Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to introduce to you, and to the members of the Legislature, 40 students from the Whitney Public School in the great riding of Cochrane South in the city of Timmins. They are here under the direction of their teachers, Erwin Graham and Frank Schykoski. We are delighted they have come so far to be with us today; and they are in the east gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House about an important new piece of legislation, which will be introduced later today, called the Business Practices Act.

This Act will provide the Ontario consumer with broad protection against deceptive and unfair business practices. It includes a ready and inexpensive means of redress and the legislative authority to impose immediate sanctions on businesses failing to comply with its terms.

In the past, my ministry has introduced many Acts designed to protect and inform the consumer. Most of these Acts have been drafted to provide for the registration of companies or individuals in a particular industry. Disclosure to the consumer, evidence of company financial stability, tests and requirements for individual skills and certain basic performance standards have been emphasized in this kind of legislation.

The business practices division of my ministry currently administers nearly a dozen Acts designed to regulate specific industries with good results for both the consumer and the industry.

It is worth noting that the industries involved have generally appreciated our efforts in recognition of the fact that higher standards of conduct and a greater measure of public trust have generally accompanied the legislation.

But there are shortcomings to the registration of industries and industry representatives. Designing an Act for each industry is time consuming and difficult. Good legislation requires a careful assessment of the industry, its essential characteristics and its practices. Consideration must be given to the relative impact of financial criteria or performance standards on small and large companies. The possibility of affecting an industry’s competitive position compared to one that is not regulated must also be considered.

Rapid response to new problems has consequently been difficult to sustain. Personnel must also be hired to administer and investigate under the terms of each of these Acts, making the system costly as well.

The selection of one industry to regulate rather than another has introduced inconsistencies and limitation in our consumer protection programme.

We have also found that registration of companies, disclosure, financial requirements and licensing of individuals on the basis of their knowledge of the industry have left some forms of business behaviour largely untouched, particularly in the area of sales methods.

Disclosure requirements, while important tools for the consumer, do not fully achieve a balance between the buyer and the seller, because they do not affect all the various sales inducements sometimes used -- inducements that unfortunately often speak louder than the facts required by statute. As a result, we think more emphasis on eliminating abusive selling tactics and greater emphasis on effective remedies for the victimized consumer are required.

But perhaps most of all, Mr. Speaker, the development of legislation on an industry-by-industry basis has not created a general code of business standards that a consumer could come to know and trust and that a responsible businessman could incorporate in the conduct of his affairs.

We do not believe that the answer is more onerous requirements for registered businesses because these requirements hit the ethical and unethical businessmen equally, when exactly the opposite effect is desired.

The Act I will introduce today, Mr. Speaker, is designed to discriminate more effectively against unethical enterprise at the consumer level, and to place honest buyers and sellers in a market where competitive prices and quality merchandise will prevail as the criteria for business success.

The Act prohibits false, misleading or deceptive representations for all products and services sold to consumers. In addition transactions which involve grossly inflated facts, inequity of contract, high pressure sales methods or the consumer’s inability to defend his own interests will also be prohibited.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Does that apply to government advertising as well?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The Act includes specific references to some of the unfair practices we are aiming at, although the terms of the Act will remain broadly inclusive of any consumer selling tactic tending to remove or limit the consumer’s right and ability to make a sound and intelligent choice. The Act provides that any agreement entered into by a consumer after a representation has been made to him which includes an unfair practice will be voidable by the consumer. Suppliers involved in the agreement will be liable to the consumer for the selling price and for any damages incurred because of the unfair practice. In order that prompt action may be taken to stop clearly unacceptable new practices, the Act provides for additions to the list of unfair practices by regulation, subject to their ultimate approval by this Legislature. Any consumer will be able to press his own case in the courts under the legislation.

Under the proposed Act, my ministry will have the power to investigate and to issue an order to a company to comply with the terms of the Act by ceasing an unfair practice. The company receiving the order must respond within 15 days if it wishes to dispute the case. If no response is forthcoming, full compliance with the order is required, with severe penalties for failing or delaying to do so. Contested orders will go before the commercial registration appeals tribunal of my ministry for a hearing. Ultimately, appeals can be taken to the courts.

In those cases where the public is threatened by the continuation of a particular kind of offence under the Act, the director will have the power to demand immediate compliance with his order to cease that practice. An appeal to the commercial registration appeals tribunal will still be available, but the order to comply would remain in effect unless the appeal itself is sustained or the tribunal issues a stay pending further appeal procedures.

Written assurances of voluntary compliance in response to an order under the Act will be legally binding and subject to the same penalties for non-compliance as those invoked for non-compliance with the original order. Undertakings, including restitution for aggrieved consumers, may be added to the compliance order. Failure to comply with the Act or an order to cease a particular practice may result in offending companies being subject to fines of up to $25,000 for each offence.

Mr. Speaker, this Act represents a fundamental departure from past methods of consumer protection in this province. It will extend to Ontario’s consumers a degree of assurance in their transactions to be found in few other jurisdictions. We expect responsible businessmen to react positively and constructively to this legislation, because it will protect them as well as the consumer from the false competition of unethical operators. It will also free the honest practitioner from the discouraging impact of additional government regulations applied indiscriminately to good and bad alike.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Act will hopefully act as the basis for the development of a commonly accepted code of business practice which both buyers and sellers can respect and trust. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It won’t do anything for prices.

DIAL-A-BUS

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on an article which appeared in this morning’s Globe and Mail. I am referring specifically to the article headed “Metro Dial-a-Bus Experiment Failing, Ontario Considers Relocating It.”

My ministry has implemented three of the four areas in which we intended to test the dial-a-bus concept. These are York Mills, Armour Heights and Downsview. The objective of this experiment is to test the viability of the dial-a-bus concept in a large metropolitan setting in order that the experience gained from the demonstration can be used to determine whether further expansion is viable in Metropolitan Toronto, and how it might best be used in other municipalities in the province.

It is now approximately 6 1/2 months since York Mills was implemented, 4 1/2 months for Armour Heights, and two months for Downsview. We have learned a great deal in this short time.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Yes. The government has spent a lot of money too.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Response in some areas has indicated the need to review the demonstration. We are currently assessing the whole demonstration project to determine what changes should be made. I expect, as was mentioned in the Globe and Mail this morning, that such changes will be announced in about two weeks time.

Mr. Lewis: The government needs to reassess all its transportation.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Right. How about commenting on the other story?

Mr. Lewis: The one on the front page of the Star. The minister can comment on that too.

An hon. member: How about the rain and the snow on the GO-Urban system?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Roy: Snow could stop you drinking or smoking.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The one about the federal election?

Mr. Roy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Is the member for Ottawa East getting the nomination again? Is he running?

Mr. Roy: Is the minister going to run against me?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: The rumours are rife.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Tell us about the snow job.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I will wait for the member to tell me.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I might inform the hon. members that I have suspected the stand-up microphone is not functioning properly and I have received confirmation of that. Perhaps the hon. members will forgive me if I remain seated so that I might use this microphone.

Mr. Singer: Has the Treasurer (Mr. White) got a John White election statement?

