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

December 9, 1974

29th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

HEARINGS ON NATURAL GAS

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

DAY NURSERIES ACT REGULATIONS

LICENSING OF LANDFILL SITES

EXPROPRIATION REPORT

LICENSING OF LANDFILL SITES

SEAFARERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION

HOUSING STARTS

BIG BROTHERS OF METRO TORONTO

OHC BRIBE CHARGES

OHC LAND PURCHASES IN OTTAWA AREA

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT LEGISLATION

VILLAGE SQUARE HOUSING PROJECTS

H.O.M.E. PROGRAMME LOTTERIES

CHLORINATED WATER

CANADIAN KODAK DISPUTE

DENTURE THERAPISTS

HOUSING IN ARMSTRONG

FOOD SERVICE PROJECT FOR OTTAWA HOSPITALS

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT

DIESEL FUEL TAX

CARLETON UNIVERSITY

VILLAGE SQUARE HOUSING PROJECT

ODC CONSULTANT

RAILWAY RIGHTS OF WAY

FUTURE OF ARMSTRONG

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

CORONERS ACT

FIRE DEPARTMENTS ACT

POLICE ACT

CORONERS ACT

THIRD READINGS

LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT

CORPORATIONS TAX ACT

LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT

CORPORATIONS TAX ACT

THIRD READINGS

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACT

THIRD READING

DOG LICENSING AND LIVE STOCK AND POULTRY PROTECTION ACT

THIRD READING

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES ACT

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

HEARINGS ON NATURAL GAS

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board announced, I think in the spring of the year, that it would be holding hearings on natural gas supply, demand and deliverability, and received submissions up to Sept. 1. Those hearings began last month in Calgary, moved to Winnipeg, and they have been in Toronto last week and this week.

The Province of Ontario is appearing today and I would simply like to table the remarks which I made at the appropriate place this morning at the hearings.

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. E. A. Winkler ( Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I regret to report a further, and in my view, totally unnecessary delay in the very critical negotiations for employees in the operational services category.

Based on the press reports which came out of the weekend meeting of the CSAO, the government expected, and I’m sure all the people who read those reports expected, that the CSAO was finally going to start bargaining in good faith, and that we would, at the very least, have had some concrete response to our offer of settlement.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, the only response of the CSAO at the bargaining table this morning was to advise our negotiators that they would not have their response ready until Friday, Dec. 13. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we will find ourselves only two weeks away from the CSAO’s illegal strike deadline before the CSAO even moves off its original demand of 61.5 per cent.

Some of the members opposite, who profess to know something about collective bargaining, have accused the government of promoting confrontation by its bargaining tactics. Well, if they need any more convincing after this most recent tactic of the CSAO -- and, Mr. Speaker, I’m sure some of them will, even now -- perhaps a review of the important dates in these negotiations will help them to decide who is looking for a confrontation and who is bargaining in bad faith.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): What is being achieved through this?

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The minister is a provocateur.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Let the hon. member wait until I’m finished and then he can make up his own mind.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The minister knows he is going to get a good counter-offer on Friday.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: On Monday, Sept. 23, 1974, the headline in the Toronto Star announced that the CSAO would be demanding a 61.5 per cent pay increase for the operational services category. Complete details of their demands were in the accompanying article.

On Friday, Sept. 27, the CSAO’s demands arrived by registered mail in the office of the director of staff relations --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I don’t think the minister wants a settlement.

Mr. MacDonald: Of course he doesn’t.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: In other words, the government received the official demands of the CSAO four days after we read about them in the press.

On Oct. 10, the parties met to explore and clarify the CSAO’s demands with respect to changes in the classification structure.

On Oct. 23, the government tabled its opening offer for the first year of a two-year agreement, with increases ranging from 10 per cent to 16 per cent. The offer for the second year was not tabled at that time.

The third meeting was held on Nov. 7 and 8, but there was no movement by the CSAO off their 61.5 per cent position. Instead, they advised the government’s negotiators that they had decided to conduct a vote among the membership on the government’s opening offer.

During the course of these discussions the government’s negotiators rounded out the government’s offer by proposing a change in the classification structure and adding a second-year increase of eight per cent.

Mr. Lewis: Why is the minister doing this?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Because the hon. member keeps arguing that he is not being informed.

Mr. Lewis: What is he talking about? We’re over-informed.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It is difficult to understand why the CSAO had to wait two weeks to tell the government they were going to the membership with the opening offer.

The vote, of course, resulted in a further two-week delay in the negotiations.

The CSAO were not ready to meet again until Dec. 2 and 3, and even then they were not prepared to modify their 61.5 per cent demand. Instead, they repeatedly asked the government to table an offer that they could recommend to their membership.

Mr. Lewis: Why is the minister doing this?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: In view of the repeated refusal to bargain, the government’s negotiators had no alternative but to table their full mandate in an effort to reach agreement. This was done on Dec. 3.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the CSAO had our opening offer on wages as early as Oct. 23, our complete opening offer on Nov. 8, and a full month later they have not seen fit to modify their opening demand of 61.5 per cent.

It should be quite obvious to anyone who wants to understand, that the strategy of the CSAO has been to use any device or excuse to delay the negotiations, in order to bring the province closer to their illegal strike deadline.

Mr. Stokes: Boy, is he ever a babe in the woods!

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It may suit the purpose of some members opposite to ignore the stalling tactics of the CSAO --

Mr. Lewis: Is the government this desperate for an election issue? Is this the nadir of the Tory party?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- but I think it is high time they started to live up to their responsibilities as elected members of this Legislature and to use their influence on the party that is looking for a confrontation, instead of seeking some short term political advantage --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): This is another example of the minister’s incompetence.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- by improperly criticizing the bargaining posture of the government.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The Leader of the Opposition.

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since the Premier has joined us and must have been aware of the statement just made by the Chairman of Management Board, can he indicate what the policy of the government would be that would lead to a statement such as the one we have just heard, being made on half of the government at this time? What can possibly be achieved, particularly when we read the responses from the CSAO bargaining people and see that their views for careful consideration of the government’s alternative seem to be very thoughtful and useful indeed?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): I think that question should be properly addressed to the Chairman of Management Board.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer it, and I tell you, as I tell the Leader of the Opposition, that we are absolutely sincere in our desire to maintain the services for the people of this province through the civil service, for whom we have a very high regard.

In regard to the statement included in the question of the Leader of the Opposition, I want him to know that despite what he has read in the press, and I have read, too, that has not transpired at the bargaining table.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary to the Premier, with your permission, Mr. Speaker: Would it not surely be better to await the decision -- or the counter offer, if such it is -- than to make a statement in the House once again that these people are not bargaining in good faith? What can this possibly achieve other than to exacerbate the whole situation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If that supplementary is directed to me, the statement that I heard does not, and should not, make the situation more difficult.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, just a minute, Mr. Speaker. Some of the people opposite have been critical of the government and the way we have been negotiating but we have been endeavouring to do it in good faith. The opposition have been making statements that I think are totally irresponsible.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I don’t think the Premier is fit to carry on. He is on his way out.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent on all of us to see that the negotiations move ahead and move ahead with some speed. We are now faced with a meeting on Friday rather than this morning to discuss the government’s offer, and I suggest, with respect, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Lewis: They have to clear it with their leadership. That takes some time, with the government’s last-minute offers.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to be reasonable in these processes, but I would say that it is one thing for the Leader of the Opposition to make an observation or a supplementary question like he did; it is another thing to make some of the observations he has made outside the House, as they relate to this matter.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Like what?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on! He said we are dragging our feet.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is achieved by a statement such as we were given today? What possibly can be achieved except further acrimony?

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

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have a supplementary -- to the Premier, I guess. Since Jake Norman, who is carrying on negotiations for the civil service, has indicated first that he considers the government’s second offer a significant offer, second, that he wants to be conciliatory and bring it to a conclusion, and third, that there will be a counter offer this Friday, why is it necessary for the Chairman of Management Board to continue to conduct these negotiations in public? Wouldn’t it be better at this point to work it out with them at the bargaining table?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, the Chairman of Management Board is not conducting the negotiations in public. He is informing the hon. members, because we have been asked, and there have been statements made as to the government dragging its feet and not being prepared to negotiate --

Mr. Lewis: The government is afraid it is going to get a settlement -- that’s what it is afraid of.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: We are not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and this sets out in a very clear, chronological order the history of events. There is no debate in this statement that has been made as to the merits or otherwise --

Mr. Lewis: Read the opening sentence.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- of the offer. That has been negotiated and would be negotiated in private -- or whatever terminology the hon. member wishes to use -- in the traditional sense, and we are prepared to do this.

Mr. Lewis: The government can have a settlement if it negotiates in good faith.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have not, as a government, negotiated other than in good faith and in the traditional bargaining technique. This is not negotiation; this is a statement of the facts.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Chairman of Management Board. How much labour bargaining has he really done that he isn’t aware of the fact that tough negotiations almost invariably drag on to the last minute, and what real purpose did he serve by complaining about another possible four-day delay other than to really aggravate an already difficult situation?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The questions keep coming from the other side of the floor all the time. In any event, I will stand here and say to the hon. member that every opportunity has been given to the leadership of the CSAO to bargain with us in good faith. They have not seen fit to budge one inch from their original demand.

Mr. Singer: Oh, nonsense!

Mr. Lewis: Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: So the members are in support of their demands. Why don’t they say so?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The minister means to say the government is not bargaining in public.

Mr. Lewis: We will say that 61.5 per cent is absurd.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are in favour of fair negotiations, and the government has never undertaken them yet

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

DAY NURSERIES ACT REGULATIONS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I want to put a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to place a question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Has he received a report from the financial officer of the day nurseries branch on the current and projected budget for capital and operating expenses under the proposed daycare regulations, which indicates quite clearly that the projections of the new policy enunciated by the minister’s colleague some months ago are not going to have the improvement on the budgetary situation that was expected?

Hon. H. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member repeat the question?

Mr. Lewis: This is confidential.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, this is a report from the financial officer of the day nurseries branch on the current and projected budget for capital and operating expenses. Has he received such a report recently?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: There are periodic reports made to me, Mr. Speaker. Offhand, we have so far approved about 80 daycare centres under this new programme. In dollars, I believe it is somewhere around maybe $10 million or $11 million.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As a supplementary, can the minister indicate, then, that all the reports that have come to him from the day nurseries branch are being made available to the daycare advisory committee? Are they kept fully informed as to the financial ramifications of the policy as it now is and as it will be?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the advisory council on day care is being kept fully informed.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Except for the basic report that the policy secretary has refused to make public. Is that the only exception? That is, the so-called cabinet document. Is that the only exception?

