’t know how long ago; I know it’s months if not years -- and indicated an interest in leasing it, and since it is at the present time surplus to Hydro’s needs, Hydro did consider the lease proposal and did execute an agreement.

Mr. Sargent: Why weren’t the local officials notified?

Mr. Lewis: I have a further supplementary, which I would appreciate the minister checking into. Could he find out why Hydro entered into this extraordinary leasing arrangement -- $1 an acre a year, I think, for 700 acres -- when in fact there was a motion on January 18, 1973, from the Beaver Valley Planning Board, that no private development he allowed on these lands, and at no time was the advice of the Niagara Escarpment Commission sought, whose authority and obligation it is to protect those public lands from private use without at least advance consultation with the communities involved?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’ll certainly look into that, and I think one of the points I’ll be looking for is whether that resolution to which the member refers in 1973, had to do with residential development, the development of permanent buildings, or whether it referred to any kind of development. As I understand the project, it is, in fact, recreation related in terms of cross-country skiing, golf course and so forth.

I must point out, and if the member is not aware of this I should tell him, that it is the policy of Ontario Hydro to lease Hydro right of way land to municipalities, for instance, for $1 a year, where those municipalities wish to use the land for recreational purposes. In fact, the first time that was done was in the riding of Don Mills when I was the alderman for that area and negotiated the deal on behalf of the council.

Mr. Warner: Naturally.

Mr. Cassidy: Look at you now.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s $1 a year for any amount of land that the municipality will take over for recreational purposes. So it’s not that unusual.

Mr. Cunningham: You guys are really something, you really are.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that if this land isn’t rented to the municipality and is rented to a private enterprise it is the procedure to put it up for tender?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the land isn’t for sale.

Mr. Sweeney: Tender for lease.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Again, I’ll get all the background information, but from what I know at this point, Hydro had no plans whatsoever to sell or to lease the land; it was just sitting on it, if you will. They were approached and asked to consider and, in fact, I understand --

Mr. Davidson: That is why your government is sitting on it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- they did an internal appraisal as to its worth for an annual rent and the amount that was offered was in excess of what Hydro’s own people advised was a reasonable annual rent.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Perhaps the minister will be able to tell us then how he responds to the letters which the Beaver Valley Planning Board agreed to send urgently last night to him and his colleagues, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Industry and Tourism, to find out why, when that was never the intended use of this land from Hydro’s original acquisition of it, all of this proceeded without any consultation with the Niagara Escarpment Commission or the local planning authorities. I don’t know how Hydro gets away with it, but would the minister please look at it in that context?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all I want to find out whether in fact that is correct that there has been no consultation. I think along with that, though, one must find out whether there is a requirement -- when you are not talking about permanent buildings; when you are talking about recreational land and keeping land in, if you will, an open category of use -- whether there is a requirement on them to do so.

Mr. Lewis: It is an official plan.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Minister of Labour: Can the Minister of Labour clarify the government’s policy intentions in respect of reducing the minimum wage for those who are receiving tips in certain parts of the hotel and restaurant industry?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I can simply state that the government’s intention is no such reduction.

Mr. Cassidy: Bennett goes down the drain again. Too bad, Claude, you’ve been ditched once more.

Mr. Lewis: May I, by way of supplementary, on behalf of my caucus, thank the Minister of Labour for tightening the knot in Claude Bennett’s tie.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It feels very comfortable.

Mr. Lewis: You will find you can breathe easier, Claude, when it is loose.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have always breathed easier when you are asking questions, Stephen.

Mr. Lewis: I am having trouble reading my notes.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Get some glasses.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I will.

GSW-CGE MERGER

Mr. Lewis: My last question of the Minister of Labour: Has she entered into negotiations over the workers who are losing their jobs in Fergus around the question of retraining -- it is the General Steel Wares plant, I believe -- since so much of the work force consists of people over 50 years of age?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I had inquired of the staff in my ministry the precise information about the programme which is going forward, because I am informed that the development of a joint employment adjustment committee for that purpose is being considered. I shall clarify that and report to the House.

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Revenue: First of all, since it seems to be a fact that his officials did not even calculate the actual tax that would have been payable and did not actually verify the valuation that was put on the land by Ronto, is the minister now prepared to accept that this whole matter should be looked at by the public accounts committee? If not, will he accept some other form of inquiry such as a judicial or other form of public inquiry into this matter?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I suppose I have to repeat for the benefit of the member for Hamilton West is that once cabinet has decided that an exemption from the tax is appropriate, then there is no point in going through an audit procedure to check the figures submitted by the applicants.

Mr. Bullbrook: You don’t care what you lose.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You people are going to eliminate the whole tax.

Mr. S. Smith: That would have been fairer than just eliminating it for your friends.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Certainly, they did give us some figures so that we would have an idea of what we were talking about.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister is answering the question.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier provoked me.

Mr. Speaker: May I say in response, I was referring to all interruptions.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Had cabinet decided that exemptions from the tax was not an appropriate avenue to follow, then of course we would have carefully examined and checked the figures to determine the amount exigible. I have no objection to the figures, to the extent that they can be made public, being made public. I have done so.

Mr. Sargent: How much did the bag man get?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I have no objection to the Provincial Auditor examining these accounts in due course, when he is doing his accounting for what will be the fiscal year ended March 31, 1977.

Mr. Nixon: The whole thing should be examined.

Hon. Mr. Meen: But it does strike me as foolish and a needless waste of effort to put him or any other body through an exercise of checking out calculations at this time, when of course the exemption has been granted. I think we can be proud of the fact we have some flexibility built into this statute and that we can, where it is desirable and in the public interest, make sure that the statute does not operate to the detriment of the public.

Mr. Cassidy: That is absolute balderdash.

Mr. S. Smith: You are going to lose on this one.

By way of supplementary: Since I understood the minister to say the houses would not have been built by Wimpey and the deal would not have gone through unless Ronto had been given this exemption, and that this was one of the pressing reasons for the exemption having been granted, can the minister please explain to this House why Wimpey, or any other buyer for that matter, would give a hoot whether or not Ronto, from whom it was buying the land, would owe a certain amount of tax to the provincial government?

What difference could it possibly have made to Wimpey or any other buyer in this particular deal, and how could that possibly be used as a justification for exempting this much in the way of land speculation tax?

Hon. Mr. Davis: You’ve got to be kidding.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The two aspects of this are completely different. In Wimpey’s case, it is a non-resident contractor, developer and builder, and it applied to us for an exemption under the appropriate provisions of The Land Transfer Tax Act -- nothing to do with the land speculation tax exemption subsequently granted to Ronto.

Mr. S. Smith: We’re not arguing that at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, the question is simply this: Since the two main reasons the minister gave were, first, that Ronto intended to build on the land, and second, that the minister didn’t want to delay or impede the possibility of houses appearing there, why would the company that eventually built -- it turns out to be Wimpey; it might have been any other buyer -- care a hoot whether or not Ronto was in for some taxes to have to pay the provincial government? Why wouldn’t it have gone ahead and bought the property anyway and built the houses? Why would the minister say it was going to impede the houses?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, the total transaction was on the basis of a purchase price that Wimpey was prepared to pay.

Mr. Bullbrook: How do you know that?

Mr. S. Smith: They told you that, I guess. A little bird told you that. You know what they were prepared to pay.

Hon. Mr. Meen: So therefore, the exemption under The Land Speculation Tax Act was there as part of the consideration which the Ronto organization would have to take into consideration. It was not prepared to sell at a price that would reflect the payment of tax and Wimpey was not prepared to purchase at that exalted, reflected price.

Mr. S. Smith: You know what was in Wimpey’s mind?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Ask any of your colleagues who know anything about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Even if it had been, it’s obvious enough that that additional cost would have been reflected further in due course in the sale price of the houses produced and sold by Wimpey.

Mr. S. Smith: There is no market any more in this province, eh? The market doesn’t determine price any more?