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, since it appears there are no further statements, I would like to arise on a point of privilege so that I can correct a piece of misinformation that appeared in the Newmarket Era in a letter signed by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman). In it he says, and I quote: “It is a well known fact that the Liberal Party is afraid that the government of Ontario will succeed with this programme.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is referring to his housing action programme; he goes on: “And they seem to be doing everything in their power to make sure that that does not happen.” I feel constrained, Mr. Speaker, to bring to your attention, in the presence of the minister --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- that he is specifically wrong and he is being irresponsible in this regard --

Mr. Roy: Right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- because surely he is aware that we called on him to go to his cabinet colleagues for an extra $100 million which was cut out of his housing budget this year.

Mr. Roy: Right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The only concerns we have are that this minister, by his lack of action in this so-called programme and his unduly partisan approach to his high responsibility, is going to lead it into failure. That’s what we are afraid of and nothing else.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): And of course the member is not partisan at all.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): That is a threat.

Mr. Roy: If the minister keeps it up he will be promoted.

Mr. Speaker: I must say that I fail to detect any parliamentary privilege included in the remarks of the hon. leader.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: Those members are going to make the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler) work too hard keeping them all quiet.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The Leader of the Opposition.

HOSPITAL WAGE CEILINGS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question I would like to ask of the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller). Can he assure the House that the basic formula used for the settlement of the negotiations between the hospital workers and the boards in Toronto can be applied across the province, and that assurances have been given to the hospital boards concerned that financing will be available so that that level, of acceptance let’s say, can be applied in the other hospital situations?

I have a second question associated with that. Since a number of the employees are not unionized and are not represented by CUPE, can we have an assurance as well that the same level of salary increase will be available for them through changes in the grant system?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that the Minister of Health has already been in touch with the various hospital boards in the province. There have been discussions. I am not sure that a definitive formula has yet been arrived at, but certainly the settlement that was made here for the Metro hospitals will be a guideline or a pattern for utilization elsewhere. As it relates to those employees in hospitals who are not members of CUPE or some other union, of course they will not be prejudiced by this fact.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: As many of the workers and hospital boards will be concerned with this, are we to take the Premier’s statement as an assurance to the House that the same formula, by way of grants payable by the Ministry of Health, will be acceptable to the hospital boards; or are we to assume, by his careful choice of words, that it would be just a formula?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there were several aspects to the settlement here in Metro. Part of it related to the question of money; part of it related to the question of fringe benefits. I can’t say to the House there will be an exact duplication because the situations are not the same. In fact there are some existing contracts elsewhere which are different and perhaps would be construed by the union as being even better than the one arrived at here. I don’t know; I can’t comment on that. I can say that the ministry and the government are quite prepared to make additional funds available to the hospitals to see that an equitable situation is arrived at.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, if I may: Can we assume that the government would offer no less to the other hospitals in Ontario than was the basis for the settlement among the 11 hospitals in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, once again, we are getting into details and I really can’t comment on each individual contract with each individual hospital. It may be that as it relates to certain areas of fringe benefits which might be somewhat better than they are in Metro, I don’t know; and whether this is equated with whatever funds or money settlements are made, I can’t comment. All I can say to the members of the House is that the minister has already been in touch, the hospitals are aware that certain adjustments will be made, and we think it will be an equitable solution.

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

GARBAGE RECYCLING PROGRAMME

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment how he’s going to react to the pressure from Metropolitan Toronto, expressed by the Metro chairman, that is attempting to persuade him to approve the Hope township landfill site, when the minister himself has stated publicly, and he knows the concerns of other members in the House, that that particular landfill site should not be approved and that we must have a government policy which will allow major urban centres like Metro Toronto to move with confidence towards a recycling programme that would be at least partially funded by the provincial government? Can the minister respond to the pressures that are being brought by Metro Chairman Godfrey with a statement that clearly enunciates that the government is opting for recycling and that it will fund these programmes when they are initiated by the municipalities?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in many speeches and many letters, we think that sanitary landfill sites are not the ultimate answer; and we certainly do lean very heavily on recycling or reclamation, because we look at garbage as a resource material. We’ve always said this. We also realize that we can’t get rid of everything through that process 100 per cent at this point in time. We don’t have the technology at this point in time, but certainly we have always leaned heavily to this method with our ongoing programmes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Does the minister not accept the fact that this Hope township proposal involving CP Rail taking Metro garbage to that particular area, 70 miles from Toronto, is becoming more or less the talisman, and that the minister’s statement on that is going to be the chief indication of basic policy? Would the minister not think that since there has been so many reviews, it is time for him to make a statement saying that was not going to be approved so that it would at least leave Metropolitan Toronto and others with a full knowledge of the remaining alternatives?

Hon. W. Newman: As I have said, as the Minister of the Environment I am very much concerned about the environment and the environmental effects of any sanitary landfill site. I did not say in my speech that the Hope township site was out. I won’t go into it all -- I said this all on Monday -- but I am aware of the concerns of the people in that area.

Mr. Roy: Is that what the minister said?

Hon. W. Newman: I would just like to reiterate that we are interested in reclamation, in reclaiming what we view as a resource material. We’re also concerned about Metro’s problems, and certainly we’re looking at them very closely.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Given the confusion that was caused by the minister’s speech in Port Elgin, and given the considerable insensitivity being demonstrated by the Metropolitan chairman towards outside communities, if the minister has his technical survey approved for the Hope township site as a viable site, will he then recommend it? Or is he prepared to indicate now where he’ll stand?

Hon. W. Newman: As I said on Monday, I still have not got the final report and all the technical advice. The technical data is not on my desk at this point in time. I am not prepared to make any decisions until I have that.

PROPOSED COTTAGE SUBDIVISION ON NAPPAN ISLAND

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A question of the Minister of Housing: Does he recall giving draft plan approval to a subdivision on Nappan Island in the Trent River? Whether or not he recalls it, will he undertake to the House to give further consideration to this draft plan approval, since it apparently has gone forward without the knowledge or approval of the local municipality? And it is also an approval that has gone directly against recommendations resulting from the environmental reviews in that area. If he is not aware of the approval, will he give it further examination and indicate to us in the House that it will go no further until there has been a full report made to the House?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I’m not immediately aware of it. I certainly will look into it and inquire into the areas of the hon. member’s concern.

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

GO-URBAN SYSTEM

Mr. R. F. Nixon: To the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Can he confirm that the costs for changing the services that have to be moved at the CNE grounds for the GO-Urban test were budgeted at $600,000, and that in fact these costs, as well as others associated with the testing at the CNE, are going to be substantially escalated, adding as much as an additional $1 million to the proposed test of the Krauss-Maffei rapid transit system at the CNE?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I can’t say what the budgeted figure was, but I will try and get that particular figure. It has been pretty good lately.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: The minister on more than one occasion has indicated he would provide up-to-date figures on the changing cost of the test at the CNE; would he undertake to give a more comprehensive survey of the test as it presently stands and table the information, not only for the relocation of the services but the other contracts and other requirements where the costs have been changing?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think I have met any commitments that I made to the hon. member as far as questions he has asked concerning costs; I will certainly continue to answer the questions and bring those costs forward.

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

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Can the minister comment on the expert testimony which was given in the Province of Quebec which suggested that GO-Urban was a fine system except that it is unlikely to run in the winter?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have no way of knowing just how expert the comment was. I know the article being referred to. It was by a gentleman by the name of Jules O’Shea. He is apparently an electrical engineer. I don’t know how expert he is in this particular mode. I can say, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Roy: He is only an engineer with a legal background.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I can say, Mr. Speaker, that as far as we are concerned the matter of the climatic conditions in Canada are well known and we are satisfied that any problem that could have been created by climatic conditions will be met by this system.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-Forest Hill.