An hon. member: Don’t just sit there.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I think that has been mentioned several times. That document has been referred to as an internal document.

Mr. Singer: Not to mention any of the other undisclosed documents.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Is it right to say that the position taken by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) is in yet further retreat, because not only will the advisory council pronounce on the original statement but the report will be made public before any of the regulations are gazetted?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this several times. The advisory council had been given all the discretion possible to provide us with the best regulations possible. We have told them that we would make available to them information, research and, as far as I know, the advisory council is very happy with the co-operation it has received from our ministry.

Mr. MacDonald: All within the framework of the original misconceived policy.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

LICENSING OF LANDFILL SITES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes. I would like to put a question to the Minister of the Environment. Is he aware that the application by Southwold township on behalf of Mr. McCaig in the St. Thomas area to open up a new dump in that area has been turned down on hearing by the Ontario Municipal Board? Can he explain to the House why his ministry gave a certificate of approval to the original application since it did not fit in with the terms of the official plan and has now been turned down by the Municipal Board?

Can he inform us as to whether he expects a cabinet appeal to the decision of the Municipal Board, particularly since the person who has been forwarding this programme, Mr. McCaig, is the campaign manager for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier)?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I don’t know a Mr. McCaig personally.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister’s buddy does.

Hon. W. Newman: I beg the member’s pardon?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister’s colleague does.

Hon. W. Newman: The Leader of the opposition always tries to tie in political implications to everything and it’s time he realized that we’re not given just kind of political matters to administer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, order. The Minister of the Environment has the floor to answer a question.

Hon. W. Newman: Does the member want to listen to the answer to his question or not? Or does he want to make political hay out of a situation? Is that all he wants to do?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How did he get the certificate of approval?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Now, could we have an answer?

Mr. Lewis: That is not a very nice thing to say. That doesn’t happen in this Legislature. It is a debating forum.

Hon. W. Newman: I would like to answer this question. If the member had been in the House last week, I believe I explained that the purpose of the Ministry of the Environment is to take any application for a sanitary landfill site anywhere in this province. It’s our job, as a ministry and it’s my job as the minister to make sure that those sites are satisfactory from a sanitary landfill point of view, to make sure we don’t have any leachate problems or run-off problems, and that these sites can contain the garbage for a period of years without any problems to the environment or to the subsoil. That is our job.

We’re not worrying about the official plans. I don’t know whether there will be an appeal from the OMB or not. My job is to make sure of any site, and if our approvals people approved of a site then I’m convinced that that site is satisfactory as a sanitary landfill site from an environmental point of view.

Mr. B. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since it was turned down by the Municipal Board on the specific instance that it was going to be put on good farmland and was therefore directly contrary to the official plan, why wouldn’t that be of some concern to the Ministry of the Environment? Isn’t the Minister of the Environment concerned that good farmland not be torn up and filled with garbage?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am very much concerned about good farmland and the Leader of the Opposition knows that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But the minister has approved it already; he has approved it.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Ministry of the Environment is concerned, on any application for a sanitary landfill site, if you want to make an application for your farm, we’ll tell you whether it is satisfactory for that sort of purpose or not.

Mr. Singer: Whether it is good farmland or not.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If you will permit a further supplementary: Why is it that the application that came from Mr. McCaig received that certificate of approval without any problem at all, but at least down in Hope township the minister is going through the procedures that give the local people an opportunity to express their objections? Certainly in Hope township I would say the minister is going to have sense enough not to approve it.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. W. Newman: As I said before, on any sanitary landfill site -- and I assume there was an application for that one down there; I assume there was a hearing on it -- but I can assure the member that before any certificate of approval is issued by our ministry, we have to be satisfied that the site in any application is environmentally sound. We wouldn’t issue a certificate unless it was just that.

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

EXPROPRIATION REPORT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Attorney General if he has received the study on expropriation that was commissioned by his ministry of the firm of Weir and Foulds? If so will he make the study public?

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, yes, and I hope to table the report later on this week.

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

LICENSING OF LANDFILL SITES

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: McCaig’s application wasn’t forwarded by a lawyer from London or St. Thomas who is a federal Liberal candidate, was it? Just out of curiosity. Maybe he could let us know.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, whoever forwards the application is not my concern. I couldn’t tell the member that.

Mr. Speaker: Is that of urgent public importance?

Mr. Lewis: The minister doesn’t look at the politics? Good. I wouldn’t want him to use it as a political forum.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Harold Stafford.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Harold Stafford, isn’t that interesting?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is saving good farmland.

Mr. Lewis: Who, Harold Stafford? Who is the member kidding?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He supports the farmer at every opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Where does the member for Scarborough West stand on that particular issue?

Mr. Lewis: On the side of the angels.

SEAFARERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION

Mr. Lewis: May I ask of the Solicitor General, in regard to his reported request to the federal government for a royal commission inquiry into the activities of the SIU, would it be possible for him to indicate to the Legislature specifically on what grounds he is making the request, and what documentation he is including in his submission? Indeed, could he table the submission on which he is basing the request?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, there is some, shall we say, exaggeration to the story that appeared in this morning’s Sun.

Mr. MacDonald: The Solicitor General hasn’t been misquoted has he?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Misquoted again.

Mr. Lewis: In the Star, too.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We are not demanding a probe. There is no application to the federal government for a probe. What I said to the reporter actually was said last Tuesday evening and has been said over and over again in this House in reply to questions of the hon. members.

Really, the only new information that I gave that reporter was the fact that we had received correspondence on Friday from the federal Ministry of Justice requesting our reasons for a federal investigation or a federal inquiry and why we felt that the police forces under the Criminal Code could not in fact conduct any necessary inquiry or investigation. I had indicated to that reporter that we would be replying to the Ministry of Justice this week.

Really, as far as new information is concerned I believe what the hon. member for High Park has indicated in his remarks in this House and the information that the police have, all of which is available to the federal officials, is really the information in toto.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let the member for High Park take his hand out of his pocket.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister is just going to send him a copy of Hansard, that’s all.

Mr. Lewis: I choose to interpret that as a defensive action.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Turn around and watch him.

Mr. Lewis: No, I’ve looked at the galleries carefully.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Solicitor General, since he has now indicated publicly himself that the inquiry makes good sense, can he in fact table the document, the letter on whatever it is that he sent to the federal Minister of Justice or Mr. Allmand, so that we can see the formal basis on which he seeks it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, that will be a letter to the Minister of Justice. I believe the letter actually will be going from my deputy minister to his deputy minister. Whether or not it should be tabled, I suppose, should to some extent depend on his opinion in that regard. But I have no objections to tabling that letter after it has been received by Mr. Lang.

Mr. Lewis: Thanks.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the SIU this morning subpoenaed the head of Metro intelligence to appear in court tomorrow morning, will the minister have his legal talent appear there to make sure the efforts of the police are not frustrated by the SIU?

Mr. Speaker: That is quite removed from the original question about a letter.

Any further questions? The hon. member for Scarborough West.

HOUSING STARTS

Mr. Lewis: Yes, a question of the Minister of Housing: Has he noticed that the Ontario housing start figures released this past weekend show a decline over the similar month, October 1973, of 40.5 per cent; that the starts per month are declining in percentage terms ever more dramatically; and that we will not now even make 90,000 starts this year? Can he indicate how all of that fits in with the ever-greater projections and the ever-decreasing production?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the report to which the hon. member is referring. However, I am not prepared to admit at this time that we will not meet our objective of around 90,000 units.

Mr. MacDonald: There are only three weeks until the end of the year.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It depends, as I said before, on the full co-operation of the federal government with ourselves, and area municipalities and the regional municipalities and the private sector.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is there no responsibility with this ministry?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think we have shown our desire to have housing by the amount of money which we have appropriated. Time will tell whether we can make it or not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Would the minister care to compare that with the amount appropriated by the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the Leader of the Opposition still seeking credit for that?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would say it is 10 to one at least.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Since the ministry is now heading for a production target decline over last year of between 22,000 and 25,000 units and its production targets for next year are not up to last year’s, where is it going to make up the difference? Where will some provincial initiative be shown?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t say that next year’s target would be lower than this year’s. Somebody else said so.

Mr. Lewis: Well it looks as though it is; even on the fiscal year it is lower.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It certainly didn’t come from the Minister of Housing. What we are saying is that we are paying very close attention to actual housing starts and are well aware that we need more housing starts. We are going to try to achieve that.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since at the time the ministry was formed just over a year ago we were given to understand by the ministry that housing starts this year would be at least equal to last year’s, can the minister in future label his projections and his targets so that we know what they were, rather than constantly revising them downwards?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think one has to be realistic as to what is happening in housing throughout all of Canada, throughout the United States, throughout Great Britain and any country one wishes to relate it to. In most cases the housing starts are down because of lack of mortgage funds or the lack of a lowering in the interest rates.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): And lack of serviced lots.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I say, and I have said before, it’s very imperative that the federal government provide funds at a lesser rate of interest.

Mr. Speaker: We will interrupt the question period for just a moment and recognize the member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for interrupting this very friendly interchange so that I may introduce students from two schools who are here today. One is St. Roch’s Separate School from Yorkview with 60 students and their teachers. If members would welcome them I would be delighted.

The second school is the Downsview secondary school --

Mr. Singer: Downsview!

Mr. Young: We have had --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Are the two members still at it?

Mr. Young: Still at it!

This is the final delegation from Grade 10 of Downsview Collegiate for this particular period of time. The school is located in the riding of the hon. member for Downsview.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: But he didn’t know about it.

Mr. Lewis: That is why the member’s days are numbered.

Mr. Young: A good many of the students come from Yorkview, so there is a co-operative measure. I welcome them on behalf of Yorkview; and I am sure the member for Downsview would like to add his word too.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, together with the member for Yorkview, we welcome the fifth large group of Grade 10 students from Downsview Collegiate. I think we have had over 300 students from Downsview Collegiate visit us over the last week or 10 days; and again I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

Mr. Speaker: Now the Minister of Housing has the answer to a question which is --

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Speaker: Sorry, was the hon. member not finished? I am sorry.