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Can the minister indicate why Ronto was granted a tax remission of $677,000, supposedly for farming the land, when the land was in fact being farmed by the original owner?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe that’s a different question. It’s an appropriate question for later.

Mr. Renwick: Could I ask the minister what role his ministry played in working out the arrangements between Wimpey and Ronto, in order that Ronto could meet a serious liquidity-cum-tax problem and Wimpey, on the other hand, could obtain the land with the benefit of the exemption and, therefore, presumably at a lower price? What was the role of the government with respect to the reasons given by the minister for permitting this exemption to take place?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Meen: So far as I am aware, my ministry played no role in bringing the parties together or in their negotiation of the transaction. The picture was presented to my officials as a conditional agreement between the parties, as I understand it, which agreement would be consummated only in the event of the remission of any attraction of land speculation tax.

Mr. Good: They held you up to blackmail.

Hon. Mr. Meen: From Wimpey’s standpoint the deferral under The Land Transfer Tax Act --

Mr. Singer: They both came together, did they?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- since they were prepared to undertake to construct and sell accommodation within a specific period of time, would also be part of the transaction.

Mr. S. Smith: How do you know there wasn’t another buyer who would have paid more?

Mr. Lewis: Do you mean they both came together to blackmail the government as a tax rebate?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: I wonder if the minister could clarify his answer to the question from my leader. Is he opposing the motion that may come before the House a few minutes from now -- that is a request from the public accounts committee to look into this matter thoroughly -- when the purchase price paid by Ronto was less than $1.5 million, and a bit more than a year later they received $12 million for this property, even though they are supposed to have put an increased value up to $6 million on it? Is the minister indicating the Provincial Auditor should look into this, when the cabinet, by order in council, has indicated that he should have nothing to do with it all?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I have already answered that question.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Did I hear the minister right? Did he say simply Ronto and Wimpey had a conditional agreement which they submitted to his officials, the essential condition being that if the remission of the tax didn’t go through the transaction wouldn’t occur, therefore driving the government into a position of capitulation to the demands of these two corporate concerns?

Mr. S. Smith: How do know somebody else wouldn’t have paid more?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I did not put it in that fashion. The agreement was submitted to my officials, as I understand it, as an application by or on behalf of Ronto, simply saying to us, “Here, look, we have worked out this agreement with Wimpey, conditional upon our -- and we are prepared to work out the agreement and complete the agreement with them provided we do not attract land speculation tax.”

Mr. Bullbrook: So you were involved.

Mr. Nixon: Wasn’t $10 million enough for them?

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to reiterate the question I put before. Is the minister serious in his statement that he and his cabinet colleagues took into consideration the need for liquidity of the Todgham estate in assessing the exemption? And does the minister recognize the type of condition precedent that he is establishing here; that, in effect, taxpayers can tell the government they need liquidity to seek out an exemption? What possible justification is there for that?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think perhaps that aspect of the statement should be clarified --

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, it should be.

Hon. Mr. Meen: There is certainly no intention to try to bail out a company because it is in an illiquid position.

Mr. Bullbrook: But that is what you said in your statement.

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, I am saying that --

Mr. Bullbrook: No? Read your statement.

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, I am saying that Ron Todgham’s estate required to be settled. He was no longer there as chairman of Ronto. Ronto itself was in an illiquid position as a result of having to settle up with the Todgham estate.

Mr. Sargent: Quit flogging that.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In that position they were unable to continue with the financing of the construction and installation of the services. Therefore, because of that illiquidity they were going to be unable to bring these serviced lots on the market.

Mr. S. Smith: I have a new question, but on the same topic, for the Minister of Revenue. Do I understand that the minister is now establishing a precedent -- and I wish he would correct me on this -- whereby, for example, if a taxpayer intends to gift certain of his assets to members of his family to avoid succession duties, and he actually were to die before he completed the transaction, the minister would be prepared to exempt him from such succession duties? Has this become a new principle because he intended to gift members of his family, for example?

The fact that they intended to build on this surely does not exempt the middle man who made this kind of profit from paying land speculation tax?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: For one thing, the hon. member is importing this kind of principle into another piece of legislation, namely The Succession Duty Act.

Mr. Nixon: You are the minister there too.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I would say that with respect to The Land Speculation Tax Act we are looking at actual acts and steps which they had taken in several cases in their course toward getting these lots on the market as serviced lots. There is not just a matter of intention. There is a matter of action that they have taken in any number of ways, from draft approvals right through the letting of tenders for the installation of services.

Mr. S. Smith: If I die with a pen in my hand I am still not going to be exempted, and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Let me just remind the hon. members that one of the principles of The Land Speculation Tax Act is that we get a write-up in value in the case of the death of the holder of real estate, and this, in effect, was one of the principles that found itself in this case. The plan which was going forward was potentially frustrated by the death of their principal. Consequently, we had to look at that as another element along with all of the other factors.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Is the minister satisfied that the full benefit of the remission of tax from the ministry was passed on to Wimpey, or did some of it accrue in extra profits in Ronto?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This new question had nothing to do with Wimpey. It was a general question about exemption of tax of some kind or other having to do with the settling of an estate. It didn’t refer to Wimpey.

Mr. Cassidy: The second part of it was relevant.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, we’ll hear the supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Is there now a precedent that, where two companies that are unrelated reach a conditional agreement about the transfer of property, they will also be eligible for remission from the ministry from the land speculation tax?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Very simply, no.

Mr. Cassidy: We don’t believe you.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I just point out we have spent about 12, 13 or 14 minutes on this particular question. I’m sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) has further questions. We’ll hear a final supplementary from the member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Singer: I wonder if the minister has established a precedent that anyone who intends to develop is entitled to get an exemption for his vendor on the basis of this theory now enunciated? How then can he draw the distinction?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Again very simply, no.

Mr. S. Smith: I sincerely apologize for the time, Mr. Speaker, but this is an important issue, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

Mr. Speaker: I understand.

OHTB BUS LICENCE

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Has the government had any involvement in and, if not, will the cabinet in fact overturn the decision of the Ontario Highway Transport Board to permit some American-controlled private bus lines to operate in competition with the publicly-owned Gray Coach, owned by TTC, on certain profitable lines presently being operated by Gray Coach?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, any company or any individual has the right to make an application to the Ontario Highway Transport Board for operating rights under either The Public Vehicles Act or The Public Commercial Vehicles Act. Certain applications were made some months ago to the Highway Transport Board, hearings were established and hearings were held. To be very specific, relating to what I believe was the first part of the hon. member’s question, he asked did I or did the government have any involvement with the Highway Transport Board.

Mr. S. Smith: And if not, will they overturn the decision?

Hon. Mr. Snow: May I say that I did not have any discussion with the chairman or any member of the board. I cannot speak for anyone else. As the minister responsible for the Highway Transport Board, I do not discuss cases before the board with the chairman or with any member of the board.

Mr. Conway: Did the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Henderson) hear that?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The decision was made and was rendered, I believe, on Monday of this week by the chairman of the board after very long and extensive hearings that were held some several months ago. I believe the hearings went on for some seven days.

Regarding the other part of the hon. member’s question, to my knowledge there has been no appeal made to cabinet under the terms of The Public Vehicles Act, that parties can make an appeal to the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the decision handed down by the board. Of course if this appeal should be made, it will be dealt with in the normal manner by the cabinet committee and eventually by full cabinet. I do not know whether there will be an appeal or not.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: If such an appeal does arrive before the Lieutenant Governor in Council from Gray Coach, as it appears it will, can the minister give us some assurance that he will not permit the publicly-owned Gray Coach to end up costing the taxpayers money by taking away its only profitable runs and putting them into the hands of United States private bus interests?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, as I say, Gray Coach, like any other company, has an obligation under its licence to supply service. The criteria, when applying for a licence under The Public Vehicles Act, or The PCV Act, are based on public need, necessity and convenience -- I believe it says -- to the travelling public. As I understand it, during the hearings a great many witnesses appeared before the board giving evidence as to the service or lack of service. It was on hearing seven days of testimony, as I stated, that the board came to the decision that it did.