Mr. Roy: He has never directed traffic.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Supplementary: The establishment of the test track at the exhibition is knocking out some of the best revenue-producing parking space for the CNE, which will cost them over $70,000 --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Givens: Does the minister --

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): It’s coming, it’s coming.

Mr. Givens: I have to tell the minister what it is about. Does the minister intend to replace that revenue to the CNE, that loss of parking revenue which the test track is knocking out?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think I have said before on occasion in this House, in answer to questions, that we were aware of some problems as far as the CNE parking area was concerned. This, in fact, did require some change in the design.

I can say, I think with some degree of accuracy, that I don’t contemplate reimbursing the CNE for the loss of parking revenue.

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

POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT BY CIVIL SERVANTS

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Premier: Now that the federal election has been called, does the Premier think --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Not much support for Stanfield over there, I can see that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: We are the only people who are euphoric about it, for heaven’s sake. The rest of the members are quivering.

May I ask the Premier, now that the federal election has been called, would he consider immediately amending the crude and discriminatory clauses in Ontario’s Public Service Act which prevent all civil servants in this province from participating in virtually any way in what is regarded as a simple civil liberty, particularly in an election campaign?

Mr. Roy: Yes, something the government does all the time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to take a look at it.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier whether he thinks there is justice in prohibiting people from canvassing, from speaking, from distributing information, from writing letters to the editor, as part of participation in a campaign, simply because they are civil servants in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will take a look at it.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask, by way of further supplementary, does the Premier know that no such restrictions exist in British Columbia, in Alberta, in Saskatchewan, that they are now being removed in Manitoba; and that in fact Ontario has the most severe restrictions on the rights of civil servants anywhere in Canada as regards political involvement?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in what our sister provinces do, as I am sure the members opposite are always interested, particularly in those programmes where it appears we are somewhat in advance of our sister provinces, which the members always acknowledge, of course. As I say, I am prepared to take a look at it.

Mr. Lewis: One final supplementary: Does the Premier not think that the oath of secrecy which he requires from the civil servants as a matter of course would suffice in this regard, and that he shouldn’t answer so abruptly or toy so lightly with the basic political rights of 60,000 or 70,000 people?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I say with respect that I don’t think that was a question, it was an observation made by the hon. member --

Mr. Lewis: It was a question, not an observation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly there was an observation in the part I heard, and I would just say to the hon. member I don’t toy lightly with anybody’s rights or obligations, unlike the hon. member. I don’t.

Mr. Lewis: He certainly does in the Legislature.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: That was an observation, not an answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think the answer was right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I am a socialist.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But the hon. member tries to be a conservative socialist.

Mr. Lewis: No, not at all. It was his mistake.

PRICE INCREASES BY STELCO

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Since the minister’s proposed Business Practices Act clearly will not handle exorbitant or illegitimate price increases, can he tell us whether his ministry is prepared to ask Stelco for an explanation of their announced jump of 11.5 per cent to 11.8 per cent in bar and plate steel prices; and, because of the very critical effect this might have on the entire economy, to roll back the increases if he sees them as unreasonable or unjustified?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the Act which will be introduced later today deals primarily with false, misleading and deceptive consumer representations and the making of representations to consumers which the maker knows, or ought to have known, were not correct. The Act also contemplates, as I touched on in my statement, adding to that Act by regulation, with subsequent approval by this Legislature, certain other practices that are found, in the wisdom of this House, to be not in the interest of the consumer.

Insofar as writing to Stelco, I would be prepared to write, but I question what validity my letter would have, in that I suppose I could be told -- although I wouldn’t anticipate such a response -- to mind my own business, because I have no legislation --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That should be the minister’s business.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No. Economic management does not happen to be within the purview of my ministry.

Mr. Lewis: Illegitimate price increases are.

Hon. Mr. Clement: My ministry is set up for consumer protection. But if the hon. member would like me to write the letter, I’d be glad to write the letter. But I don’t know what kind of response to anticipate.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): They wouldn’t support the minister anyway.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I suppose they would respond by saying they had voluntarily raised the wages of their workers some days ago and that this is reflected in the increases to some degree, as well as the other escalating costs of business.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Invite them to roll back the increases.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I wouldn’t want to put myself in the position of writing letters to every industry that happens to have a wage increase, because someone might ask me to write to every trade union that has a rate increase too.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe the minister should.

By way of a supplementary, since the minister’s field allegedly is protection of the consumer, since the first quarter rise in profits for Stelco in 1974 was 24 per cent and since the whole year’s rise in 1973 for the steel industry was 73 per cent -- and Stelco is the leader, the pace-setter in the industry -- who protects the consumer in Ontario from illegitimate price increases by steel companies if not the minister? And why won’t he haul them into his office and demand an explanation in defence of the consumer?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party knows my feelings on the taking of a quarterly annual statement, which is unaudited and reported in the press, and generalizing --

Mr. Lewis: That’s why I gave the income for the whole of 1973.

Hon. Mr. Clement: And I would like to point out the role of the consumer ministry to the leader of the New Democratic Party. My role is not to protect the consumer in each and every way --

Mr. Lewis: That is on the record.

Hon. Mr. Clement: My colleague, the Minister of Health, tries to protect the public through medical programmes.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): And it is most important the way this minister does it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am not protecting the consumer through policing programmes, or programmes that deal with those incarcerated for breaking the laws of this province. I’m dealing with the marketplace.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. And this is the marketplace for economic management.

An hon. member: What does the minister do?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am not dealing with the economic management of each and every industry within this province.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Clement: And I’ve said that before.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The hon. member knows the answer. The answer is Jim Gillies for finance.

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

PRICE INCREASES BY FORD MOTOR CO. OF CANADA LTD.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. Given the view of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that it’s not his responsibility to protect the consumer, and given the announced price increases by the Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. averaging $105 per unit, which would seem to make --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I understand that the leader of the New Democratic Party said I did not want to protect the consumer. I made no such statement. I said, as I recollect it, that every protection afforded the consumer was not within the purview of my ministry. There are certain other things besides consumer protection, which are provided in the statutes, for the protection of the consumer.

Mr. Lewis: Well, this is in the purview of this ministry.

Mr. Lawlor: This should be a part of this ministry’s purview.

Mr. Deans: This should be a part of it.

Mr. Lewis: Given the announced rise in the price and given the announced rise in the price per unit of production by Ford Co., will the Premier, either in defence of the auto pact or in defence of the consumer of Ontario, take it upon himself to demand from these companies an explanation for those price increases? If that explanation is not adequate for him, will he roll them back?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite delighted to communicate with both companies to gain an explanation as to the increase in price. I would have no reluctance to do that.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Is the Premier prepared to have his officials make some kind of calculation as to the effect of the steel price increase on all consumer products sold in Ontario, to determine what effect this will have on the cost of living in Ontario, and then take some action to ensure there is no price gouging at this particular point?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it would really be a very difficult undertaking to assess the impact on every consumer item which might be caused by an increase in the price of steel. As I said to the leader of the New Democratic Party, I have no reluctance to communicate with the Steel Co. of Canada to give it an opportunity to explain why there is the increase.