BIG BROTHERS OF METRO TORONTO

Mr. Lewis: To the Minister of Labour: Can he tell me, is there no way of salvaging the very unhappy situation with Big Brothers by his personally meeting with the board and explaining to them that signing two memorandums of agreement -- or memoranda of agreement, is that all right? Okay -- two memoranda of agreement and then discarding both is not bargaining in good faith, and they would be wise to review their procedures.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would like to do whatever is possible. I have been in close contact with the matter involving Big Brothers. I know that some of the members of the opposition have been doing their best to help the situation, as have people from both labour and management who are not directly involved. They have gotten themselves involved -- I say not directly involved, meaning they have not been parties to it -- and on all sides they have been doing their best to have the matter resolved.

I have spoken to both labour and management representatives who are concerned and I will be pleased to make one more personal intervention to see if anything can be done. It’s an unhappy situation as members know.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Is it not beyond “unhappy” but almost indefensible, that three additional social workers should be hired by the Big Brother organization, at a total outlay of some additional $34,200 next year, when the total amount of money in dispute with their existing social workers is some $3,500? Surely it is possible for the ministry to intervene in a way which would bring about a settlement in this issue rather than having Big Brothers withdraw from the United Way or persist in the other confrontations that have occurred.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to get involved with the issues --

Mr. Lewis: That’s the problem.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- but I’ll try to be a “big father” to them and see what I can do.

Mr. Lewis: Good; no further questions.

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

OHC BRIBE CHARGES

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, on Dec. 2 the member for Downsview asked me:

“Can the Minister of Housing advise us if as a result of the police investigation into middle management of the Ontario Housing Corp., which he will recall came about because of the remarks made by Mr. Scheffer to Judge Waisberg at the commission investigating violence in the building industry, whether or not he is aware that several contractors submitted invoices to Ontario Housing for work that was not done and submitted invoices for more work than in fact they did, and that some of these invoices were even paid?”

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the hon. member that to my knowledge there was no such instance of incorrect billings.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, I wonder if the minister could go back to his advisers and ascertain whether or not any refunds were received by Ontario Housing relating to certain floor tiling contracts, interior decorating contracts and painting contracts; what the amounts of those refunds were; and how in fact it came about that there were refunds made?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education, who has, I guess, just disappeared.

An hon. member: No he hasn’t; there he is.

Mr. P. Taylor: Ah, there he is.

An hon. member: He has to get into his right seat.

OHC LAND PURCHASES IN OTTAWA AREA

Mr. P. Taylor: In connection with the questions posed on Thursday by my colleague, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), with respect to the clearly stated situation in which a builder and developer sat as a member of the property committee of a school board, has the minister issued guidelines to school boards to avoid such obvious conflicts of interest; and if not, why not?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall any question in that vein from the member for Ottawa East to me last week. He must have asked someone else.

I think, as my friend knows, there are very clear conflict of interest guidelines laid down in the Municipal Election Act, which apply to all elected officials at the local level.

Mr. P. Taylor: Supplementary. Will the minister then look into the case raised last Thursday by the member for Ottawa East in which he indicated that a builder in Ottawa was a member of a property committee on an Ottawa school board; and will he act on that case?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to find out something about it. I won’t say to my friend what can be done about it until I find out what the situation is.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich- Riverside.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT LEGISLATION

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of the Environment regarding the long-predicted and long-awaited environmental impact assessment legislation: The question is: When?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, this is a very complicated piece of legislation. It has taken a great deal of time to prepare. We have had input from many groups, not only to the green paper but by other groups directed to the legislation itself. At this point in time the legislation is being worked on by the legal staff. I did say I would introduce it earlier; and I would now hope that I would be able to introduce it early in the next session and allow proper time for discussion with the various groups involved, although I have met with most of the groups at this point in time to discuss their particular problems.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

VILLAGE SQUARE HOUSING PROJECTS

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Government Services: Is he aware of the situation of Village Square? I believe it is now in receivership. It was doing work for the Ontario Housing Corp.; and the fact is that many people in the Wabigoon, Dinorwic, Dryden and Kenora area are stuck with bills because of the insolvency of this company. Are these people entitled to compensation under the Public Works Creditors Payment Act?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the --

Mr. Reid: Has he heard of the Act?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am not familiar with the particular instance the member refers to at all. I am sure if the company was doing work for the Ministry of Housing, then the question should be referred there.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: Does the Public Works Creditors Payment Act not come under this ministry?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, it doesn’t.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

H.O.M.E. PROGRAMME LOTTERIES

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing:

Given the wide-ranging comments and suggestions made by a number of people who were involved in the recently conducted HOME lottery, and given the time that’s elapsed between that and this date; can the minister indicate whether, before the next lottery is held in the Hamilton area, there will be substantial changes to the method of conducting the lottery and to the terms of the lottery as it might be conducted then for the number of homes available?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the hon. member before, I am investigating the situation. I am going to determine if we can improve the present system of allocation of housing through the lottery system. I am not sure yet whether a standing committee is the way to handle this or not; but I will inform the member as soon as possible.

Mr. Deans: May I ask a supplementary question: When is it the intention of the ministry to hold the lottery for the so-called Saltfleet satellite city development; and will we have some changes to the lottery system prior to that lottery being held?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated that I am not sure yet whether there will be any changes. I have not determined whether or not there should be. When we have determined this matter, I will certainly relate fully to the member what we will be doing and why we should improve on the system.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

CHLORINATED WATER

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health: Is the minister aware of the findings of the environmental protection agency in the United States that indicates that in the chlorination of municipal water supplies, the chlorine apparently interacts with industrial and agricultural wastes to produce certain chemical compounds that have been shown to cause cancer? Will the minister assure the House that his officials, either directly or indirectly, regularly monitor municipal drinking water supplies and that they are safe?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we have been aware for some time of the tests the member is referring to and we understand that even in the United States the agency has not deemed it an immediate problem to health from the drinking of water, particularly that of the Mississippi River I believe it is.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Even Lake Erie.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Even Lake Erie? I believe they were mainly concerned with chlorinated hydrocarbons, not only chlorine in drinking water. But yes, our ministry is concerned and is watching that problem. I understand that the actual testing of such water supplies, or the assurance that they are of potable, safe levels, is up to the medical officers of health of any given area.

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

CANADIAN KODAK DISPUTE

Mr. MacDonald: A question of the Minister of Labour: In the new

chapter in negotiations between Kodak and its employees which has developed following the rejection of the offer last week, can the minister indicate when his ministry or his officials will be moving into the picture; whether they have, and if not when will they?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe we have been back in the picture since the offer was placed before the union, without recommendation as I understand it, and the membership rejected the company offer. We’re keeping on top of it and are ready to go back in as soon as both sides feel we can help them in reaching a settlement.

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

DENTURE THERAPISTS

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of Health indicate to the House when the Denture Therapists Act will be proclaimed?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that it can be proclaimed very soon. The reasons for its lack of proclamation have been entirely legal, as I am sure the member may know, in that a number of the denturists who tried the examinations did not succeed. They then lodged requests for review of their examinations, and it was deemed for a while that they had to be passed under the existing legislation. The latest advice I have had is that they have now had that chance and that we will be able to proclaim the legislation very shortly.

Mr. Haggerty: In 1974?

Hon. Mr. Miller: It’s very possible.

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

HOUSING IN ARMSTRONG

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Since the Ministry of Housing cancelled the construction of 12 homes in Armstrong with the announced closure of the radar base, and since at the present time there seems to be a surplus of homes of those people who have been forced to move out, will the ministry undertake to acquire those homes so that they could be made available to others in the community who are inadequately housed at the present time, so that we might make use of those accommodations at much, much less the cost of brand new housing?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be glad to look into that situation and report to the hon. member.

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

FOOD SERVICE PROJECT FOR OTTAWA HOSPITALS

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health: Can the minister say whether or not there is a pilot project that he has approved for the Ottawa area, in which most meals prepared for consumption in hospital will be prepared centrally and frozen and then delivered to the hospitals through some sort of distribution system? And if so, when will this project begin?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I can’t say that the meals are being frozen for distribution. I can safely say that the first major decision of the health planning council of the Ottawa-Carleton region was that there should be centralized food preparation facilities. There had been studies for a number of years, but it had been difficult to get the hospitals to agree on it. The health planning council did look at the issue, made the recommendation, it was accepted by us and I understand the steps are being taken now. There will be a saving of a very great number of dollars per year in the food preparation costs in the Ottawa area.

Mr. P. Taylor: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary, yes.

Mr. P. Taylor: Can the minister say whether or not individual hospitals will have the option to opt out of such schemes if it is considered in their interest to do so?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I suspect they will not.

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

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister recalls the wonderful new Liquor Licence Act that he promised in August of 1973 would be here in October of 1973; in November he promised it would be here in March of 1974; in April he promised it would be here in October of 1974. Can the minister promise when we’ll be having the wonderful new Liquor Licence Act?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I’m glad the hon. member takes such a positive view. I share it with him, Mr. Speaker, and I think that he can look forward to seeing it introduced in this House in the next few days.

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

DIESEL FUEL TAX

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. Is the Minister of Revenue taking any steps to collect large overdue accounts in the diesel fuel tax refunds that haven’t been paid?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, that question was asked of me by the member some while ago, and I believe at that time I indicated to him that yes, we are taking certain measures to seek recovery of those moneys. Audits are conducted and there are remedies available under the Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

CARLETON UNIVERSITY

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Since the minister didn’t accept the invitation given to him last week, can he say publicly in the House whether he favours the survival of St. Patrick’s College or whether he goes along with government policy to close St. Patrick’s College as a result of the new financial guidelines laid down for universities by the government?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity on two occasions in the last week or so, to speak with the president of Carleton University and with the chairman of finance as well.

Mr. Lewis: No kidding!

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I made my position abundantly clear to them, which they fully accept, that it is an internal administrative problem and that’s where it should stay and where it should rest.

The government has been told -- and the member knows from his days on municipal council, as well as I do -- that they want a body run by a group of people in that community and with no interference by the provincial government, other than supplying the funds to run the university. It is implied by others that they would like the government, when the decisions are tough, to come and interfere; but when everything is going favourably, it should be left with the board of governors.