Now whether Gray Coach is owned publicly or by the TTC, I don’t think it releases them from an obligation to live up to the terms of their licence or to supply service. The decision, I believe, was made by the board after fully considering the evidence presented at seven days of hearings.

Mr. Philip: A supplementary: Admitting the seriousness of the minister’s interfering with a decision of the board, can the minister tell us whether he has developed any kind of criteria by which to judge when an intervention can be made or should be made by the ministry in a decision of the board?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker. I have no criteria as to that and I don’t believe, necessarily, that I should interfere with a decision of the board. The board issues a decision and -- granted, the Act says the minister may issue the operating licence on the certificate of the board. The certificate, as I understand it, has been issued by the board. There’s provision, as I said before, in the Act for any party to the action to make an appeal to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Whether or not that will happen, I do not know,

Mr. S. Smith: A final question to the Premier arising from the answer given by the Minister of Transportation and Communication: The Premier undoubtedly heard the minister say that the minister himself did not intervene before this board. Given, however, that the counsel for the American companies which were applying for these routes are rather well-connected to the party in power, can the Premier tell us whether any member of his government other than the minister himself, appeared or had a

part in the decision which the Ontario Highway Transport Board has made? Will he assure us that he will overturn this decision and keep Gray Coach a profitable operation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to be provocative --

Mr. Conway: Did you get rid of “the eagle” last night?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but as I understand the perhaps implied suggestion in the member for Hamilton West’s question -- I would like some clarification and I’m being very specific in this clarification --

Mr. Conway: As circuitous as possible.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- is the hon. member suggesting that some member of the government did, in fact --

Mr. S. Smith: I am asking.

Hon. Mr. Davis: When he asks, he is by implication suggesting that a member of the government did contact the transport board.

Mr. S. Smith: Just answer the question.

Mr. Nixon: Why don’t you answer the question?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The answer to that is very simply no.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s fine, but the member should be a little careful how he phrases those questions.

Mr. S. Smith: Don’t lecture me. Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You people have gone down that road before.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What was the next question?

Mr. S. Smith: You are a bit touchy today, aren’t you?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m just trying to help you a little bit.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the Premier going to overturn it and keep Gray Coach profitable?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Hamilton West is asking me, as head of the executive council, to say that if there is an appeal, before knowing the facts and seeing what the basis for the appeal is, I will commit myself in this Legislature, even prior to the launching of the appeal; then I say that if the members for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer), and Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) and elsewhere, even the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) -- could give this member any advice whatsoever, they would tell him that would be totally improper and I have no intention of giving such commitment until an appeal, in fact, is launched with cabinet. They are shocked at his suggestion.

Mr. Good: What’s government policy?

An hon. member: Tell it to Lorne.

Mr. Bullbrook: We are shocked at his statement.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, if I may, on a point of clarification, the hon. member for Hamilton West has referred many times during his questions to “this American company.” I would like to point out that to the best of my knowledge Greyhound Coach Lines Limited and its subsidiaries are federally chartered Canadian companies, and I believe are owned approximately 40 per cent by Canadians.

Mr. S. Smith: I said American controlled.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You said American owned.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Provincial Secretary for Social Development has the answer to a question asked previously.

SPECIAL EDUCATION GRANT

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, November 22, the leader of the third party asked my colleague, the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), about a grant to the Ontario Foundation for the Visually Impaired. It is my pleasure to notify him that statutory grants of $13,000 will be provided by the Ministry of Health, and $12,000 will be provided by the Ministry of Education, a total of $25,000, for the establishment of a developmental programme for blind children at the High Park Forest School here in Toronto.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. MacDonald: A question of the Minister of Energy: Since we are within five weeks of the new year, is the minister in a position to indicate whether the government and/or Hydro have come to a decision with regard to the bulk power rates for 1977?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the hon. member knows, after the Energy Board reported, the board of Ontario Hydro indicated that it would accept that. The government had not yet decided whether it will intervene in the process.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the government giving any consideration to providing the short-term cash flow needs of Hydro so that it might smooth the rates and reduce the burden during this period of wage restraints over the next year?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t quite catch the full question, but I think the member was asking if we are looking at the question of smoothing. I think I indicated in the House at the time the Energy Board report was considered by the House that that obviously is an option that’s open, although it does have certain implications in terms of additional borrowings, particularly in 1977, and does have the implication of making electricity rates in 1979 higher than they would be otherwise.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Why is the minister not prepared just to say that it looks as though he is going to bring that Hydro rate increase down and he will have a specific date on which he’ll announce it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There are a number of things the government wants to consider, not the least of them being the projections of capital availability, of course. We also wanted to see how this would work out with some of the commissions, and it’s interesting to note that some of the commissions are projecting that if the 30.3 per cent bulk power rate increase were, in fact, to go ahead for 1977, local rates to residential consumers would go up by as little as 20 per cent. I say “as little”; that’s relative to the 30 per cent increase in bulk power rates.

Mr. Foulds: Some of them are projected much higher.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Has the minister considered sending this increase to the AIB for approval, since there is precedent for sending electrical energy rate increases to the AIB? Has he considered that option?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The officials of Ontario Hydro met with officials of the Anti-Inflation Board yesterday, and according to the Anti-Inflation Board a 30.5 per cent rate increase would be justified.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: I’m surprised they hadn’t asked you to increase it.

SEVERN PARK DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Natural Resources: Being that I was asked to attend the conference here in this building, conducted by a land developer from Grand Bend by the name of Don Southcott and attended by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Henderson), I would like to ask the minister what both the Minister without Portfolio’s and Mr. Southcott’s involvement were in his decision to turn Severn Park over to the town of Grand Bend, considering that at an earlier date he turned down the request, saying that the park was too far removed from Grand Bend to suit the needs of the people for a recreational complex?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I gather the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex is smarting because of my earlier comments.

Mr. Nixon: No.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Can we get on with the answer? Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think he owes the gentleman, Mr. Southcott, a public apology.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I cannot hear the answer.

Mr. Ruston: What’s the apology for?

Mr. Breithaupt: For what? For asking a question in the House?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I want to repeat that, a public apology.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Be a man and apologize to that individual.

Mr. Conway: Where’s Darwin Kealey?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He should apologize.

Mr. Breithaupt: For what?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He knows.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He tried to destroy an individual.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that particular question, I do believe the hon. member has misused his privilege as a member of this Legislature.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The hon. Minister without Portfolio brought to me a strong delegation of which a certain individual in the person of Don Southcott was part. They presented me with a brief, a very detailed brief.

Mr. Nixon: So he was down to see you, was he?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, accompanied by members of the Chamber of Commerce, the Lions Club, very responsible and respectable people from the municipality of Grand Bend --

Mr. S. Smith: Conservatives.

Mr. Cassidy: You guys are feathering your own nests.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- who are anxious for the development of a recreational facility following their examination of other areas in the immediate area of Grand Bend.

Mr. Cassidy: Kealey, Southcott.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It was obvious to me, on a further review of that particular brief, that it made good sense to provide this particular facility, which was surplus to my ministry, to that particular municipality for the development of a recreation facility which would benefit the entire area. I’ve gone over the proposal and I am satisfied.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Obviously there was not desire to hear the answer so why ask it?

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: Why wasn’t that done before if it looks so good now that Mr. Southcott has come down with a delegation?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The previous member asked for an answer and I just gave it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: No, he didn’t, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: The minister didn’t tell us why he turned it down before.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. G. E. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services concerning the Willard report. In view of the problems that some local citizens in my area have experienced with some residents of the adult rehabilitation centre at Edgar, will the minister consider applying the recommendations of the Willard report to this facility as well?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: In response to that, I think there are a number of the recommendations which have equal applicability --

Mr. Conway: Not quite. Get the marbles out of your mouth.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- or application -- is that all right?