Mr. Lewis: Fine.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has already outlined one or two aspects, and I think all of us in this House would know of them. I think that at --

Mr. Lewis: Look at what it will do to the costs of Krauss-Maffei. There will be an increase of another 11 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t intend to get into a discussion of any particular programme.

Mr. Deans: And the cost of all building in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Obviously a price increase in any commodity is going to have an effect on some consumers; there’s no question about it.

Mr. Lewis: Not like steel!

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it’s also fair to state --

Mr. Deans: At the basic steel level, it is vital.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and the minister has referred to this, part of the cost increase in a lot of commodities these days --

Mr. Haggerty: They wouldn’t support it anyway.

An hon. member: Why doesn’t the government bring in --

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- do relate to wage settlements which have been made.

Mr. Deans: That’s not so.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is so.

Mr. Deans: That’s not so in this case.

STRIKE AT FORT FRANCES CLINIC

Mr. Lewis: I have one last question of the Minister of Labour.

What information does his ministry have on the strike at the Fort Frances clinic? How much is he now prepared to do and what are his mediators prepared to do to ask the doctors at the clinic to bargain in good faith?

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker: the issue there is a question of union security, I am informed. We are trying to set up a meeting early next week, as soon as we possibly can; we have tried already but there were reasons we couldn’t do it before today -- but early next week.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister not aware that the mediator has informed the CUPE local at Fort Frances that the doctors have refused to meet on Monday next when a meeting was set up? Why does he tolerate, in his ministry, this kind of flaunting of a certified union by management in this situation?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Just a minute; that’s not true.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, the senior officials of our department, I think, are very responsible people. They have to deal with two parties, of course, and they are trying to get both parties together. My information is they were unable to set up the meeting before early next week. They are still working on trying to find a date.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary?

Mr. Reid: Is the minister aware that his mediator was in touch with the two parties about an hour or two hours ago? One party couldn’t meet on one day; the other party couldn’t meet on the other suggested day, but they will arrive at a date. We don’t need this kind of problem in the free collective bargaining process brought into the Legislature.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): The member will take care of it; don’t worry.

Mr. Roy: If the member wants to know what is going on, he should ask the member for Rainy River.

Mr. B. Newman: He’ll take care of it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Ask the member for the riding.

Mr. Foulds: As the dispute has been going on since last November --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not the member for another riding.

Mr. Foulds: -- and as the doctors have failed to bargain in good faith for that time and are engaged in the crudest form of union busting, what consultations has the minister had with the Ministry of Health to stop the OHIP payments to the doctors until they reach a settlement with their employees?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Foulds: What consultations has he had with the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Foulds: -- to instruct the Crown attorney in Fort Frances to press charges against one of the doctors --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Foulds: -- who deliberately drove his car over the curb against one of the picketers?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Bring out the goons.

Mr. Martel: That’ll bring the member out.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, as a very important meeting will take place between both sides early next week, I think it would be preferable for me to make no comment at this stage.

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

Mr. Lewis: No.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Industry and Tourism has the answer to a question asked previously.

DAAL SPECIALTIES

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a question the member for Windsor-Walkerville asked my ministry about Daal Specialties Canada Ltd., whether my ministry had been approached by the people from Daal and if we’d been in touch with the Ministry of Labour.

The answer to the question is we have been dealing with the Ministry of Labour and we have been kept fully informed of the situation which has developed at Daal Specialties Canada Ltd.

The answer to the other part of the question is also yes. People representing my ministry in Windsor have been to the office of the company, have offered the assistance of our ministry and of the government. The firm has said there was nothing it required of the government at this time in relation to the closing of the operation. An official announcement of the closing of the Windsor plant was made in the local newspaper on May 3, and written notice from the company was received by the Ministry of Labour which in turn notified my ministry immediately.

I have been informed that a labour-management committee is presently being formed to assist the employees to find other employment and some of the employees will be offered jobs at the Collingwood plant of the same company. Prior to the operation being transferred to the Collingwood plant, which is presently operating at only 50 per cent of capacity, my ministry through our district representative is continuing our contact with the company to offer all possible assistance. It is my understanding that Mr. Al Watson of the Ministry of Labour is working closely with the company as well to try and resolve the problem.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications also has the answer to a question asked previously.

Then the member of Ottawa-East.

Mr. Roy: Let the minister make it quick.

EXTENSION OF QEW

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question asked by the hon. Leader of the Opposition:

“Can the Minister of Transportation and Communications give a report to the House on the government plans to expand the Queen Elizabeth Way from Hamilton or Burlington to Niagara Falls and Fort Erie? Is it a basic policy already accepted that there will be a 12-lane facility even over Burlington Bay in the future?”

Mr. Speaker, the overall plans or basic policy which has been accepted for the Queen Elizabeth Way call for a fully controlled, divided, maximum eight-lane freeway which is to be developed from its present four lanes in several stages depending on location and traffic needs.

From the Guelph Line in Burlington to the Stoney Creek traffic circle in Hamilton, additional right of way is to be acquired. The requirements have been made known to the public and the municipalities during the course of the recent feasibility study.

From Stoney Creek traffic circle to Fort Erie, nearly all the property required for the ultimate Queen Elizabeth Way development has already been acquired by the ministry.

With the exception of the Burlington to Hamilton section, the planning for the redevelopment of the QEW was carried out during the late 1960s. Overall environmental impact assessment as it is known today was not then part of the planning process. However, the need to minimize property-taking in valuable agricultural areas such as the Niagara fruit belt was fully recognized at that time. The ministry’s present policy calls for a review of the environmental impact of all significant projects and any future projects on the Queen Elizabeth Way will receive similar scrutiny.

With respect to this year’s budgeted improvements to the Hamilton to Fort Erie section of the Queen Elizabeth Way, work is under way at Grimsby, Lions Creek Rd. and Gilmour Rd., generating an anticipated expenditure of $4.5 million in the current year.

Work is planned to start on Highway 20, Beck Rd. and Baker Rd., at a total estimated cost in excess of $6 million, with approximately $2 million of expenditure expected this year.

The future development of the Queen Elizabeth Way is dependent on the growth of traffic and the province’s ability to provide funding in support of this programme.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I just want to ask the minister how many acres of land had to be acquired to fulfill the part of the programme that will be completed in the next year or two?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the member exactly how many acres. I understand all of this has been looked at in the feasibility study. I can try to get those figures as quickly as possible.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Since the minister has stated that the people of the beach strip in Hamilton are aware that property acquisition is now taking place, can he indicate whether in fact there has been a government decision with regard to the acquisition of the entire beach strip area because of the unserviceable nature of it and because of the difficulties encountered by the people who currently live there in terms of septic systems and flooding?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that answer at this time. I’ll get the information.

Mr. Haggerty: A supplementary: My question to the minister is, when is he going to remove that traffic circle at Stoney Creek? That’s a hazard and its removal should be one of the first steps in making improvements to the road.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give a specific date but I would be most happy to join with the hon. member and say that I hope it is real soon. I don’t like it either.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Have negotiations been completed with the CNR to get the CNR right of way taken over so the minister can in fact develop a controlled access interchange or overpass at the Stoney Creek traffic circle?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Again, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether they have been completed or not. I know they have been under way.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member for Ottawa East would wait for a moment. I’ll call him, but we do have another minister with an answer.