The governors themselves are now fully aware of the fact and will make a firm decision this Wednesday as to exactly what the position will be of St. Patrick’s College as it is related to Carleton University; and I stand with the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld) in saying it is an internal matter and will be decided by that board of governors.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you. Since Carleton University is in the minister’s riding, and since it has the lowest per student operating income of any established university in the province, does he favour any change in the basic income unit system in order to help universities like Carleton which have a problem resulting from a large number of arts students?

Mr. Speaker: That is an entirely different question.

Mr. Cassidy: No, it is related, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

VILLAGE SQUARE HOUSING PROJECT

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could redirect my question to the Minister of Housing, who I understand has the responsibility under the Public Works Creditors Payment Act, and ask him if he is aware of the Village Square situation and if these people will, in fact, receive reimbursement; and if so to whom should they write?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation, having been in Dryden, Hudson and Sioux Lookout about two weeks ago, at which time it was brought to my attention there was a problem in Hudson itself.

We are investigating the legal aspects of what obligation OHC has in regard to the wages to be paid, and I will have a full report in the very near future. I can’t tell the hon. member today what we are responsible for, but I will get that information for him.

Mr. Reid: They only have 90 days.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I realize that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

ODC CONSULTANT

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, Mr. Speaker. Is it the policy of ODC to keep experienced consultants over the age of 65 on six-month contracts at a rate of approximately $15,000 a year? If that is the policy of ODC, have they made an exception for one consultant only? If so, I would like to ask how much that consultant is getting and why the exception was made in his case?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, there have been exceptions made in the ODC, as well as within the ministry, in relationship to people who have attained the age of 65 and who have been assigned to a specific project or projects to bring them to a conclusion. Generally speaking, if we can see the possibility of bringing the projects to that position within a six-month period then we do try to retain them so that there is some consistency in the reporting on the particular ones they are involved with.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has anyone other than the campaign manager for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development received more than $15,000 for a year?

Mr. Lewis: Good Lord. That is quite outrageous.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would have to inquire as to who the campaign manager might be for the hon. provincial secretary.

Mr. Shulman: C. D. Smith.

Mr. Lewis: Let his name rest in Hansard.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: But I can assure the hon. member that we retain people in the ODC because of their ability, and not because of the political party they happen to follow in this province.

Mr. Breithaupt: Is Arthur Wishart’s project going to be cut also?

Mr. Lewis: That is unbelievable. What about my campaign manager?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, on a point of information, my campaign manager is going to be very upset, because I think he is about 34.

Mr. Breithaupt: How much is he getting?

Mr. Shulman: On a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: On a point of privilege, if I may, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The member has too many points of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Shulman: -- may I ask the hon. member what C. D. Smith’s relationship to her can be?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the original question. The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. Lewis: Who is C. D. Smith? May I submit a list of campaign managers? Some of them are quite splendid people. Many of them are unemployed.

RAILWAY RIGHTS OF WAY

Mr. B. Newman: I’m sure that the Minister of Transportation and Communications it aware that railway rights of way are located in the core urban area in many municipalities and that these municipalities would like to remove the railway rights of way. What financial involvement is the minister prepared to make with the federal government and/or the municipalities to remove these rights of way so that these rights of way can be redeveloped for other purposes?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, in the past the ministry has been involved in the railroad relocation studies as they related to transportation problems. In a number of municipalities throughout this province studies were carried out so that municipalities could determine whether it would be more costly to relocate the railroad tracks or to get involved in a number of underpasses or overpasses.

As it stands now, considering the terms of the Railroad Relocation Act as it was presented in the federal House, we would not be at all interested in getting involved financially under the terms of that Act. We don’t think the Act is worthwhile. We don’t think it offers sufficient financial assistance to the municipalities in order to carry out very costly works. We have said to the minister, hon. Mr. Danson, that there are several amendments he should seriously consider, because otherwise municipalities would be financially incapable of getting involved to move railroad tracks out of their core under the terms of that bill.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. B. Newman: Is the minister aware that in the city of Windsor there would be no fancy overpasses or underpasses with the removal of the railroad rights of way; and would the minister seriously consider a different policy as far as the municipality is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, as far as the transportation policies or our involvement are concerned, we are prepared to be involved in the studies. But let me point out that in the Act which was passed by the federal government there is no financial assistance available whatsoever -- not one penny -- to relocate any industry or business that may be served by that particular railroad branch.

The federal Act also says the federal government will participate in the relocation up to 50 per cent of the net cost. There’s an awful lot of money involved in the relocation of industry and business that may be served by any particular railway spur. There is an awful lot of money even in the 50 per cent cost, so we’re not about to get ourselves involved in any sort of arrangement until the total financial implications have been worked out.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

FUTURE OF ARMSTRONG

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Now that over 13 months has elapsed since the announced closure of the radar base, and in view of intensive liaison with the federal government, can the minister assure the people at Armstrong that something tangible will result from his activities over the past several months?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, of course I can’t assure them that something tangible will result. If the hon. member means by that, can I assure them that we will get some industry going there, which is what we’re attempting to do, I would hope that what I’m going to tell the hon. member he will be kind enough to relay to the residents of Armstrong, which I’m afraid he hasn’t done in the past.

Mr. Stokes: I have always kept them informed. I sent them the minister’s 25-page memo.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know. We can go into that some other time.

Mr. Lewis: He can’t imagine what they did with it.

Mr. Stokes: That’s one thing the minister can’t accuse me of.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It depends on what the member was informing them about.

Mr. Lewis: Their reaction was nil.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We can go into that some other time. I never like to be provocative when I get up to answer a question, and the hon. member knows that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is getting mellow.

Mr. Lewis: What is his campaign manager doing?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How old is he?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He’s a pretty good lawyer. His name is Larry Grossman and he’s a damn good campaign manager, too.

An hon. member: And he’s not over 65, either.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Someday he’ll probably be sitting there.

Mr. Reid: He doesn’t take after his father

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I hope not.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. member that we have had conferences as the hon. member knows, with a number of organizations and potential industries about going into Armstrong. We currently have two we are discussing matters with and a new one has developed. As a matter of fact, I will be in Ottawa on Wednesday with staff to discuss a proposal in the presence, hopefully, of a number of federal ministers and in the presence also of the proponents of the new industry. I don’t know how that will develop. We have to get a great deal of co-operation from the federal government.

We have to make sure, as the hon. member knows, that the propositions which have been presented to us are viable. The hon. member also knows we have had to investigate a number of them which turned out to be not so viable and not so practical. I’m sure the hon. member knows this.

We hope that as a result of our meeting on Wednesday we will have something of a constructive nature to present to the citizens of Armstrong. I can assure him that by now we’ve had I suppose 100 meetings on this matter. We’ve put a tremendous amount of time and effort into helping the good citizens of Armstrong. If we don’t succeed, no one will be able to succeed, I can assure the member of that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: Now that there are two feet of snow and it is below zero, can’t the minister give them something to warm their hearts.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired,

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes tabled the annual report of the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. for 1973.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

In the absence of Hon. Mr. White, Hon. Mr. Winkler moves first reading of bill intituled, the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, among the amendments being made to the Acts of all regional municipalities there is an important amendment to clarify the responsibility of the regional municipalities for the provision and financing of water and sewage services. The ability of the regional municipalities to charge fees for the disposal of different kinds of waste is being clarified to allow the fees to be varied on the basis of weight or volume or other criteria determined by the council.

Another amendment removes certain limitations in the regional Acts so that regions may make grants deemed beneficial to the respective municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: Just before the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker might remind the members before they get away to their respective duties of the impending reception and luncheon this evening. We hope to see as many there as possible. Also, in view of the fact that there are quite often some greetings and well wishing taking place, perhaps we might stretch the dinner hour and return at 8:30.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I think that the House would agree to do that, maybe for a different reason than that which you’ve stated.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

CORONERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerr moves second reading of Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Coroners Act, 1972.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, the amendments in this bill go some way to take care of some problems which have existed with respect to the operation of the coroner’s office over the past number of years.

For the first time coroners are going to be appointed for the whole of Ontario. We think that this is a good idea in that a person will be able to act wherever needed, especially in an emergency, and will not be bothered with a certain territorial jurisdiction.

We think the provision of a deputy chief coroner is also useful, because it will allow the administration of the office to continue and also possibly groom some person for the ultimate promotion to the position of chief coroner for the province.

The matters of local police assistance are dealt with in

section 3, with an amendment, and

section 4 sets out a coroner’s warrant for burial which makes it certain that that is required in all cases.

Unfortunately some rather large tragedies have occurred recently with respect to automobile accidents and even aircraft accidents, so that the provision set out in

section 8 amends

section 21 of the Act now to allow one inquest where there are multiple deaths. This, too, we believe, will result in a saving of time and the avoidance of duplication of procedures which might otherwise occur in such an unfortunate circumstance.

There is one rather important point in

section 9, Mr. Speaker, and that has resulted from the request of many persons, as reported in the press, to ensure that families of a deceased have the right to seek an inquest if, in their view, that should be required. We are aware, of course, that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr) has been asked for this provision, and it would appear to clarify the statute that this matter is now being placed into law.

Section 21(

a) under the new Act is going to allow this request to exist, but we think that there should be one thing that we would commend for a change to the minister, and that is to move the 60-day period to 30 days. We are, of course, well aware that coroners are busy people. However, one would think that 30 days would be long enough to advise the person requesting such an inquest that the final decision has been made, perhaps, not to hold it. Of course, there will be reasons in writing at that time, but we would think that 30 days would be sufficient time in which to make sure this procedure is followed.

These changes, of course, are all subject to

section 19 in the Act, which gives the Solicitor General the power to direct any coroner to hold an inquest despite the fact that the inquest may have been held earlier or that the coroner may have decided against an inquest in any case. We think that the natural position of the Solicitor General as the minister responsible for this kind of legislation, should be to have the overriding decision to make a judgement as to whether or not there should be an inquest and, as a result, that remains a paramount situation over the decision otherwise of the chief coroner.

However, as I have said, in this particular

section the matter of 30 days we think would be a satisfactory time frame in which to come to this conclusion, rather than having the 60-day term.