Interjections.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s your turn next Monday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: May I say initially how much I truly appreciate the involvement of my colleague. He has certainly been a tower of strength to me --

Mr. Breithaupt: Words fail you.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- in working out problems in his riding insofar as they apply to the centre at Orillia. I may say that my ministry is currently working with the Ministry of Health in terms of defining three units which could function under The Mental Health Act; and of course there is also the one that is recommended at our facility at Penetang, which I think would accommodate the problem that concerns the member. That is being proceeded with now.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you just resign?

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think we just have time for one final question.

SERVICES DE SANTE EN LANGUE FRANCAISE

I might add, Mr. Speaker, if my Molière is proven incomprehensible, I’ve provided translation in the language of Shakespeare for the hon. minister.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Dès qu’il m’a donné la question, je n’ai pas ma réponse écrite comme lui-même mais mon avis, je vais donner la première priorité à ce rapport et je discutais hier avec mon sous-ministre et j’espère que j’aurai une réponse dans deux mois.

Mr. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Diefenbaker.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Interjections.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of privilege? When I was expressing the concerns of the people in Bosanquet township in the question I directed to the Minister of Natural Resources, in his answer he said that I was misusing my privileges here in the House. I believe I was not misusing my privileges and I think that if he is man enough he will apologize.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to apologize, if the hon. member will apologize to Mr. Southcott.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Petitions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Can we proceed to the next order?

Presenting reports.

REPORTS

Hon. F. S. Miller presented the annual reports of the Ontario Mental Health Foundation for the years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76; the annual reports of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry for the years 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975; the annual reports for the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation for the years 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974; and the annual reports of the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation for the year of 1975.

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

Your committee recommends:

That it be empowered to examine the sale in May, 1976 of 280 acres of land from Ronto Development Company of Willowdale to George Wimpey (Canada) Limited of Waterloo; and further that a complete record of all expenditures and disbursements in this transaction be provided to your committee.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this report be adopted?

Hon. Mr. Welch: In rising to speak to this particular motion, I’d like to make one or two observations. We will support this motion but we do so without establishing a precedent.

Mr. Nixon: How can you do that?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: You either support it or you don’t.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The hon. member who has just interjected will realize if he would give me an opportunity to express some observations here, that we find in this particular motion which is being submitted today and in the one a week ago some obvious deviation from what has become the established and traditional role of the public accounts committee, that is --

Mr. Sargent: It is all going to be changed.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- that is to examine the audited public accounts of the province of Ontario, which is their responsibility. I am suggesting that if we are by these particular motions being asked to review the role of the public accounts committee that perhaps it would be wise for us to openly have a discussion in this House about the role of the public accounts committee.

I would feel that the public of this province are looking to the public accounts committee and this Legislature to study the public accounts. There is a matter of time and energy and if we are going to be expecting this particular committee to go on specific assignments such as these and they become more numerous, what committee in the House is going to study the public accounts? It would be a fairly practical question I think that we might want to give some consideration to.

Mr. Nixon: There is a gap in the accounts.

Hon. Mr. Welch: So I would think under the circumstances that we would --

Mr. Nixon: They are studying a revenue gap.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- be very reluctant to stand in the way of this motion going through because we feel that this matter, in view of the question period and so on, is one which should be completely reviewed, but we would not want the opportunity to go by without raising some very serious questions and inviting some discussion at some later time as to the actual role that we see for the public accounts committee.

Mr. Germa: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you understand that the motion presented was the will of the public accounts committee -- the majority will at the public accounts committee. I feel that precedent is not really being established because I do recall on three previous occasions when the public accounts committee, charged with dealing with certain expenditures of the province of Ontario, found that they were dealing with history while contemporary items of high public import are happening in the community.

For the benefit of the House leader, in my term of public accounts, which goes back some several years, I think there has been a rethinking of the public accounts role in the whole sphere of examining government expenditures. I think there is a public demand that those issues which are current, which are of high public import, have reason to be looked at now rather than delayed 18 months hence when the public is no longer interested, or maybe the horse is out of the barn and we are coming to close the door at a later date.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There is a 45-minute question period every day here too.

Mr. Germa: That point was also raised in our deliberations at public accounts that the question had been asked -- this particular question we are dealing with -- on two previous occasions and satisfactory answers were not forthcoming for the past two weeks. Now whether knowledge of this motion today motivated the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) to make the statement, I cannot say. Maybe the statement was coming. But I suspect that maybe knowledge of this motion coming before the House might have expedited his statement.

Mr. MacDonald: Just a coincidence.

Mr. S. Smith: He told me Monday.

Mr. Germa: I will give him the benefit of the doubt and I will say it was coincidental.

Mr. S. Smith: I just want to say that I have had a little bit of experience in this regard in the federal House inasmuch as I acted as executive assistant to a member who was chairman of the public accounts committee and a very distinguished one. I think the House leader for the government does make a reasonable point when he says that it is usually the nature of the public accounts committee to look at the audited statements of the government, rather than to be a watchdog over day to day expenditures. There are other ways to do this.

However, I think we could stretch the meaning of it to accommodate this and if it does mean we have to change the function of the committee, well, so be it. Personally, what I would prefer would be some assurance from the government that perhaps a provincial judge or some other suitable person be empowered to conduct a separate private inquiry with wide public input concerning the whole Ronto matter, in which case we don’t have to burden the public accounts with this. But since the government apparently is unwilling to do this, then I feel we ought to take the second best, which is admittedly perhaps a weak position, that is to use the public accounts committee.

In passing may I just say that the Minister of Revenue indicated to me very carefully at the beginning of this week that he did have a statement ready and I certainly will give him that credit. I am sure he restrained himself from giving the statement when the mini-budget was presented and he waited for a suitable occasion and I have no objection to that particular matter.

If you will give us another form of inquiry, Mr. House Leader, believe me we would be just as happy not to burden the public accounts committee with it. But the government can’t have it both ways.

Hon. Mr. Meen: There are just a couple of points I would like to make, and they really touch on the matter of the delivery today. I have had the statement ready since Monday in a somewhat longer form than it was as delivered today. I told the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) that I hoped I would have it ready by Tuesday. Then, of course, as he has already indicated, we had the lengthy statements on Tuesday, which occupied most of an hour. It was for that reason it was left over to today; it wasn’t any matter of the action of the public accounts committee this morning that precipitated it, although I must say that I was glad I was ready with the statement today.

My only other observation, expressed earlier as a misgiving about referring it to the public accounts committee, is along the same lines as expressed by my House leader, namely that one begins to wonder, what is the public accounts committee supposed to be doing with its time? We have nothing to hide, and I am quite content to have this matter dealt with by the public accounts committee if that is their wish. I take it from the motion passed by them today, and the recommendation now before the House, that that is their wish. Certainly we will co-operate to the fullest extent we can within the law.

Mr. Makarchuk: As the member of the public accounts committee who initially moved the motion, I welcome the Conservative House leader’s statement to discuss the functions of the public accounts committee. I think there has to be some line drawn between bona fide investigations of public spending and going out on witch hunts or sort of far-fetched fishing expeditions. I think we probably will have to sit down somewhere and try to work out those rules.

But I would like to point out that in this case this is the first year that the public accounts committee has had an opportunity not to be dominated by government members and to go out to examine some of the things that I think have to be examined.

In this particular case, one of the things that concerned me a great deal was the statement made by an official in the ministry to the effect that the statement that was filed by Ronto with the government was not audited. In other words, the minister accepted the statement at its face value. He didn’t question it, and he left it at that. That really concerned me, outside of the fact that there is a difference in terms of the selling price and the purchase price of $10 million -- the minister’s figure indicates the difference should be only $6 million -- the fact that there were certain remissions granted and so on.

I think these are the kind of things that cannot be fully answered or fully investigated during the question period. The only agency in the House that is able to do it, in my opinion, is the public accounts committee; hence, my request in the public accounts committee this morning that it should look at this particular transaction.