Mr. Roy: Which one, Mr. Speaker?

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

Interjections by hon. members.

PROPOSED RAILWAY LINE FROM STEEP ROCK MINES

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Thunder Bay asked the following question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications last Monday when I was not in the House, at which time the minister indicated that the matter was being handled by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

The question was:

“Is the minister in a position to state the status of negotiations going on between his ministry and Steep Rock iron mines as it pertains to Lake St. Joseph and CPR and Canadian National Railways with regard to the construction of a railway line from Steep Rock Mines at Lake St. Joseph to Savant Lake and possibly on to Ignace; and how soon will we get the decision whether or not the Ontario government is prepared to participate in such a venture.”

Mr. Speaker, the government, through an interministry committee which will report to me shortly, has been examining all aspects of developing the Lake St. Joseph area resource potentials. This interministry committee has representatives from various ministries, and other public and private agencies have also participated in the committee’s deliberations.

I should point out that no negotiations have been conducted with the CNR or CPR regarding the construction or operation of the earlier mentioned railway line.

Several exploratory discussions have been held with the CNR regarding their interest in perhaps building such a rail line. In any case, it is my understanding that the report from the committee will be ready very shortly, at which time the government, of course, will be in a better position to arrive at a decision in this matter.

Mr. Stokes: As a supplementary, in view of statements made by the chairman of the ONTC about their interest in seeing some development, is the resources policy field considering building a development road under the aegis of the ONTC or the MTC to open up that kind of development in that area?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it would be foolish of me to pre-empt the report. When the report comes in the cabinet will consider all aspects of it, and of course that will be one of the factors which will be taken into consideration as a possibility.

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

Mr. Roy: I’m in good shape. Mr. Speaker, a question of the --

Mr. Lewis: This had better bring the government down.

Mr. Roy: The member had better go out and help daddy.

DEATH OF TEENAGERS IN STOLEN CAR

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Transportation and Communications and it has to do with the recent inquest in Oakville in relation to the unfortunate death of eight teenagers on Feb. 25. It was one of the recommendations of the inquest that there be stricter control of car keys. My question, Mr. Speaker, of the minister is this: In the light of the fact that he is considering bringing in amendments to the Highway Traffic Act in relation to, let’s say, seatbelts, would he not consider it as a wise move to insert in there controls for car keys, making it in fact an offence under the Highway Traffic Act for one to leave his car keys in a motor vehicle when he parks it? It is an open invitation to young people to use these cars when the keys are in them.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a point that is well taken and is one that we certainly should be looking at. I am awaiting with interest the report from the inquest; once that has been sent to us we will look at it and I will certainly keep that particular suggestion in mind.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary: In light of the fact that the motor vehicle in question was a 1973 stationwagon and it was my understanding that they had sort of a buzzer that advised motorists that their keys were left in their vehicle, would the minister also look into the question of people who might disconnect this buzzer which activates when the keys are left in, and look at that aspect of control as well?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Pull the key out a little bit!

Mr. Stokes: The Solicitor General does it all the time.

Mr. Deans: The buzzer stops when you walk away.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, all of these matters can certainly be looked into. But I think I should point out that in this particular unfortunate incident, this car, as I understand it, was stolen from a used car lot, so obviously the keys had been left in at the used car lot. Once the door is closed the buzzer stops buzzing and that’s the way it is. I can see the member’s point if these are being disconnected, and perhaps we can look at that.

But the member is asking for some very regulatory legislation. We’d have to take a look and just see how acceptable it would be in the long term.

Mr. Roy: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: In relation to his comment of tougher legislation, does the minister not realize that in fact this is a problem which has existed for many years, the open invitation, let’s say, to the teenagers to go on joyrides? In fact the amendment brought to the Criminal Court for joyriding had that in mind; this matter should be looked at very carefully.

An hon. member: Make it a luncheon discussion.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I said I certainly will look into the suggestions that have been made by the hon. member.

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

EMPLOYMENT OF DEAF STUDENTS IN TIMMINS SWEEP PROJECTS

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is he aware of the allegations raised in a letter by a rehabilitation counsellor of the Canadian Hearing Society that three students from the Ontario School for the Deaf in Belleville have been rejected for employment under the SWEEP programme in the Timmins area solely on the grounds of their handicap, because particular people felt that it was to be a safety hazard. If he is not aware, will he make himself aware of this matter? And will he have a full investigation made of the circumstances to see if it would be possible for those three students to be employed in the SWEEP programme in the Timmins area?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the whole programme is set up through one of the branches of the ministry and I am not aware of the details of what the member is talking about. We will look into it and get a report back to him.

Mr. Stokes: We are talking about SWEEP.

Mr. Ferrier: As a supplementary, doesn’t the minister feel that programmes funded by public funds should be for the benefit, as far as feasible, of all the citizens of the province and should not discriminate unreasonably against people with a particular handicap?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we don’t discriminate in our ministry at all.

Mr. Martel: As of now.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS ON POWER CORRIDOR

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, if I could get his attention for a minute.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): It’s just work, work, work all day.

An hon. member: Is he getting ready for the federal election there?

Mr. Riddell: In light of the recent mail strike and the late arrival of mail to its destination, would the minister consider extending the deadline, which I understand is May 10, for submissions by those objecting to the power corridor from Nanticoke to Pickering? I’m thinking now of the town of Vaughan and King township? They were to have those submissions in by May 10.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): The member for Huron doesn’t have to worry about it.

Mr. Riddell: Some of them just got the letter two days ago.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how we get into King, but in any case it would seem to be reasonable that if there has been some delay due to the mails, of course we will give consideration to this.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for --

Mr. Lewis: Lakeshore.

Mr. Speaker: Lakeshore! I apologize.

SALE OF NOXIOUS CHEMICALS TO SCHOOL STUDENTS

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker; I accept your apology on this occasion. I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. What does the minister intend to do in a direct personal way within the ambit of his office about the substances being sold to students at school, by an outfit called Jokeland and other stores, which contain chemicals of a toxic and even lethal nature and which are disruptive of the schools and of business enterprises in the area -- consist largely of stink bombs, tear gas bombs, smoke bombs, itching powder, scratching powder and sneezing powder?

Mr. Roy: Shocking.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It sounds like an election coming up.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s a problem in Etobicoke, let me tell the minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, first I would like publicly to commend the member for Lakeshore for his investigations. I have noticed him squirming over there the last few days. In my very amateurish way, I felt he was trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to ask a question; or perhaps there was a hole in his pocket.

Mr. Lawlor: True! Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Never mind the question, the answer is much better.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Bearing in mind, sir, his age and his generally deplorable physical condition, I would assume that probably it was caused for some other reason.

Mr. Lewis: The minister had better stop.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The noxious substances to which the member has referred might well be subject to certain sanctions within the Criminal Code. I have received no complaints in connection with these various matters.