Section 12 in the bill brings in some changes which hopefully will avoid duplication. At the present time the lists do not work out to be the same way as this bill will now have them do. The list of coroners’ juries is changed now to those on the sheriff’s jury roll, as for the normal development of court purposes. I would think that this would be a procedure which will standardize the operation of the choosing of coroners’ juries and will be of some benefit.

The only exclusion in

section 28 of the present Act which is not contained in this bill is where a person acted as a juror at an inquest in a similar capacity within a year. I suppose that it is likely that such a person would be struck off the sheriff’s list and not be placed as being available for a coroner’s jury list for some years, so that the chances of duplication are no doubt very slim.

Under subsection 5 in the new

section 12 -- or I should say in the new

section 28, in effect -- there is the possibility of being excused on the grounds of illness or hardship. We think that those particular exclusions are satisfactory and there should be this opportunity to make a judgement as to whether a person really should be excused from performing these duties on those terms.

The remainder of the sections, Mr. Speaker, deal with minor amendments that are in the statute. They have some complementary changes to the sections which I have already discussed and, as a result of the changes and with the request that the minister does consider the 30-day suggestion I had made, I’ll end my remarks. We’ll support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker, in the past two or three years we have thoroughly done in the coroners of the province by a reformulated and recodified statute covering most of the major points. Up to that time the whole operation of coroners and coroners’ juries was a very suspect subject in this province.

These are detailed matters in this legislation which don’t go to the root or the substance of the matter. We will not, I believe, as far as we are concerned, send the matter into committee; it’ll go on to third reading. There are two or three points that I would like to raise with the minister nevertheless, since that is going to be our disposition and approach to the matter.

The business of giving the coroners a wholly provincial power is beneficial, sensible and to the point. The utilization of local police forces, the clarification of the rights of coroners to call upon the police in this particular regard -- if it were, and apparently it must have been, a moot point because now it has been seen fit to embody it in legislation -- the business of calling an inquest on the request of certain relatives of the deceased are all to the good.

I had misgivings about the latter when I first read it, saying that it didn’t go far enough, because the decision of the chief coroner is final. It could be arbitrary; it could be the end of the road if he simply says, “No, we are not going to give it.” However, I don’t feel that strongly in connection with the matter, insofar as the

section says the chief coroner’s decision is final subject to

section 19. That other

section 19 gives the minister the ultimate and final power within the matter.

If somebody is deeply aggrieved there is no reason in the world why he couldn’t go and see the Solicitor General, point out the causes of his grievance, the roots of the same, and his final dispository power very well might bring about an inquest if sufficient reason is given to him at that time. So I think there is a basic safeguarding there.

I would like the Solicitor General to explain to me why he feels the next

section in question,

section 11, is really necessary. The role of the Crown attorney in calling the inquest is, I thought, to represent all individuals in connection with it. The minister is spelling out specifically the role of the counsel for the coroner himself -- the minister wishes to reserve in his own hands a separate and distinct lawyer for representing the ministry in distinction from the Crown attorney acting in the case. Why does the minister really feel that this was necessary? Is it not duplicatory and does it not involve the province in extra expense in this regard? There must, it seems to me, be very good reasons for it.

The switch to the jury list working through sheriffs -- no one can possibly take any exception to that sort of thing.

The business of the Crown attorney advising a witness as to his rights under the Canada Evidence Act is to the point. I think it should have been done -- and always is done in my experience, in any event.

Why not also the Ontario Evidence Act? I don’t understand why it is omitted from specific reference under this head as it comes through. There are any number of quasi-criminal offences, tried under provincial jurisdiction, which have nothing to do with the federal courts and on which adequate and equal protection should be given as in the other case. Clauses in those two statutes have a high measure of resemblance and I don’t see why the Solicitor General doesn’t extend that possibility a little further. There may be some good reason for it. If so, I think it is better to have it on the record so that we know.

Those are my basic thoughts in connection with the legislation and from that point we will let it go through. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take

part in the debate?

The hon. minister.

Hon. C. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. members.

The hon. member for Kitchener dealt specifically with

section 21a, regarding the period for considering a request for a review. I think that when the coroner determines that an inquest is unnecessary, then the deceased person may request in writing to bold an inquest -- I am sorry, the deceased’s next of kin, as set out in the section. The coroner will then give the person requesting an inquest an opportunity to state his reasons, either personally, by his agent, or in writing.

Then the 60-day period comes into play -- that is, the coroner shall advise the person in writing within 60 days of the receipt of the request. The reason for the 60 days rather than, for example, 30 days, is because there will he some investigation into those reasons. The coroner would want to correlate generally the reasons why it was decided an inquest was unnecessary in the first place. It could be in the wintertime and it could be a death that took place, shall we say, out in the country. It is a matter of correlating documents, getting all the necessary reports and possibly involving some interviews.

We felt that so that this would allow complete consideration by the next of kin -- particularly, as I say, after it was decided in the first instance that an inquest was unnecessary -- that there should be a full investigation as a result of this request, and that it would probably take more than 30 days. It may not take up to 60 days, but certainly it may take more than a month. So to be safe, that’s why we put the figure of 60 days in there.

The new Juries Act will, of course, pretty well apply as far as the selection of jurors for inquests as set out in the new

section 28.

The member for Lakeshore, I believe, dealt mainly with

section 10. There have been some comments by the Crown attorneys regarding the existing

section in the Act -- that is,

section 23 -- in that they want it to be more than persons in good --

Mr. Lawlor: It was

section 11 that I was interested in; not 10.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am sorry,

section 11; and therefore I would refer to

section 24 in the present Act, where Crown attorneys have said that there is some anomaly in referring to them as persons with standing -- “to be deemed a person with standing” -- and they ask that it be made specific and definite that they are acting as counsel to the coroner.

I think the reason, therefore, for adding the other subsection in reference to the minister is because the Crown attorney will, in fact, be acting for the coroner. Then, if the minister is to be represented, he may be represented by separate counsel.

There seems to be an

interpretation in the present

section that the counsel could take over the inquest and possibly exclude the Crown attorney, and we want to do-away with any implication of that sort. I doubt the occurrence very much, Mr. Speaker, and I am not aware of any recent cases where, in fact, the minister had to be represented separately and apart from the Crown attorney -- in other words, that his interests were such that they required separate counsel. I think this helps clarify, as I say, the fact that the counsel will be acting for the Crown attorney, not just as a man with standing. The minister, in fact, in order to avoid any confliction may also appoint counsel.

Mr. Lawlor: Might I ask a question, Mr. Speaker, since we are not sending it into committee? How about

section 12 as to the embodiment of the reference to the Ontario Evidence Act?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I was unable really to notice the reference to the Canada Evidence Act in

section 12. Does the member mean

section 12 of the new bill?

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, sorry,

section 13. I am just reading the minister’s explanatory note.

Hon. Mr. Kerr:

Section 13 in the new bill is amending subsection 2 of

section 34?

Mr. Lawlor: Right. Both the coroner and the Crown attorney have to advise a witness of his rights under the Canada Evidence Act. I’m asking why not also under the Ontario Evidence Act?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I really have no objection to that. I’m under the impression that the Canada Evidence Act is broader than the Ontario Evidence Act and for the most part gives the witness immunity from self-incrimination and the laying of charges against him as a result of his evidence. Whether or not reference to the two is necessary, I’m not prepared to say. But I don’t see any objection to that being added to the subsection.

Mr. Lawlor: All right, I ask the minister to do so then.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Lawlor: If the minister is going to make an amendment, Mr. Speaker, we have to pass it in Committee.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I can do that in third reading. I’d like to get the wording of the amendment.

FIRE DEPARTMENTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerr moves second reading of Bill 166,

An Act to amend the Fire Departments Act.

Mr. Lawlor: I can take all afternoon on this one, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: “Why?” is my simple question. The Arbitration Act is excluded presently under

section 8, specifically with respect to both agreements and to awards or decisions of boards of arbitration. Now the minister is seeking to add the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, 1971. I would like a little further explanation of what his position is.

That Act was designed to protect natural Justice and to set up a code of fair procedure. I can imagine that many of its provisions aren’t agreements are entered into under the Fire Departments Act, but some of its phases seem to me to have impact and to have some benefits to those who are engaged in the thing.

I suppose some of the minister’s thinking must revolve around the fact that this type of hearing or these types of procedures are of a distinct nature from those conducted in tribunals or before courts and that the rules of notice and the rules of cross-examination, having counselled on many other aspects, are not strictly speaking applicable. Please explain it.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take

part in this debate? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the exclusion of this Act from the Statutory Powers Procedure Act is more or less in line with the same provisions that we have at the present time under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. As the hon. members know, this does not apply to arbitrations under that Act, and there are other pieces of legislation, such as the Workmen’s Compensation Act, that have also been excluded from the provisions of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

I think the main reason for this is that these associations or organizations, or unions, whatever one wants to call them, have been bargaining in a certain way in the past; they have not had, shall we say, the very formal structure that may be required under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. As members know, there are strict rules as to proving documents, as to rules of evidence, and all the rather formal procedures that up to that time, before this Act, didn’t apply to negotiations of this kind.

When the member refers to McRuer, his main concern, of course, was the protection of individual rights, in that they had proper protection at hearings before various boards and commissions, that there was proper notice, that there was a right of cross-examination, that there would be a report of the proceedings, and generally, as I say, governing the cross-examination of witnesses and the proving of documents; the rather formal structure that exists, one might say, in a courtroom.

When the Act was first proposed -- that is, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act -- in 1971, the firefighters’ association at that time had requested just a little too late that they be exempted, like other parties to negotiations in the province, as I have indicated.

I might also mention that the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act is another that is exempt from the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Of course, one of the parts of the submission to us was that if these associations -- and they are numerous around the province -- are required, each time there is a negotiation, to comply with the requirements of the Act, this means that they would have to hire high-powered counsel and deal with municipalities which are able to do that over a prolonged and rather detailed and expensive basis.

I believe the Act at the present time, upon consent of both parties, allows the negotiations under the Fire Departments Act to be exempt. However, there has been a situation where one municipality -- I believe it is Windsor -- indicated that it wants the Act to apply. This has resulted in protracted negotiations in that city, and the possibility of withdrawal of service and all the sort of ramifications that can sometimes apply when there isn’t a collective agreement and there isn’t progress at the collective bargaining table.