Mr. Reid: I rise to speak on this motion as a former chairman of the public accounts committee and to support the motion. It has been indicated that this is a new departure, but during the year and a half that I was chairman the committee dealt with the matter in regard to the Ontario Northland Railway; we got special permission from the House, and we had information that was as up to date as we could make it. The matter had been raised in public accounts, and it was a historical thing, but the House allowed us the privilege of also getting the reports from the internal auditors to bring us right up to date.

The point has been raised here -- I believe it has to be discussed, and the sooner the better -- as to what role the public accounts committee should play. Admittedly, we are waiting for the examination of the new Audit Act from the federal government to see how our Auditor should operate in the province of Ontario. But it goes without saying that the public accounts committee is the only committee that has the ability to call before it, in any great detail, civil servants and people from the deputy minister up or down, whichever one prefers, to deal with specific problems that have been pointed out and recognized by the Auditor in the province of Ontario.

I think that finally, and only finally in my nine years here, are we beginning to see the public accounts committee function as the investigative body, with the time it should have. I would like to see particular people be seconded to the public accounts to do investigative work and be able to report back to the public accounts committee. I think this is the one committee that has the ability. We don’t have that ability in question period -- ministers can refuse to answer questions. We only have the 45 minutes, which increasingly is being taken up by the leaders’ questions.

We don’t have that ability in the estimates, because we don’t always have the people there, and because of the length of time we have for the estimates. The public accounts committee is the only vehicle we have in the provincial Legislature in which we can get at the background, the history, the details and have the people in front of us.

I support the motion. I would hope that the government will take some action in expanding the role of the public accounts committee.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if I may, everybody’s been very charitable today, but having been sitting on that committee I’m just a trifle more cynical, because the government members in committee this morning argued very strongly that this thing should not be brought to the House today, and, if my recollection is correct, they all voted against bringing it here. What we are facing today, I respectfully submit, is the fact that the government would be defeated on this particular motion if they did not support it, because they did not support it in committee this morning.

I think it’s a very interesting exercise in the sense that we now have an opportunity to deal with something as it is happening, or at least with some proximity in time to the actual taking place of events, just as we are doing in the case of Minaki Lodge. I personally think this is an excellent way to approach some of these critical problems. The harsh reality is that in the public accounts committee the figures are stale, we’re a year or a year and a half after the fact in reviewing all of these things, and I must say I’m very encouraged to hear the government House leader saying he is prepared to look at new ways for the functioning of the public accounts committee.

We did discuss this at the end of our committee meeting today, and there was a considerable amount of unanimity, in the very casual way that we discussed it this morning, that maybe we should be looking for new roles, that we should be looking for a way to act quickly on issues, rather than leaving them just to the post audit function.

There’s one other thing that I want to say. As I said before, the reason it’s on the floor here today is because the two opposition parties would gang up if the government did not agree.

The question is if a majority government ever comes around in this province again -- and one never knows about these things -- I think that we should be looking at this bill and the new rules of this committee in terms that the opposition parties, even in a majority situation, should have the ability to discuss some of these kinds of issues, because it would be very easy for a strong government to prevent these kinds of issues from being brought forward.

In my mind they’re very important, in my mind it’s a wonderful opportunity to act quickly, rather than latterly, and I think the realities of the situation have forced the government to support this motion. I’m happy for that, and I hope there’s a quick and expeditious solution to this problem. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t going to participate in the debate, but some of the comments which have been made caused me an immense amount of concern. I would be very loath to see the public accounts committee provided with an investigative staff, where, on its own initiative, it went out and started to investigate questions with respect to the public finance of the province of Ontario.

I just happen to think that one must realize that the stability of any society in its capacity to adapt and make itself accommodating to change rests a great deal upon the confidence that people have in the financial integrity of the system under which it operates; and to provide for this assembly an investigative staff to the public accounts committee so that they could go out on their own and make investigations and bring it back to the committee seems to me to be extremely destructive in its intent, without further explanation from the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Singer: Is he through, or is he fatigued?

Mr. Renwick: I want to speak very briefly about the Ronto case; not to make any comment about the merit or otherwise of that particular case, but I want to express the concern which I expressed to members of our own caucus when this matter was being discussed. I think that the --

[3:30]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re really discussing the matter of whether we’ll adopt this report or not, so you had better keep to it.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, if I may use the Ronto case as something called an example -- if I could perhaps use it as an example to illustrate the point -- the problem that has arisen and has been dealt with in a very intelligent way by the government and by the other two parties in the House is to recognize that there are occasions when the gap between the time when estimates are approved for expenditures by the government and the time when the results of those expenditures are examined does not always permit us to say we can allow that interval to take place.

I think it would be essential -- and I, of course, have confidence in the members of the public accounts committee in any particular circumstance to exercise the proper judgement -- that they’ve got to be satisfied that there is something which, as a lawyer, I would call a prima facie case that requires public discussion and further public disclosure in order to provide additional stability to the financial system or financial integrity of the province. I can well see that that would be necessary.

I would have hoped that we could have, without having a debate about the role of the public accounts, moved to that kind of an attitude without in any way saying that the public accounts can’t do both -- that there might well be occasions when their collective judgement on a particular matter says this requires discussion by public accounts because there’s no other forum and we can’t wait the length of time until we get the audited report.

But in view of the comments which have been made, particularly the blunt point made by the member for London Centre and to an extent, in a more facile way, referred to by the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid), the former chairman of public accounts, I recognize now that I think it would be essential that consideration be given to the role and the scope of the public accounts committee. I, for one, would not in any way want to see the public accounts committee be transformed into some kind of a congressional investigative committee which appears to have a great deal of appeal to the member for Rainy River and the member for London Centre.

I would assume that it may well make sense for the public accounts committee to give a little bit of consideration itself so that we don’t just talk about it in a vacuum.

Perhaps at a convenient time in the early stages of the next session, should the pressures of the election campaign permit, we would have an opportunity then to reflect upon this matter and it may be that the House could consider giving authority to the public accounts committee, if authority is necessary, to sit on occasion when the House is not in session, to think a little bit, not about the specifics of its work but about its role in this changing circumstance. Then we would have the benefit of their consideration when we came to discuss it perhaps early in the next session.

Mr. Bullbrook: It wouldn’t work in a majority government.

Mr. Sargent: I think that it’s a sad day when the House leader implies that if we get too investigative, if we don’t follow the rules as in years gone by, maybe he might investigate the public accounts committee.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I didn’t say that.

Mr. Sargent: The fact is that over the years we’ve had a majority government here -- and now for the first time we have a meaningful committee that can ask questions to get information and we have the votes to get that information with the permission of the House.

It’s amusing to see the panic situation now with the government members looking for bodies to protect themselves. The member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) are going to have ulcers if they continue to go through this motion of hunting for votes all the time every issue comes up.

I think to be meaningful we have to have the right somewhere along the line, as the member for Rainy River has stated, to have investigative research for the committee at times. That’ll come.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Never. We had to run around to find you guys this morning to vote.

Mr. Sargent: We were well staffed. We had all the votes we needed there.

Mr. Nixon: If you weren’t here Arthur Meen wouldn’t know how to vote.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member is telling us whether or not he’s going to support this particular motion.

Mr. Sargent: To listen to the government members, they say we can get the information we want from, No. 1, the question period -- that’s the biggest joke in the world -- and No. 2, we can put it on the order paper. Ask any member of the opposition who has tried to get answers by having something on the order paper.

Mr. Ruston: It would take you two years there.

Mr. Sargent: The fact remains that, for once, we can shed some light on what is going on in Queen’s Park. I think every citizen of Ontario will welcome the fact that from now on we can get to the bottom and see what the hell is going on. Thank you.

Mr. Singer: I agree generally with the principles being enunciated on all sides of the House, but I don’t think the resolution that is presently before the House goes anywhere near to satisfying what the members believe should be forthcoming. I would invite you, sir, to look at the wording of the resolution. It says that the public accounts committee be empowered to examine the sale from Ronto to Wimpey and that a record of all the disbursements and expenditures be provided to the committee.