I thought perchance the member was going to refer to certain other items that were for sale in stores such as this, some of which I saw displayed when I walked down Yonge St. the other night. Because I had my children with me, I didn’t want to indicate my interest in them. I intend to double back when I am alone later on this week.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: The minister is going to regret that; he is going to regret that.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, supplementary: The minister does not certainly keep his nose very close to the ground. Would he be pleased to receive the 15 or so letters I have received on the matter so that he may investigate it?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Be sure they are well dusted off.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would be pleased to receive them and ascertain if there is any involvement which we can have. It might well be that certain other ministries might be involved too. Some of them, quite frankly, can be dangerous, from my reading of articles on them. Others, of course, are merely irritating; but if the hon. member will let me have the letters I will take a look at them and see what can be done.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It sounds like the opposition: One “dangerous” and the other “irritating.”

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

UNION GAS

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Has the minister appointed a new mediator to have Union Gas and union officials meet -- and is there any change in the status of that strike at this time?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Yes, Mr. Speaker; in the case of the strike at Union Gas, as the members know this strike has been going on for a little over three months. I am not only concerned but I would say disturbed that there has been so little progress in the last three months. I reviewed the situation yesterday with my senior officials and under my instructions I have asked all the bargaining committees to meet on Monday of next week in Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Energy: As a conservation policy, has the minister given any more thought to the suggestion I made last November regarding the reversal of Hydro rates so that the more one uses the higher the rate one pays?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, I haven’t particularly. I know this is a matter which the Hydro board has had under consideration, and in their rate proposals for 1974 there are in fact some changes in direction in terms of higher charges in certain areas which will affect the large users more than some of the small users. Hydro does have this matter in front of it and under consideration, as we do.

As I indicated before, this is by no means a proven fact either way. We know very little about the elasticity of demand in terms of price in the field of energy. We are following events and experiments in other areas with, frankly, more than a little bit of interest.

Perhaps they may change at some point in the future, but I don’t anticipate within the next two or three years that there will be any radical change in the policies which Ontario Hydro follows and which are generally followed by other utilities in this country and elsewhere.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I might point out to you, sir, and to the hon. members of the House, that in the gallery there are 50 students from John McGregor Secondary School from Chatham, in that great riding of Chatham-Kent.

Mr. Burr: I have a supplementary question: Is the minister aware of the statement by the vice-chairman of Hydro recently regarding this matter of reversal rates? He said:

“It would seem that it should be working the other way, that the first hydro you use each month should be cheap and then it should get more expensive.”

Is that an unreasonable statement?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would like to see the context in which it was given before I jump precipitously into the trap which the member may be laying for me.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

There are just a few moments left and I think we should suspend any supplementaries. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

PROCESSING OF SLUDGE

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. What is holding up the application of Pierre Phillippe, the man who has developed the process to make fertilizer from sludge and who wishes to expand his operation in the city of Windsor or in the environs so that he could use all of the sludge that is produced in the Windsor sewage treatment plant?

Mr. Roy: He could get a lot of sludge right here.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, while I recognize that to be a rather dirty question, I would have to ask to whom the application was made and when. I have no information on it, but would be glad to review it.

Mr. Roy: Oh, the minister is funny.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary of the minister.

Mr. Givens: Backbenchers opposite have got to learn to live with that.

Mr. B. Newman: The ministry received the application, from my understanding, quite some months ago. The man was to purchase property. An environmental hearing was held in March. To date he has not heard the results of the environmental hearing, but he has made the application to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, until the environmental people rule on the application, there will be no decision rendered by Ontario Development Corp. or any one of the other three bodies. We wait until confirmation and until a positive position has been taken by the ministries that are involved in the establishment of an industry in the province. When it has been taken, then we will review the application as to the possibility of a loan being granted to the applicant.

Mr. Speaker: The question time has now expired.

I am not sure that this microphone is now working but it seems to be all right.

An hon. member: It is working very well.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments.

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the city of Ottawa.

Your committee would recommend that the time for presenting reports by the committee be extended to Thursday, May 16, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the standing social development committee be authorized to sit concurrently with the House for consideration of Bill 22, the Health Disciplines Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to prohibit unfair Practices in Sales to Consumers.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT

Hon. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Business Corporations Act propose certain exemptions for companies incorporated in Ontario prior to April, 1966, but which are legally non-resident and do not carry on business in Ontario. Recent discussions by the private bills committee indicate a concern that Ontario shareholders of these companies were losing some protection as a result of our legislation. Our proposals hopefully will rectify this situation.

PAPERBACK AND PERIODICAL DISTRIBUTORS ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Paperback and Periodical Distributors Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, these amendments basically expand the definition of equity shares to cover the situation where shares may carry multiple votes.

MORTGAGE BROKERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Mortgage Brokers Act.

Motion agreed; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, these amendments are similar to those I’ve already touched on under the Paperback and Periodical Distributors Act.

COLLECTION AGENCIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Collection Agencies Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to bring into the statutes a policy of my ministry to the effect that one must be a Canadian resident in order to carry on business in Ontario as a collection agency.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, the present legislation determined how elections were to be held in the regional municipality for 1973 and 1974, but it does not clarify how they will be held in the future. Therefore, this bill allows the existing system to continue until it is altered by the Ontario Municipal Board.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Burr moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, the bill provides that where a person proposes to produce, supply or use atomic energy, certain information be available to the public concerning the person’s proposed operation.

Mr. Roy: The Minister of Energy wants a copy of that bill.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I know the members of the Legislature would want to welcome two school groups from northwestern Ontario -- one group of 35 students from the Evergreen Public School in Kenora, and another group of 36 students from grades 7 and 8 of the Eagle River Public School. Of course, they are down here through assistance from the Ministry of Education and the Young Travellers’ Programme. They will be in later; they are having a tour of the Legislature at the present time.

Mr. Speakers: Orders of the day.

LAND TRANSFER TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves second reading of Bill 54, An Act to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Why?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Why not?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, one can almost echo the point raised by the member for Riverdale and that is to ask why this is, in fact, necessary.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Nothing is going to be done in Ottawa; we’d better do something here.

Mr. Breithaupt: It has been interesting in discussing the matter with various civil servants and with other solicitors that there certainly are particular concerns which have existed in the various registry offices concerning the procedures which are to be followed in this overlapping period. I am advised that there is some confusion as to whether in fact these agreements are to be filed with the registrars of deeds, or whether in fact there is going to be a procedure by which the ministry can deal more efficiently with these matters.

I suppose, like many other things, the use of increasing amounts of paper will require in registry offices, as well as everywhere else, everything from more pencils to more filing cabinets. What does interest me, though, is to hear from the minister an explanation as to the reasoning behind this amendment so that the press, the legal profession, and indeed the registrars of deeds and their staffs may be entirely clear as to the reasoning behind the various filing procedures.

As I have said, it would appear to me that there is a confusion as to when the ministry is to be involved and when the registry offices are to be involved. I presume that they are trying to work things out as best they can and, at least in the registry offices, seek guidance from ministry officials or from those in the Attorney General’s department. I hope the result of this will be to clarify the matter and I invite the minister to make a definitive statement at this time as to the procedures so that all will know just what the intentions are.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I really don’t think the bill is worth debating because the whole Act is unconstitutional in the first instance. Whatever minor changes the minister may want to make in order to accommodate his friends in the business and financial community are particularly irrelevant to this party.