I really don’t think there is too much more to say. The hon. member may recall that last year there were amendments to both the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the Labour Relations Act, I believe, which exempted certain proceedings, and this, I think, is analogous to those situations in that we have two associations -- or we have a council and an association -- dealing with a work contract or collective bargaining. It’s not the type of hearing or tribunal that was envisaged by McRuer when he recommended that these protective steps be applied generally to people appearing before boards and agencies and tribunals.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

POLICE ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerr moves second reading of Bill 167,

An Act to amend the Police Act.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on behalf of our party with respect to our approval of this bill.

The amendment which is being made parallels the law as it presently exists with respect to municipal police forces and those members of such forces who are unfortunate enough to be killed, or die from injuries received or from illness contracted in the general discharge of their duties. We now see that immediate dependants of members of the Ontario Provincial Police force are also going to receive this benefit from the Legislature.

Surely, it’s little enough for us to do, in cases such as these, to make sure that the members of the OPP, both men and women, are going to be protected and know that they are going to be protected, and that their families are going to receive some benefit and some compensation -- inadequate though it might, of course be -- to take care of families whose members have been killed or who have died during their service to the people of Ontario.

We certainly support this amendment. We think it is perhaps some time overdue, but at least it is here now and those who are in the service of the Ontario Provincial Police will be able to know, as they go about their duties, that this enactment by the Legislature will protect their dependants should the occasion arise. We’re pleased to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party wholeheartedly support this legislation.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): That’s the shortest speech on record.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take

part in the debate? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. members have indicated, this is the type of amendment to legislation that everybody would agree with. It provides something to the members of the Ontario Provincial Police force; to widows, with respect to officers who are killed or die from injuries received during the course of duty. This provision is now available to the municipal forces and we’re just extending it to the provincial force.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister wish to comment on Bill 162?

CORONERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, the hon. member for Lakeshore indicated that he wanted the bill to go to committee because he would like to see the Ontario Evidence Act apply as well as the Canada Evidence Act. I have pointed out to him that

section 34 of the Coroners Act gives automatic protection, which would cover both pieces of legislation and, therefore, he has agreed that it continue on to third reading.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Coroners Act.

Bill 166,

An Act to amend the Fire Departments Act.

Bill 167,

An Act to amend the Police Act.

LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves second reading of Bill 168,

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

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, I was more than a little disappointed when the minister introduced the bill and didn’t even eat a little bit of humble pie, because I recall very clearly the lengthy debate we had when this bill was going through the House. It went on for six weeks or more and probably took longer than any other bill to go through this House.

It started off, if you will recall, Mr. Speaker, with great and subtle government moves to change the title, and the minister wasn’t too clear on why he wanted to change the title. He wanted to change the title, it later came up, because he thought that a rose by any other name might smell a little sweeter and that if he did change the title he might really have fooled those terrible fellows up in Ottawa as to what kind of a bill it was. After long debate we finally changed the title. I think there was a vote, or perhaps two votes or three votes, on changing the title of the bill.

Then, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, we hand a second reading debate on the bill and it went on for quite some period of time. My colleagues and I said that in principle we support the bill but at that particular time we drew the minister’s immediate attention to our opinion as to the incidence of this taxation and the particular fact that in our opinion it was not going to be deductible as an expense of doing business, that there was no reason why the federal government should agree that this tax would be deductible as an expense of doing business and that therefore the incidence of taxation could be as high as 115 per cent.

“Oh no,” said the minister, “that would never, never happen.” I think at that time his colleague the Treasurer (Mr. White) said, “Besides which, those great federal Tories, when they get into power” -- and I think a man named Mr. Stanfield was mentioned, whoever he might have been -- “they will look kindly on our great efforts to legislate properly for the Province of Ontario, and Mr. Stanfield certainly won’t insist that that tax not be deductible.” Interestingly enough. even the Treasurer didn’t have a word for Mr. Stanfield himself. He was just trading on Mr.

Stanfield’s goodwill and his love for those gentlemen who inhabit the front benches, albeit for a short period of time yet remaining.

No one really had gone into any great consultation with the federal authority. No one, when the minister brought the bill before the House, had bothered to go up and get a federal tax opinion. The minister hummed and hawed and fluttered about, and finally he had to admit that he really hadn’t sought any opinion other that that of his departmental officials. He sought no opinions of any of the prominent tax lawyers or any of the prominent accountants who might be somewhat knowledgeable about this.

I can recall reading to him an opinion from one important and well-known firm of accountants, and the hon. member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) read him the opinion of another firm of accountants. We asked if he couldn’t have inquired from several of the leading taxation lawyers. It was only at the 11th hour that his colleague the Treasurer read an opinion, albeit wrongly phrased and phrased in general terms, from a lawyer named Mr. Goodman, who conceded that maybe the minister was right and that it was logical that the tax could be allowed as an expense of doing business.

With ill grace the minister forced this thing through the House, and anybody who knows anything about taxation principles should have had the courage at that point in time to have admitted he was wrong. Now, as I say, the minister is beating an ignominious retreat and doesn’t even have the courtesy to convey to the House or to the people of Ontario the fact that he has made a terrible mistake.

He should have had the good grace, at least, to get up and say: “Well, this time certainly I, the minister, was wrong. My officials were wrong. My advisers were wrong. I should have sought extra opinions. I should have had outside people to advise me. And now I must admit that the Liberals were right, that those who supported the position that this was not going to be deductible as an expense of doing business were, in fact, right, and now I have to go back and change what they told me should have been changed in the first place.”

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that on third reading we moved that the bill be set aside for a period long enough to inquire authoritatively as to whether or not this might be deductible. The minister couldn’t restrain his snorts -- that’s what they were -- about what a ridiculous position the opposition took in regard to this bill, saying that was merely inviting those terrible federal people to take a stance that anyone who had any knowledge of taxation matters must agree that they were going to take in any event.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the bill finally wound its way through the House after some six weeks, being hotly debated on this and other points throughout its whole progress through the House, the minister not retreating one inch from his arbitrary position -- the minister saying that he was right. His colleague the Treasurer said, “If those terrible fellows up in Ottawa think that we are wrong, we are going to go to court. We’ll go to court and we are satisfied from the advice that we have that we’ll be right.”

The history of this government going to court hasn’t been a good one either. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that famous action, the Province of Ontario against Dow Chemical, that has been dragging its way through the courts. I think it’s got as far as a motion for particulars; the pleadings aren’t even complete -- what, three years, four years and a million dollars of expenses later? I guess the government found that the counsel that they had retained to prosecute the Dow Chemical action on their behalf were too involved in the Dow Chemical action to take on this important challenge of the federal government in court over the allowability of this as a business expense.

Time rolled on, Mr. Speaker. The great hopes that we used to hear from the front bench about the change in federal government weren’t, in fact, fulfilled. There was an election in July of this year, and even if their good friend Mr. Stanfield might have had the power to do what it was suggested that he would do, he never really got the opportunity, unfortunately perhaps. But interestingly enough I again point out that even Mr. Stanfield and any of his taxing people, any of his tax advisers -- I think Mr. Gillies said maybe the Province of Ontario has a point, but Mr. Gillies has stopped even arguing with the government on that point at the present time.

There is one little

chapter in the middle. Somewhere along the line the minister said: “I was up to Ottawa and we had a very good reception.” I presume that meant that when he knocked on the door and said, “Here comes the Minister of Revenue for the Province of Ontario,” his federal counterpart said, “Come in, Mr. Meen, it’s nice to see you.” I’m sure that the federal Minister of Revenue is a very pleasant gentleman and I am sure he treated the Minister of Revenue for the Province of Ontario with the courtesy that he deserves and they had a nice long chat.

Then a little later on, if my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Speaker, the minister did get up one day and say: “We have now heard from Ottawa and they are determined that this will not be deductible as an expense of doing business. I guess we will have to accept that now. In due course, I will be bringing in an amendment” -- and this is the bill, Bill 168, with the amendment. “Yes, the bill will be retroactive, so that anybody who has paid the tax will now be able to reduce the rate.”

As I say, it would have been much more graceful and perhaps much more fitting if the minister had said: “I am sorry, I made a mistake.” He could even have coloured his language, and said: “This time, if never before, or never after, the opposition was right and I, the minister, made a mistake.” But we didn’t even get that out of him. So forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if you will, if I overly stress the difficulty that we had with the minister. The minister was wrong; we told him he was wrong; we told him for six weeks he was wrong. We moved a series of amendments trying to indicate that he was wrong. From April 9, to Dec. 9 --

Mr. Breithaupt: Dec. 9.

Mr. Singer: -- What’s that? Seven months? --

Mr. Breithaupt: Eight months.

Mr. Singer: -- eight months later. It took the minister some eight months --

Mr. Breithaupt: To the day.

Mr. Singer: -- to the day to admit that he did in fact make a mistake, and that he was going to do what he should have done in the first place.

Mr. Breithaupt: A short gestation period.

Mr. Singer: Had the minister -- let me look for a phrase that isn’t going to insult him unduly -- had the appropriate legislative stance that would have allowed him to say that even ministers make mistakes, and had he gone along with what we advocated in the beginning, it would’ve been much more tasteful. Mr. Speaker, I can’t hesitate saying to him: “We told you so. You shouldn’t have been so misinformed or so uninformed or lacking in inquiry ability as to have bulldozed this thing through the House with your big Tory majority.”

Speaking of the big Tory majority, I see the minister has got nine of them here at the moment, hardly enough to make up a quorum, although I am not going to call for a quorum call. The minister’s colleagues haven’t got much enthusiasm in supporting his ungraceful retreat.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): There are only four Liberals that I see out of 23.

An hon. member: How many have members opposite got?

Mr. Singer: Do members opposite want a quorum call? If they insist, I’ll draw to the Speaker’s attention -- I haven’t yet -- that there isn’t a quorum in the House.

Mr. Maeck: Let the member take a look at his own ranks.

Mr. Singer: However, I don’t think anything is particularly to be achieved by that, so I am not even going to mention it to you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I am wondering if we could get on with the debate on second reading, on the principle?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, certainly we can accept

section 1, which reduces the rate of tax from 50 per cent to 20 per cent. Certainly we can accept

section 3 which provides for a rebate in the event that anyone has been foolish enough to have been caught up with the higher incidence attached and now has to get it back, although I wonder why they only give it back with interest at the rate of seven per cent when the minister knows full well that nobody can borrow money at the rate of seven per cent and that one can get money back from the bank on a savings account at the rate of 9.25 or 9.5 per cent. If you want to go to GICs, Mr.