By whom is it going to be provided? These are not government expenditures. These are not government disbursements. Is the committee being asked to look through the books of Wimpey and to look through the books of Ronto and figure out what went on? I think this is really an exercise in futility and that if anyone wants to stall what the members of the House want to get at, this kind of a motion will appropriately do it.

One comment made by the Minister of Revenue caught my fancy. He said, well, in due course the Auditor will be reporting. I wonder just what the Auditor is going to report on. Surely the Auditor is not going to report on an exercise of cabinet discretion? I would think that he is barred from doing that. If he can’t report on an exercise of cabinet discretion, what is there in the books that he can look at? There are no revenues. There is no indebtedness. There are no exigible amounts. So the Auditor really isn’t going to find anything.

He can thumb through the books until he is exhausted, as is the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and he is going to find absolutely nothing there to report upon at all.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s right.

Mr. Singer: I think if this motion is going to be reasonable at all, an amendment should be added to it to put some teeth into it. I take the Minister of Revenue at his word when he said, “I want to co-operate fully with the House so that this information can all be brought forward.” That’s what he said, and he said that just a few minutes ago. In order to assist him, sir --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Excuse me. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I added, “to the maximum extent permitted by the law.”

Mr. Singer: All right, all right. I know, Mr. Speaker, and I would attribute no motive to my friend at all that he would not want to do anything that was illegal.

Mr. Nixon: I’m glad he made that clear.

Mr. Singer: In the amendment that I’m putting forward I would not suggest that the Minister of Revenue do anything that’s illegal, and that he only do what is provided by the law.

Mr. Singer moved that the following words be added to the committee’s recommendation.

And that the Minister of Revenue supply to the committee all documents that were filed in connection with the applications for exemption made herein, and that the appropriate officials of the Ministry of Revenue attend at the committee for the purpose of giving evidence in relation to these matters.

Mr. Singer: It would seem to me, sir, that with this clarification added to the motion as an amendment the public accounts committee then will be able to conduct the kind of inquiry that members from all sides of the House say they want to have conducted.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion, I feel bound to observe that here again there are certain provisions in The Land Speculation Tax Act with respect to the production of some of this information. I’m prepared to provide to the committee anything that may be produced within the context of the law. But the Act has certain provisions in it, and I must abide by those provisions. The motion put by the hon. member for Wilson Heights -- I keep wanting to come back to Downsview for some reason -- I suspect and I feel goes beyond that.

If he would care to amend that motion by the addition of words, “to the maximum extent provided by the law,” or words to that effect, then I could support the motion.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Members can’t expect the minister to break the law.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am prepared to adopt those words because I don’t know how I could move a motion in this House that is contrary to the law. The words are redundant, but if it will make the minister happy I will be glad to add them to my amendment.

Mr. Germa: On the amendment, as chairman of the committee I had assumed without the amendment that this was what was really going to transpire because the committee in the past has had the power to command officials of the ministry to come before it and bring with them certain documents and evidence. So I see no difficulty with the amendment. I would further like to say that when we are getting into the legal grounds it has been the custom in the past of the committee to obtain legal opinion from the Ministry of the Attorney General. They have co-operated quite well with us, even as early as just one week ago.

A legal opinion was supplied to us by the Ministry of the Attorney General as it relates to supplying the committee with information from OHIP, which is now precluded under

section 44 of The Health Insurance Act, the secrecy part of the Act. It was never the intention of the committee to demand those things which would offend any law.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, before you call the vote, I wanted to make some comments on the entire discussion as it developed over the last 15 or 20 minutes. As my friend, the member for London Centre was saying, the debate -- he wasn’t saying this -- this afternoon for a short time had a little surrealistic quality about it, ignoring what in fact has been going on at the public accounts committee over the last several weeks. A lot of members of the government party on that committee have looked at the issues as they have come before us.

I wanted to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of the fact that last week several government members on the sum and substance in the merits of the issue before us last week, which also involved going to the current account, supported the motion at the committee --

Mr. Makarchuk: But you didn’t; you voted against it.

Mr. Grossman: That’s quite right. Last week several government members did, because they felt that that issue was timely and appropriate. This week, this morning in fact, none of the government members went along with the motion.

Mr. Wildman: I wonder why?

Mr. Grossman: I want to tell members why. If whoever said that he was listening this morning I am used to interruptions because at public accounts --

Mr. Deans: Why are we listening to this? It has absolutely no consequence to the matter before the House.

Mr. Grossman: It absolutely does. What is going on at public accounts --

Mr. Deans: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has a point of order.

Mr. Deans: I don’t care what the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) raised. On a point of order, the reason the member chose to vote one way or another in the public accounts committee last week is of no consequence with regard to whether or not this House should or should not adopt this motion before us.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why not?

Mr. Speaker: The debate today is whether or not we shall adopt this motion as amended.

Mr. Deans: Nobody wants to know what he did last week.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the hon. member is in order in what he is saying.

[3:45]

Mr. Grossman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The reason a lot of us express reservations, in spite of the predictable bleatings of the opposition plus Sargent on this issue, was not in order to have a --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We do not refer to an hon. member by his name in this House.

Mr. Grossman: The opposition members plus the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) --

Mr. Singer: It’s unparliamentary.

Mr. Grossman: We’ve been sitting in the public accounts committee for several weeks listening to totally irrational outbursts, in essence saying what the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk) said a few minutes ago. That is, that now the opposition has momentary control, in terms of votes on the committee, we’re going to forget everything which has happened before and each Thursday morning, I might add without notice to the committee, we are going to jump into whatever we feel like talking about this morning, which is of political convenience to the opposition majority on the committee.

Some of the government members on that committee are a little tired of facing the charge that because we want to --

Mr. Nixon: You mean there might be some embarrassment to the government?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Can we get on with this debate?

Mr. Grossman: Because we want to continue the order by study of the public accounts for 1974-75, which is what we were appointed to the committee to do, somehow we are involved in a coverup for the government.

Mr. Sargent: Sure you are.

Mr. Grossman: Out of respect for the members of the government party on that committee, who supported the motion last week, that’s entirely unfair. I’m not speaking about myself because I opposed last week’s witch hunt as well as this week’s.

Mr. Breithaupt: Do you think there’s a witch hunt?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Grossman: It is entirely unfair to say my colleagues on the committee are involved in that sort of thing.

Mr. Reid: You have convinced me to vote for the motion.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Grossman: I took a lot of time at the committee last week and this week to say -- and I want to say it right now because it is very germane to the motion --

Mr. Singer: He is imputing motives.

Mr. Grossman: I’m not imputing them, I’ll state them. I went on that committee, like other members of the committee did, not only with the public accounts book in hand but with a carefully drawn up agenda as well. It was drawn up by all of the committee last spring when we first met, setting out the dates, the orders and the items we were going to deal with out of the public accounts -- essentially those items out of the public accounts which were of interest to the opposition members on the committee. That’s how we got under way here.

What happened over the summer break was that suddenly, when the member for Grey-Bruce decided to start coming to the committee and full attendance by the NDP members started to occur, they began to see they could get away from the agenda. They could get away from the carefully set out order of business and go with what was politically advantageous for them for the time being.

Mr. Breaugh: Let him rock the boat.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, what happened subsequently was that the ordinary conduct of business, which had been carried on as the public accounts committee has historically done, was disrupted. Granted not all the members of the committee but those of us who actually read the items and studied the items prior to the meetings each Thursday morning, would arrive on Thursday morning and find a new motion had been brought up.

It was not in writing, not with notice to the members of the committee, but a new item was brought up, saying, as in the case last week, “This morning we’ve decided to ask for a study of Minaki Lodge.” This morning the item was the land speculation tax issue. There was no notice to the members of the committee.

Mr. Sargent: Those things are embarrassing to you. That’s what you are saying.