The bill is, in fact, unconstitutional. The original bill and the amendments certainly will not stand, having regard to the unconstitutionality of the original Act. He’s obviously been subjected to immense pressures from the business, financial and professional community in Toronto and he’s accommodated them. But that’s normal; that’s the way in which the Conservative government operates. We suppose the amendment to the bill.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, in this bill there are two matters in principle. I touched on the first one last week when I made a statement in the House. Perhaps the hon. member for Kitchener has not heard it and I’m not going to read it again. It’s in Hansard --

Mr. Renwick: I was here when the minister read it. It was vacuous then and is vacuous now.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- the members of the House can refer to that. But I would point out that this matter of May 16 came to my attention toward the end of the mail strike when the legal profession and all others who had acted -- and there were many private individuals as well -- who had been involved in various transactions in which there --

Mr. Renwick: That’s right. They circumvented the bill.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- may not have been registration of the documents, weren’t sure where they might put their hands on them. They knew there were outstanding commitments for sales and purchases at some later date and they were frantically trying to get in touch with their clients to determine whether they did or did not have some obligation to file the material with the ministry.

In reflecting on the problems that were then arising as a result of the disruption in the mails we got to considering whether we really needed any date at all. On further reflection we decided that not only was May 16 too close in, having regard to the problem of the mails, but rather we didn’t really need it at all. In some instances, it was drawn to my attention, there might well be agreements that wouldn’t come to light for perhaps years later but entered into validly at or prior to April 9.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, we love clandestine agreements entered into validly years earlier. That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well, they will have to satisfy the ministry as to the validity of the execution of the contract out of which the registration eventually arises. What we are saying here is that if there were adequate evidence that there existed a written agreement conveying or providing for the conveyance of the land at a definite price and so forth --

Mr. Renwick: We don’t trust the minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- and, if at that time the ministry can be satisfied, just as we would have to be satisfied under the present Act -- but the point is they would have had to dredge up these instruments and get them into our hands before May 16. So, it seemed appropriate, therefore, simply to alter this --

Mr. Renwick: It seemed appropriate to accommodate the professional community in downtown Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Meen: No. It seemed appropriate, Mr. Speaker, to eliminate a problem which we hadn’t really foreseen.

Mr. Renwick: Let’s stop the travesty of budget secrecy.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Perhaps in putting this Act together we might have anticipated that there would be agreements of this nature outstanding in various files, dead files. I wouldn’t be surprised if the hon. member for Riverdale might some day discover that he had such an agreement somewhere in one of his files that he’d long since forgotten about. He might turn out to be thankful, on behalf of his client and perhaps on his own part, that we had amended this section to remove that definitive date.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you. Flattery will get the minister nowhere. I never forget what is in my files because I always destroy them.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In any event, Mr. Speaker, that’s the purpose of this Act, to correct what otherwise would have been, I think, an unworkable situation in the existing legislation.

The hon. member for Kitchener did ask about the mechanism to be involved. We will have to spell out in regulation form the guidelines for this. But I have said in the past that the kind of evidence one would require -- and we will have people in the ministry examining these documents -- would either be an affidavit of execution, or if there was no affidavit of execution then possibly copies of correspondence between solicitors that would be sufficient evidence to satisfy us that the agreement had been entered into prior to the budget night. We’ll probably spell out those terms in regulation form within the next few weeks, I would hope -- certainly as quickly as possible.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might just ask a question of the minister, if he will accept one. That is, with respect to --

Mr. Renwick: We are going to put it into committee, so the member will have ample opportunity to ask him.

Mr. Breithaupt: Oh, very well.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Renwick: 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.

Bill 25, An Act to impose a tax on --

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, with the concurrence of the committee, I would like to go on with Bill 54, if possible.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman, the order of business was called and the minister asked for concurrence. I refuse concurrence.

Mr. Chairman: The minister at the present time is the House leader. I place no motion before the House myself.

Mr. Renwick: Do you mean that the sole surviving minister in the Tory government is now not only the acting Premier, the House leader, the Minister of Revenue and --

An hon. member: And the whip.

An hon. member: The Attorney General.

Mr. Renwick: I’m concerned that there is no quorum. I ask for a quorum count, please.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, there are 18 members present.

Mr. Chairman ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, there’s a quorum present.

Mr. Chairman: We have a quorum; so we will proceed. Call Bill 54.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: You’re going to call Bill 54, despite the fact that the order of business was the other bill. Is that correct?

Mr. Chairman: Wait a minute. I understand the House leader of that moment called Bill 54, and you called for a quorum. There has been no change in that.

Mr. Renwick: Why doesn’t the House leader of the moment at this time call the business of the House?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Chairman, I called item 12. I understand, unless I am a mile-wide wrong, that this was communicated before the House was opened. Regrettably for me, I was attending --

Mr. Renwick: Oh, we understand.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- in Her Honour’s chamber for royal assent and couldn’t be here for that moment, but this seems to be the order of the way the opposition’s acting.

Mr. Renwick: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Committee of the whole House was properly called and the hon. minister indicated we would study Bill 54 at this time.

Mr. Renwick: Is that right? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: That is now before us.

Mr. Renwick: I am, of course, content.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): We are delighted.

LAND TRANSFER TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill 54, An Act to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments, questions or amendments on this bill?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the proposed bill which is before us amends a bill. I would like to ask the chairman of the House, has the Land Transfer Tax Act, 1974, been given royal assent?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I am informed that it has been given royal assent.

Mr. Renwick: On what date was it given royal assent?

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Just a moment ago?

Mr. Chairman: We’ll have the date for you in just a moment.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: On April 26, 1974.

Mr. Renwick: On April 26. And what is the date today, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: May 9.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): On Friday at 11 o’clock that was given royal assent.

Mr. Renwick: That’s April 26. I think there are 30 days in May, eh?

An hon. member: There are 31.

Mr. Breithaupt: There are 30 in April.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right, 30 in April and 31 in May. There were four days in April and it’s now May 9; that’s 13 days. That’s a lucky day for the Tory government -- 13 days. They’re now asking us to assent to an amendment to the bill which had so much preparation in advance by the Treasurer (Mr. White) when he introduced the bill. And, of course, the Treasurer is never here when the bills implementing the policies of the government are before the House. We have the technician available to the assembly in the person of the Minister of Revenue to introduce these amendments.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would you indicate the section of the bill you are on?

Mr. Renwick: Section 17 of the Act.

Mr. Breithaupt: He’s on the title, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Section 1, 2 or 3?

Mr. Renwick: Clause 1 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Clause 1 of the bill.

Mr. Renwick: If you want me to debate clause 2, I will.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Renwick: Or 3.

Mr. Chairman: Well, we should be debating the amendment before us, I respectfully suggest.

Mr. Renwick: Let’s deal with clause 1. How would that be? The technician, that is, the Minister of Revenue, who is now charged with piloting this bill through the House, has no responsibility --

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): None at all.

Mr. Renwick: -- for the policy which is involved in it. I reiterate what I said on second reading of the bill and on second reading of the predecessor bill, which is being amended, that it’s unconstitutional anyway, so I shouldn’t really waste my time about it. The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Revenue, disguising it behind the question of the mail strike, has bowed again to the professional community in the Province of Ontario to enable it to enlarge the loopholes under which the tax imposed by the bill will be circumvented.

That’s all right. I don’t credit the minister with bad faith. I don’t credit him with misunderstanding what is going to be done in the legal profession. I belong to that profession, and I worked in the business community. I know all of the legerdemain, l-e-d-g-e-r hyphen main.

Mr. Breithaupt: You are fooling around with hyphens.