Speaker, you can get 10.25 or 10.5 per cent and if you want to go into something a little more risky, but not very much, you can get 11 per cent. Why should people, who have paid too much to the government because the minister wouldn’t recognize some of the facts of the taxation laws, only get back their money at the rate of seven per cent, if they have done foolishly what the minister said they should have done, the minister of course being wrong?

However, let me deal with

section

Section 6, now installs another ministerial discretion. The minister doesn’t even know he has got another discretion in

section 2; this is as bad as the other discretions that he reserves for himself. The minister had a little surprise on his face, if I read him correctly, that he now has another discretion.

Section 6 says:

“Where the result of one or more sales, exchanges, declarations of trust, or other transactions of any kind whatsoever is that a person has transferred property under circumstances that may be reasonably considered to have

“(

a) effected a disposition of or with respect to designated land and to have artificially or unduly reduced the amount of the taxable value of the designated land ... ”

Now, there is the ministerial discretion. A sells to B a parcel of land after April 9, and he sells it to B at a price which someone believes is too low. Thereby, in the exercise of some kind of a mysterious discretion; he is deemed to have disposed of it at an artificially or unduly reduced amount of the taxable value.

How is that process going to work? You look at a particular sale, Mr. Speaker, and A sells to B a piece of land at a value which someone who is a ministerial adviser is going to say in the name of the minister: “That is too low. It is artificially reduced.” Then you are giving an absolute discretion again to the minister to say: “Aha! In my opinion that price was too low, now you prove that it was a proper price.”

Why should that onus now be allowed to be put on the vendor and/or the purchaser in the subsequent transaction? Why shouldn’t it be up to the minister at least to establish his contention that the price was artificially reduced, establish it before a court, bring forth his evidence as to why this should be so and give the person whose transaction he disputes an opportunity to question him?

You know, Mr. Speaker, with me, that the land transfer tax has been collected on the basis of affidavit, and if the affidavit is there then it determines the incidence of taxation. You know, Mr. Speaker, the decision as to whether or not a particular transaction is subject to land speculation tax again is determined substantially by affidavits and they are accepted.

If the minister says -- and this is in fact what he is going to say -- that the price has been artificially or unduly reduced, surely he can only mean that having looked at some documents before him he has come to some kind of conclusion that the people who have made the transaction have been lying and have been lying in their particular affidavits. That’s a very serious charge.

Why should there be ministerial discretion? Why should the process be that if the minister comes to the conclusion that someone is lying as to the sale price, the minister has to prove that before an appropriate court where the matter can be argued? But no, that’s not good enough. What’s happening is that the matter is taken back into the ministerial environs -- into that place where he gets his great advice as to the deductibility of the tax as a federal expense of doing business -- and there it is tossed around the table. Then the minister says to the individual concerned: “Well, that’s too bad. In my opinion you have sold it at an artificially reduced price and therefore you are taxable.”

Why shouldn’t the shoe be on the other foot? Why shouldn’t the onus be on the minister to prove -- and to prove before a court where there is an availability of argument, where documents can be summoned, where cross-examination can take place -- why shouldn’t that onus be on the minister to prove that the information that was brought to substantiate the particular transaction has in fact been false and untrue?

We object to that, Mr. Speaker. We object to the insertion of an extra and a further unfair ministerial discretion in

an Act that is just full of ministerial discretions; in

an Act that doesn’t set out the law, but sets out ministerial discretions; in

an Act that is just as good as the length of the minister’s foot on a particular day. That’s what the rule of taxation under this statute is. It’s as long as the minister’s foot is on a particular day and that just doesn’t make sense in a taxation law, Mr. Speaker.

Well, as I say, while we can support sections 1 and 3,

section 2 is unsupportable. I don’t know how we are going to get over our dilemma, because we don’t want to oppose sections 1 and 3 which we told the minister should have been in from the beginning. We want to support those but we don’t want to support

section 2.

If one can say, Mr. Speaker, that the principle behind this is to do what we advocated last April and May, I guess we will vote for second reading, but we will ask that the Bill go to committee so that we can properly oppose

section 2. But I make our position quite clear that in voting in support of the bill in principle, we are not supporting the insertion of another discretion with all the unfair attributes that it brings to it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, there are several points under this bill. When this nefarious legislation was engendered last spring and, after prolonged debate, was forcefully pushed through this House, the minister was told abundantly at that time that the feeling of the opposition as a whole, I think, was that the constitution of this country was in such a way that he wouldn’t make it stick and that to do so would be vindictive taxation, to say the least. This has proven true and I think we are entitled, as members of the opposition, to crow, in no unduly chanticleer fashion, but to say, “We told you so.”

The reduction that the minister has made to 20 per cent seems to me not to be simply a figure out of the air and would like to know precisely the basis of it. It seems that he has taken the figure that he has imposed as a tax under the Land Transfer Tax Act with respect to foreign acquisitions, as the figure that would be the most appropriate in the context before us. It’s kind of an irrational uniformity; it’s kind of a blind stand. It still leaves the tax at a very high level indeed, as the minister himself seems to pride himself in saying; it could be in the 80 per cents.

It’s most unfortunate legislation all the way around.

Doesn’t the minister feel that he has suffered the perils of Pauline, that Pauline Meen has come under fire at the very time in history of the province when the market is falling out of housing; when, due to escalating interest rates and inflationary pressures on the credit market, the housing market is in a state of total dereliction, with all the misery that implies to any number of people living in the province, taken together with the embarrassment it causes the government to be unable to produce the housing unless it enters the housing market, overtly in a direct governmental way which the government, because of misguided ideological preconceptions, is unwilling to do.

That being the case, then the minister gives what might very well be called the double whammy to the whole thing, namely the Land Speculation Tax Act.

As things stand, sometimes I think we’d be better not to have the Act and that we could stand a little speculation because there’s absolutely nothing going on at the present time as between the two horns of the dilemma upon which the housing market finds itself. It’s in a state of total squeeze. The Act hasn’t had all that impact, in my considered opinion. I noticed the Minister of Housing (Mr.

Irvine), standing in his place today, didn’t even refer to this legislation; I don’t think it was because he’s necessarily ashamed of it but simply because he places the onus where it belongs in terms of the interest rates and capital expenditures on housing currently taking place. But this minister has made his picayune contribution too; and it may be just that extra weight that killed the goose that didn’t lay very many eggs. In any event, they weren’t golden.

So here we are this afternoon, in a sort of a petitionary gesture, saying, “Oh well, we’re going to have to reduce this thing. The federal government won’t accede to our wishes.” I have said to the House before, and I’ll say it now, I don’t think the federal government should. There is no surer way of eroding the tax base of this country, that which gives this country solidarity all over and can take the wide view, than to start to accede to provincial legerdemain with respect to the tax field, by eroding it here and there and saying, “If we tax here, then you must step back or you must make a deduction; you must permit our tax to have priority.”

I do think, however, that some form of mutual compromise should be exacted because, after all, the government has pressing need of revenues, God knows, or it wouldn’t be doing half the things it’s doing in the mining taxation and resource taxation fields. They have been driven by desperation, in terms of money, to do all sorts of things that they find totally and completely unpalatable. But if the minister is to swim at all, he must find the wherewithal and that the lifejackets are all present. This is not one of them.

What we have achieved in the legislation is a fair diminishment of the responsibility; a capitulation on the government’s part. Does the minister intend to proceed in any form of action with the federal government? Has he come to the constitutional conclusion that his case would be out of court, or that it would be a waste of the time and money of the province to test the full validity of the thing? Just what does the minister propose to do under that head?

Again, I personally don’t think it should be contested. I think the minister should slink away into the underbrush to his quiet lair, lie down, put up his paws and rest, and maybe hibernate for the whole winter, so far as it is concerned. And I think he should try to reach accommodation on a person-to-person basis up there as to a division of spoils.

But as far as this legislation is concerned, we don’t support it. We find ourselves in the same dilemma. As far as we are concerned, we will make our main points in committee.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other hon. members wishing to speak on this bill? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of points that have been raised by the hon. members, and I would refer particularly to the points made by the hon. member for Lakeshore.

He asks how we got to the 20 per cent. I would assure him, Mr. Speaker, that it was not for the purpose of having consistency with the Land Transfer Tax Act and the non-resident 20 per cent.

Mr. Lawlor: It didn’t even occur to me. Twenty per cent was bobbing around in the minister’s head for weeks.

Hon. Mr. Mean: As a matter of fact I think it is fair to say that it only occurred to us, after we had concluded that 20 per cent was the fair and appropriate tax to apply under the Land Speculation Tax Act, that we might have to change some of our vernacular in reference to the two Acts. We tended in the past to distinguish the two by referring to the one, the Spec Act, as the 50 per cent tax, and to the other as the 20 per cent tax. Now we are going to have to start talking about the non-resident tax and to the land speculation tax, I suppose.

In any event, the member for Downsview has purported to quote me -- and I think inaccurately -- when he said that I said that the tax would never be 115 per cent. What I said was that it was not the government’s intention that it would ever go to that level, and that if the land speculation tax were disallowed by the federal government we would take appropriate steps to see that the tax, which in that event would be of a confiscatory nature, was not applied.

So we have received a ruling from the hon. John Turner, having met with him and with his colleague, the hon. Ronald Basford, on Oct. 16. We did have a very courteous, and I thought, helpful, meeting with them. They didn’t give us all that much encouragement; as the member for Downsview has indicated we --

Mr. Lawlor: They told the minister on Nov. 13 that they weren’t going to give it to him. What has taken him so long?

The difficulty with reducing the amount of tax -- if there is any difficulty in it -- is primarily that it loses its immediate impact as a transactions tax by being only 20 per cent of the amount of the speculative gain, rather than a very substantial, healthy and significant 50 per cent. So perhaps this will not be as significant in the psychology, I suppose, behind the holding of land for speculative profit.

I would like to think, though, that people dealing in land look a little farther down the road and see what the net tax impact is going to be, because if they do that they will realize that with the level of tax as proposed at 20 per cent, the net resultant impact on their tax dollars in the long run will be essentially the same.