Mr. Grossman: What we are saying is we had an orderly flow of business in the public accounts committee.

Mr. Nixon: You have got jugulars bleeding all over.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Grossman: It worked very well with a minority government in the spring, too. What’s happened in the fall is that a conscious decision has been taken to move for the jugular at every point in time without notice to the other members of the committee.

The reason I want to speak on this motion and address myself to the remarks of the government House leader, who says this matter has to be determined one way or another in this House, is because that’s exactly what I said in committee this morning.

Mr. Peterson: He supports it.

Mr. Singer: No more jugulars.

Mr. Grossman: I said in committee this morning that rather than banging this thing into the House this afternoon, perhaps these matters should be brought to the attention of the assembly to decide what the public accounts committee should be doing each and every week and whether or not we have an open ticket to study the current accounts henceforth. Calm members such as the member for Fort William (Mr. Angus) actually accused us of getting involved in a gross abuse and flouting of the parliamentary process.

That’s how hyper they are about a simple request to come to this assembly and say to the assembly, “At least tell me what we are going to be entitled to do each Thursday morning.” I am getting tired each Thursday morning of arguing --

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: -- over the propriety of going into current accounts. I would like the issue resolved once and for all by this assembly. Just tell me that I am on the public accounts committee --

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: -- or the current witch-hunt accounts committee. I just want to know so I will know whether to bring my books down from the 1974-75 public accounts or not.

Mr. Breithaupt: Or your broom.

Mr. Grossman: That’s why we want it done in this assembly once and for all, then we will know what we are about.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: Some members opposite, including the former chairman of the committee, have made some very good points about the role of the committee and the role of another committee. Perhaps these are items which should be dealt with by the Camp commission or by the assembly, but let’s have that discussion in the proper forum for that determination, not in an ad hoc fight every Thursday morning in committee and every Thursday afternoon in the assembly.

I can’t conclude my remarks without referring to a remark made by the member for Grey-Bruce when he talked about my colleague and me scrambling around for votes. This morning they embarrassed their very good member, the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins). They dragged him into the committee for a total of 20 or 25 seconds. He sat down, raised his hand on instructions from the member for Grey-Bruce, and left the committee.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: That’s the type of thing that’s going on at the public accounts committee and that’s the type of behaviour, together with the behaviour of the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) when he went over and told the member for Grey-Bruce, “Eddie, get the rest of our members in.” That’s what he told him this morning, and then the member for Victoria-Haliburton showed up.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: That’s the type of thing that’s going on in public accounts and that’s why this assembly has got to decide what we are doing in public accounts.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has a point of order.

Mr. Sargent: The member for Victoria-Haliburton isn’t even on the committee. You are wandering a bit.

Mr. Grossman: Well --

Mr. Sargent: Stutter again.

Mr. Grossman: I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker, if he isn’t, then perhaps we had better reconvene the committee and have a vote again on the issue that’s before the House. Perhaps the issue would have been lost, because the member did vote, the chairman of the committee permitted him to vote, and therefore perhaps we had better call the proceedings that ensued this afternoon entirely under question.

Mr. Sargent: Foiled you again.

Mr. Grossman: I want to conclude by saying what’s going on at the committee is nothing more than a total panic situation. We at least succeeded this morning, I believe, in imposing upon the chairman some sort of undertaking to be kind enough at least to speak to the members of his own caucus and let us other fellows know perhaps an hour or so before the committee when they intend to pull one of these 1977 witch hunts on us.

Let’s determine what public accounts does; that’s what we want to see happen.

Mr. Singer: Is everybody mean to you?

Mr. Grossman: For those reasons I heartily support the motion of the House leader. I must say the government members and the House leader have done everything they can, in the ridiculous situation we are in in that committee, to make the committee work as best as possible under the witch hunts that are going on every Thursday morning.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments, particularly on the comments from the tired member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. In the first place, I can’t understand why he should be tired. He is never in the committee on time.

Mr. Grossman: I show up every week.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s get on with the debate on this particular item.

Mr. Grossman: I didn’t know the member for Brantford was a member.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would point out that the hon. member has spoken on the main motion. Now he is speaking on the amendment.

Mr. Makarchuk: One of the points brought out, and which was discussed this morning, was the fact that the committee should receive a notice of motion or some notice of such character to notify the members of the government, particularly, to be there in order that they can do their best to try to prevent it from going through -- as was the effort this morning and certainly was the effort last week. I would like to enter into the record at this time an opinion that was solicited by the chairman of the committee on this matter --

Mr. Nixon: It has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The amendment, if I might just remind the hon. members, has to do with the supplying to the committee of all documents that are legal to be supplied to the committee. The hon. member spoke on his reasons for supporting or otherwise the original amendment.

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes, I --

Mr. Nixon: You can’t speak twice on the same motion.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member may speak on this matter of supplying the documents which were mentioned in the amendment.

Mr. Makarchuk: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I will be right on it, exactly as the member for St. Andrew-St Patrick was.

Interjection.

Mr. Makarchuk: One of the points raised in terms of defining the deal, and having the right documents and the people to explain the documents, is that the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick pointed out that he did not have notice.

Interjections.

Mr. Makarchuk: it has been checked out with the Clerk of the House, and the Clerk has given an opinion to the effect -- and I will read the last paragraph of the letter --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Makarchuk: “It has never been the practice” --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Makarchuk: -- “to require notice of motions in standing or select committees” --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Makarchuk: -- “and I am of the opinion that for once the committee -- ”

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe the hon. member heard my admonition a moment ago. The hon. member has already spoken once to the main motion, and I think he should not be repeating his remarks on that. He should stick to the amendment. The hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick hadn’t spoken on either the motion or the amendment; so he was in order. The hon. member for Brantford should be addressing himself to the supply of these extra documents.

Mr. Makarchuk: I rise to speak in support of the amendment. I think it is a very necessary amendment in this case. I also wish to point out that again the committee has the right to do what it did this morning, despite what some members of this House like to say. If I may continue, this will give the committee an opportunity, as I said earlier, to do some of the things it has never been able to do before. When we are dealing with public funding and with taxpayers’ money, I think it is of a very low order to call it a witch hunt when one wants to bring about some rather reasonable and sensible spending of the public --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon. member has made his point.

Mr. Breithaupt: I am pleased to enter into this debate on the motion, particularly because of the involvement which I have had on the public accounts committee. I might call to the attention of the House that it was only in 1967 that an opposition member was given the chairmanship of this committee --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Now who would that be?

Mr. Breithaupt: -- and the first person to serve was Mr. James Trotter, formerly the member for Parkdale. I had the privilege of serving for the next five years as chairman of the committee --

Hon. Mr. Welch: During majority government too.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- and I think that during that time we at least were able to bring about quite a change in the approach that was taken by the committee.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That was our first mistake.

Mr. Breithaupt: As a result of the Auditor’s reports which came forward, the committee was able to encourage the Provincial Auditor to make certain value judgements and to support him in the review of various expenditures as he saw problems arising and which, in his opinion, had not been thoroughly replied to by the ministry. It would appear now that the next stage of the operation of the public accounts committee is before the House; that is, whether it should have some investigative function and whether it should have some more positive effect in discussing issues of the day rather than issues that are 18 months or so old.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out that I believe it was indicated that would be a subject for future discussion, not for this afternoon?

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In my remarks I only wanted to suggest to the House that we must very carefully review what the duties of this committee are to be. We have seen in the motion brought before us that there are certain matters from time to time which are going to cause the House to vote, as I believe it will vote today, in support of the motion so that we can deal with a certain issue of the day as it may be important to the people of the province.

The rules of various committees are being reconsidered by the House, and I do agree with the comments made by the House leader of the government that the role of the public accounts committee is obviously changing. It is, in my view, changing for the better. As part of the whole review of the operations of the House, the staffing and the other contributions which the public accounts committee can make are things which I think are going to be of great use to us as we go into a new session.