We looked at various tax rates in order to assess what would be the appropriate amount to apply, having regard for the undertaking given by myself that in no way would the tax be allowed to exceed the estimate of net tax payable as set out in the Treasurer’s budget statement of April 9. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in that budget the Treasurer indicated that on the basis of the speculation tax being a deductible item, so-called private corporations would pay a total income tax of 81 per cent, public corporations would pay 87 per cent and private individuals would have a maximum tax rate of 81 per cent.

Well, taking a look at various amounts of tax, if the land speculation tax were 25 per cent -- and that was a figure that was bruited about for a time, as was a figure of 30 per cent -- so-called private corporations would drop from 81 per cent to around 75, though I think that would be a little higher than that, and public corporations would come in at 87, which is what they were previously in the budget statement figure. Individuals, though, would have a maximum tax of 86 per cent rather than 81.

So it was my feeling and the feeling of my colleagues that that figure of 25 per cent speculation tax then would not meet, in the case of some individuals, the obligation which I undertook on behalf of the government that in the event of the tax being disallowed, no one but no one would pay more tax than had been anticipated in the Treasurer’s budget statement. Twenty per cent achieves that level.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the maximum tax that a person as an individual pays in personal income tax here in Ontario under our Canadian and Ontario Income Tax Acts is about 61 per cent. That is achieved at a level of, I think, around $55,000 taxable income; somewhere in that region he reaches the level of maximum tax of some 61 per cent. Add to that the 20 per cent land speculation tax which is proposed by this bill and one reaches a level then of 81 per cent, which was the figure shown in the Treasurer’s budget for the maximum personal income tax that would be payable. It was on that basis, Mr.

Speaker, that we arrived at the percentage of 20 per cent for speculation tax when a non-deductible item.

There was some reference made by both hon. members as to the court action, I’ve said this a number of times and perhaps it bears repeating: Sure, we could take the case to court and have an adjudication as to whether the tax was deductible or not, or perhaps a taxpayer would take it to court.

Mr. Lawlor: It would be a foolish taxpayer.

Hon. Mr. Mean: The point is that the Minister of Finance has now confirmed that if we should win he would seriously consider changing his Act and, of course, if we should lose, then the point would have been proved.

Ms. Lawlor: The minister doesn’t know what the point proves yet does he?

Hon. Mr. Mean: So one way or the other the tax could wind up being a non-deductible item. There really was no point in putting the people of Ontario though a few more months of uncertainty, when in fact the end result would be the same. Therefore, being a pragmatist at heart, it was my recommendation that we should recognize facts for what they were, and with the statement from the Minister of Finance being abundantly clear as to the position of the federal government in this regard it is, therefore, I think, and was, appropriate that we should make this amendment.

I don’t want to close my remarks without referring to the member for Downsview’s comments on the amendment to

section 6 of the bill. I wonder if he has really looked at

section 6(a), being

section 2 of the amending Act, because

section 6(

a) is a simple restatement of

section 6 of the Act as it stands. It is split off into subsections (

a) and (

b) simply so that we can pick up, by subclause (b), to which the member for Downsview didn’t even make reference, a situation in which corporations, through the provisions as to deemed dispositions and though a practice called “stuffing” -- where one can pack a company with money so as to get its assets in real estate down below 50 per cent, then make the transaction, then withdraw the money again; an obviously colourable attempt to avoid the provisions of the Land Speculation Tax Act --

Mr. Lawlor: That is the opposite of --

Hon. Mr. Men: -- could have avoided the provisions of

section 6. It was therefore the purpose of

section 2 of the Act to bring in, by subclause (b), this provision, the same sort of authority as presently resides in

section 6 of the Act.

When the member for Downsview said that I looked surprised and raised my eyebrows when he was suggesting that I had imported still another ministerial discretion, he’s quite right. I was surprised, because we haven’t imported it at all. We are covering an area that was an obvious loophole with the same authority for reassessment, no more, no less, than presently exists in

section 6 of the Act.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister is going to have to deal with that problem more directly than that.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In any event, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason for

section 2 of the bill, and although I’ll be happy to put the bill into committee so that the members opposite -- the Liberal members anyway -- can show their opposition to this amendment by voting against it in committee if they wish, I think they are mistaken in their understanding of it, because I would suggest to the hon. members. Mr. Speaker, that the amendment proposed in

section 2 is a highly desirable one.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Singer: No, committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Standing committee I expect, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The standing committee?

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House? So ordered.

CORPORATIONS TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves second reading of Bill 169,

An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: No, I’m sorry, I’m just leaving.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: This bill, of course, is a companion piece to Bill 168. In it we have the provision in the Corporations Tax Act that the tax imposed under the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974, will not be deductible in computing income of a corporation.

The member for Downsview, in his comments on Bill 168, which we have all just heard, reviewed the various points with respect to the deduction and the matters raised at the time of the initial debate on Bill 25. I certainly don’t intend to repeat them here, because my colleague for Downsview has given our point of view as to not only what happened then but also what is happening now.

The matter of these deductions is something which comes as a result of the recent discussions and decisions made between the federal and the provincial authorities and I don’t think there is any requirement to say anything further on the bill at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I have said all I wish to say on the companion bill; it simply carries it out in terms of the Corporations Tax Act.

I want to inform the Speaker and the minister that my colleague, the hon. member from Riverdale -- it’s our problem, I know, but he is on this unfair practices committee; I’m going to go down there now -- wanted to say a few words, he told me, about the Land Speculation Tax Act and this one. For that reason only I would ask the minister to permit it to go into committee along with the other one. If he has anything he has to say about it, then at least he has that opening left. I would ask the minister to help us in this particular regard. We can’t be two places at once

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments before the minister speaks? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. members have indicated, this is a companion piece. We are convinced that under the Income Tax Act of Canada and Canada Corporations Act, and likewise under our provincial Corporations Tax Act, this kind of expense would be deductible to such an extent that it is appropriate therefore that we should amend our own Corporations Tax Act to make it expressly not deductible in line with the principle which we are now following and which the federal government has indicated they are taking with respect to the Acts which they administer.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Hon. Mr. Meen: Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

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

LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill 168,

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

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, comments or amendments? If so, what section?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, on

section 1.

Mr. Chairman: On

section 1, the hon. member from Kitchener.

section 1:

Mr. Breithaupt: I would appreciate receiving from the minister at this time the calculation as to the deduction of this rate from 50 to 20 per cent. I think it would be worthwhile to have the mechanics and the reasoning for this rate on the record so that we are aware, and the public is generally aware, as to the means by which this 20 per cent rate was struck.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I could have sworn the hon. member was in his seat when I just gave it, Mr. Chairman, but in short the 20 per cent speculation tax, when added to the absolute maximum rate of 61 per cent, which arrives at a personal taxable income level of something like $55,000, will then derive a total of 81 per cent, which was the amount shown in the Treasurer’s budget statement of April 9. That’s the reason for arriving at the 20 per cent figure.

Actually, I would suppose that the vast majority of individuals who are involved in transactions of this sort are well below the $55,000-a-year personal taxable income level and their rate then would be somewhat below the 81 per cent. But that was the basis upon which the Treasurer (Mr. White) had proceeded as well. We were aiming at meeting that figure without giving away the store, so to speak.

Mr. Breithaupt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was otherwise occupied when the minister had given that information and I appreciate hearing it again.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member from Downsview on

section 1?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): No,

section

Section 1 agreed to.

section 2:

Mr. Singer: Yes, on

section 2, Mr. Chairman, the minister hastened to point out to me that he wasn’t getting a new discretion and that my

interpretation of his raised eyebrows was, in fact, incorrect. Well, he’s doubled his discretion. He had a discretion under

section 6(

a) and he now extends it to a discretion under

section 6(b). So he has taken a new discretion, no matter how he phrases it.

We said as many times as possible, when this Act was going through, that we objected to the various discretions being given in a taxation statute. I thought it was appropriate, Mr. Chairman, to talk about the discretion in 6(a). The minister says I didn’t specifically deal with 6(

b) and in that he is correct, but it is an extension of the principle which we find abhorrent in a taxing statute.

It would seem to me, if the minister is going to take it upon himself to say he doesn’t believe that the price for which this land is sold is a true price but is, in effect, the price artificially or unduly reduced, then there should be some onus on the minister to prove it, whether he is asserting this right under (

a) or (b). It should be in some form whereby the person whom he is disbelieving or the corporation whose statement he is not accepting has an opportunity to know the case that he is being faced with and has a tribunal before which that can be argued, where he can see the minister’s case in either (

a) or (

b) and have an opportunity to be heard and to cross-examine.

The way this is phrased -- and it was bad enough when only 6(

a) existed -- it’s doubly bad now because there are 6(

a) and 6(

b) which give him an additional discretion. If the minister decides that the transaction was set up in order to artificially or unduly reduce the price, all that has to happen is an exercise in ministerial discretion where this is said. Then whatever onus there is is shifted to the vendor or the purchaser. The onus is off the minister.

For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the minister saying it was already in the Act, we will continue to oppose it because we oppose this kind of exercise in ministerial discretion in a taxing statute. A taxing statute should be definite if any statute should, and the whole efficacy of those statutes should not depend on the often obscure exercise of ministerial discretion.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to understand why the member for Downsview is objecting to this section. Certainly it’s an application of the right to reassess if it should come to the ministry’s attention under subsection (

b) that an action technique I referred to called “stuffing” has taken place. There may be other techniques that fertile minds will dream up over the year, through the use of shareholdings and the dealings in shares rather than the disposition of real estate itself in the direct sense.

All subsection (

b) does is import into

section 6 the authority to reassess in the event that that occurs. It takes nothing away from the right of the parties to appeal, according to the mechanism set out in

section 10 of the Act. If the member would care to take a look at that, he will see the appeal procedure that applies just as readily to subsection (6) of 6 as it does to subsection (a). Subsection (

a) is a restatement of the old

section 6. Sections 9 and 10, with objection to assessment, and

section 10, the mechanism before the courts, are untouched in the Act. The same procedure applies there as applied in the

section before.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to let it go at that. The minister seems to think if they bulldozed a

section through the House one time they can then say it is good because they bulldozed it through the first time.

Let me read him certain extracts from the debate relating to

section 6 as they took place when the bill was going through the House.

The debate on the

section revolved around the concepts of avoidance and evasion in law. It was pointed out that avoidance of the tax is proper and legal. However, this

section with the marginal note “avoidance” allows a collection o