I certainly support this motion, and I hope that the result of it will be a useful investigation into an issue which I believe concerns all members of the House.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker: Can we confine our remarks to this particular motion and its amendments? Thank you, very much. I mean, not the general comment about the overall function of the public accounts committee.

Mr. Nixon: Don’t say anything, you are going to be out of order.

Mr. Deans: Thank you very much, I appreciate your comment.

I was particularly interested in the bleatings of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that many a day in this House there were times, over the last nine years, when I would dearly loved to have had the vote taken on the basis of the numbers of members present, rather than the numbers of members that could and will be present at the time the vote is finally taken. We would have won a lot of votes in days gone by under those conditions.

I want to say also, with regard to the matter before us, that there’s no doubt that this is a departure from the way that the public accounts committee had operated in years gone by. But then it’s always very difficult to imagine whether what they did in the years of large majorities was suitable and adequate, over and against what now is happening at a time when there is more proportionate representation with regard to the feelings of the people of the province of Ontario.

I also want to say, in answer to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, that the chairman of the public accounts committee -- and I think perhaps he may be aware of this, maybe not -- but the chairman of the public accounts committee did make inquiries with regard to whether it would be necessary or appropriate for notice to be given of a motion intended to be put before the committee. In a written reply, dated November 25, over the signature of the Clerk of the House, I read to you the final paragraph.

It says: “It has never been the practice to require notice of motion in standing or select committees, and I am of the opinion that for one committee to pass a motion for such a requirement in that committee only it would constitute a change in the normal procedure, which could properly only be made by an amendment to the standing order.”

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Deans: Are you up again?

Mr. Grossman: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker I want to clarify this, lest the member is left with the impression that I said the chairman of the committee had not acted properly. I never said that or suggested that he had not acted properly. I simply said that in the circumstances there was nothing terribly surprising -- I mean, if the other members of the committee didn’t think of it at 10 to 10 this morning they might let us know in the ordinary course, as a courtesy --

Mr. Reid: You acted in a surprising manner, not in an improper one.

Mr. Singer: He’s on a bleating witch hunt.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we base our discussion now completely on this motion? There has been a lot of strain, and we’ll get into that --

Mr. Deans: That is in fact what I’m doing.

Mr. Speaker: May I just point out that there’s a lot of discussion here this afternoon on the general question of the procedures and activities and possible future activities of the public accounts committee and that is not really what we’re dealing with today. We’re dealing with this specific motion; we’re either for it or against it, and you may state your reasons why. Thank you.

Mr. Deans: Well, I’m for it. And I assume the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick is for it too --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Next?

Mr. Givens: He changed his mind.

Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) is for it.

Mr. Givens: He changed his mind.

Mr. Deans: -- since the government is voting with us. I want to tell you I’m for it because the statement made by the Minister of Revenue today convinced me that the standing accounts committee ought to review the matter. I felt that the statement made by the Minister of Revenue was clear and concise, and raised a sufficient number of questions in my mind about the appropriateness of the actions of the government, that it seems only proper that a committee of this Legislature should be empowered to review it and I think that we in this Legislature should, therefore, empower the public accounts committee to undertake that investigation.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Germa, from the standing public accounts committee presented the committee’s report, which read as follows:

“Your committee recommends that it be empowered to examine the sale in May, 1976, of 280 acres of land from Ronto Development Company of Willowdale to George Wimpey (Canada) Limited of Waterloo. And, further, that a complete record of all expenditures and disbursements in the transaction be provided to your committee.”

And then we had Mr. Singer’s amendment adding the words: “That the Minister of Revenue supply to the committee all documents to the extent as provided by law” -- are those words appropriate?

Mr. Singer: “To the extent as provided by law” goes in at the end. At the end of the whole thing.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sure the Clerk or somebody will readjust the language as it’s all written here -- “that were filed in connection with the applications for exemption made herein, and that the appropriate officials of the Ministry of Revenue attend for the purpose of giving evidence in relation to these matters.”

Report, as amended, adopted.

Mr. Nixon: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, the House leader in his remarks said that as far as he was concerned this could not be a precedent. Does that make sense to you, sir?

Mr. Speaker: Well, I’m not going to answer that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I was entitled to my own view.

Mr. Nixon: On the point of order, I would just like to say, sir, that from my point it is a precedent and it should be and it must be, and whatever the House leader of the government says about it does not change that fact. I just wanted to be sure you understood that fact

Mr. Speaker: I’ve heard and understood everything, I think --

Hon. Mr. Welch: You have been around here long enough. Was it in the motion?

Mr. Speaker: -- and I also recall that there was a suggestion that this particular matter be debated later.

Mr. Breaugh, in the absence of Mr. Lawlor, from the standing administration of justice committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee requests permission to sit concurrently with the House for its consideration of Bill 97, The Credit Unions Act, 1976.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We will support this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Johnson, in the absence of Mr. McNeil, from the standing resources development committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amount to defray the expenses of the Resources Development Policy Field be granted Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977:

Resources Development Policy

Resources Development Policy

Program ........................................ $3,374,000

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I wish to table the answers to questions 65 and 111 standing on the notice paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

FARM INCOME STABILIZATION ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 131,

An Act respecting Farm Income Stabilization.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before we continue this debate, I thought perhaps we would indicate that it’s our understanding that we would hope to wind up this bill sometime this evening, with a vote around 10 o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: When we were last speaking on this bill, the member for Durham East had the floor. He may continue.

Mr. Moffatt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to take

part in this debate, not that I think we will be able to put a great many new facts before the House which were not raised either in the debate last spring or during yesterday’s debate, but I do want to draw to the House’s attention some significant things that, to my way of thinking, are really important about this particular bill.

The first thing I would like to comment upon is the fact that last year, before the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) was Minister of Agriculture and Food, just shortly after the election, he was attending the world international ploughing match -- which, by the way, was in my riding, Mr. Speaker, and in case people are convinced that no members over here represent ridings which have a substantial farm community and are interested in the development of agriculture, I want to put that at rest

Anyway, the member, who was soon to be minister, was making a lot of noise at that particular time about this whole foolish idea of farm income stabilization as being proposed by the NDP, and particularly the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), and the foolishness of the plan as it existed in British Columbia at that time, and there was no way, if he had any say in it, that that kind of policy was going to be implemented in the province of Ontario. It would kill agriculture, it would ruin the farm community, it would do everything that the minister believed wrong about the kind of legislation that we have talked about today.

Oddly enough, this complete about-face was brought about shortly after he became Minister of Agriculture and Food, and as a result of the debate last spring, in which his bill at that time was returned to him as being deficient, his stance since then has been one of reluctant compliance with the wishes of this House, reluctance to bring forth the kind of policy which was directed in the reasoned amendment proposed by the member for York South.

Indeed, what ensued was a fiasco where the minister attempted to set up a dialogue with rural Ontario through the aborted telephone network. I attended one of those meetings, the one they held in Markham, and I can tell you quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, that the minister’s comments at that point were so garbled and so meaningless to everybody there that the person from the Ministry of Agriculture who was chairing the meeting had to read the prepared text so that we could understand. A translation, if you will, was provided of the minister’s comments. That was unfortunate, because that further reduced the minister’s credibility.

I think that what is happening is the same kind of thing that’s being proposed here. The same sort of political process is taking place as we saw last year around the rent review legislation that was presented. The government presented it reluctantly. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) noted at the time that he did not favour the bill and he would do everything he could to get rid of it. He did. He put it in the hands of another minister who now wants to get rid of it.

What’s happened is that that legislation which had a good principle, a good intent, has been destroyed. The intent and the philosophy of that legislation has been destroyed by the government’s reluctance to accept the process. They have made it as difficult for that legislation to work as they possibly could.

I listened yesterday to the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) talk about this particular bill and the fact that he has confidence in this government to implement that legislation. I would like to ask him through you, Mr. Speaker, if in fact he does have confidence in this government to run a programme of farm income stabilization, or is he simply trying to get of