Mr. Renwick: I’m bilingual.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s French for “tomorrow’s books.”

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communication): Is that the same as “leisure”?

Mr. Renwick: I know what it’s all about and I will be able --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: The minister is quite right. In every corporate file in every corporate law firm in the city of Toronto and the environs, e-n-v-i-r-o-n-s, contiguous and adjacent to the city of Toronto, including Metropolitan Toronto --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Spell “contiguous.”

Mr. Renwick: c-o-n-t-i-g --

An hon. member: u-o-u-s.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: As a matter of fact, I remember once in senior fourth --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: That was before the time of everybody but the hon. member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell). Before his time and my time it was called senior courses. I remember the competitive challenge that I was faced with at that time when I was the sole survivor on one side and there was a woman on the other side. She was 12.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): What was the word?

Mr. Renwick: I was 13. I was asked what was the most westerly city in Canada. I said, “Probably Prince Rupert,” she said “Vancouver”; and I won.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: I received the same resounding applause then as I just did.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: And it has been downhill ever since.

Mr. Renwick: Don’t you worry, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Revenue knows very well that in the antiquity of the legal firms, years from now there will be found documents bearing the proper date. They will come in and judiciously the then Minister of Revenue, because it certainly won’t be this one --

An hon. member: Can the hon. member see that far off?

Mr. Renwick: And so far as protection of the revenue is concerned I only hope it is the NDP Minister of Revenue who is in the office at that time -- the minister will be provided with the kind of information which will permit him to make the decision that: “Yes, of course, that document was properly executed prior to the date upon which the tax was levied.” And the minister will, as others have done, simply say: “Everything on the record is perfectly correct.”

Mr. Chairman, I am simply saying to the minister we do not agree with fooling around with dates upon which taxes are going to be imposed because of the convenience of the legal and accounting and business community of the city of Toronto. That is the only reason this amendment is here and the minister knows that.

The minister believes in something called the good faith of the legal, accounting, financial, commercial and business community. I think it is about time that the Tory government and the counterpart Liberal government in Ottawa, each of which is indistinguishable, should understand that there is no such thing except good manners involved in that operation.

It is not a question of proof. It is not something which must go before a judge for a determination. It is not a question on which the evidence is going to be weighed pro and con. Nobody is going to appear on behalf of the taxpayer. The tax collector, who is in cahoots with the business and professional community, will make the decision. And the ministry has the nerve -- and I forget the number of days -- 13 days later to come back in and to tell us -- and as a matter of fact if my memory serves me correctly it is exactly one month from the day on which the budget was introduced, April 9 --

Mr. Gaunt: April 9.

Mr. Renwick: And this is May 9, is it?

An hon. member: Exactly right.

Mr. Renwick: That is right. I think the hon. member for Sarnia informed me there were 30 days in April.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): It was the hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Renwick: The hon. member for Kitchener; his arithmetic is impeccable.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Like your spelling, isn’t it?

Mr. Renwick: But that is what is going to take place.

I don’t know whether the Minister of Revenue understands, we in this party dissociate ourselves from White liberalism disguised as Progressive Conservatism in the Province of Ontario --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Only since yesterday.

Mr. Renwick: -- or as Liberalism in Ottawa. We don’t believe it. We don’t believe in the good manners of the business community. I have practised law long enough to know that if there is any profession capable of erudition, rationalization and, if my colleague from Lakeshore were here, Thomism -- they can change by sophistry and casuistry the date on which the actual documents were signed by the people involved to any date they want, including a date prior to the present method of calculating the date.

I have overstated the situation. Do you know why I have overstated it? Because I am sick and tired of the government playing games with us about the public business. You either impose the tax -- you deal with the tax and you legislate the tax and the vote is passed -- but you don’t play games about it. The ministry is playing games. They have played games since the budget and they are now playing games with this amendment. We, in this party, are simply tired; and should, perhaps, there be another member of the New Democratic Party available --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Renwick: So that we have five people in the House.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: My friend has made a killing in the poultry market recently. I have stopped eating chicken and eating eggs, I don’t know what the hell I am going to eat but I have stopped eating that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You should try eating; I will go along with that.

Mr. Renwick: I am just going to walk along with him on his way to the bank.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: It would be nice to be with you. Could we have another Hydro committee this summer so that we could have a little chicken together; or a little crow?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: Probably there will be five of us in the House in a minute.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: You are going to vote with us? Thank you, that’s fine. Thank you very much.

The minister knows what I am talking about. I sometimes talk seriously in my usual inimitable facetious style, which is dreadfully heavy but very pleasant for me on occasion.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Are you going to spell facetious for the benefit of Hansard?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, the minister knows. Mr. Chairman, there are a very few people in the House who understand how you distinguish my riding of Riverdale from the riding of my colleague, the minister and member for York East.

Mr. Chairman: Is that in section 1?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, it is. It’s a very valuable piece of information because when you are canvassing, as my colleague and I have done and undoubtedly will do again, the way you tell when you have left the city of Toronto and arrived in York East is that in the city of Toronto the fire hydrants are painted green on the bottom with yellow tops and in York East the fire hydrants are yellow on the bottom and green on the top.

An hon. member: It all depends what side you are on.

Hon. Mr. Meen: You can also tell by the way the sidewalks change.

Mr. Renwick: You have never understood that.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Sure; haven’t you ever noticed how the sidewalks change?

Mr. Renwick: Have you, unknowing to me, been coming into my territory and canvassing?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I canvassed on your behalf.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: On your behalf.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you. It is very nice to have your support.

Mr. Chairman: He may even have turned on your fire hydrants.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I wish you would tell me what’s the matter with the bill.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, referring to section 17 of the bill, I think I have made my comments clear to the minister. I think he understands that we don’t agree with tampering with tax bills. The government, you know, gives immense thought to the budget as a propaganda instrument; it gives no thought to the instrumentalities by which it is going to impose the tax.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That is your biggest problem.

Mr. Renwick: The budget papers contain no study papers with reference to the Land Transfer Tax Act. The budget papers contain no reference to changing the date upon which agreements will be recognized as being valid for the purpose of escaping the tax.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Reinforcements have arrived.

Mr. Renwick: Thank God.

The tax itself is unconstitutional and I do not agree and our party does not agree with the proposition because, I say to the minister, no one except the professional accounting, legal and financial community has made any representation to the minister. I defy him to produce any other information to the House and, if he has that information, to table the correspondence so we can look at it. He gave the lie to his argument a little while ago by referring to the day, years hence, when I will find documents in my file that happen to be conveniently dated to avoid the tax.

I don’t know whether the Minister of Revenue was present in 1789 when the guillotine was instituted, but so far as taxes are concerned that’s the way the minister levies them -- he levies them and nobody can squirm out from under them. But the minister is allowing his friends and the friends of the Tory party to squirm out from under the impact of this particular tax, unconstitutional as it obviously is.

We will oppose the amendments to the bill, and as a matter of fact I think we will not only stack the votes but we will have some comments about section 2 and section 3 as well.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on section 1? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well, Mr. Chairman, with respect, I suggest to the hon. member for Riverdale that we haven’t enlarged the loophole. I think what would happen would be there would be a continuation of the turmoil created by the fixing of this date. For years, I suspect, lawyers wouldn’t know just what they should be doing with their old files.

It seems appropriate to remove that date. The tests would still be the same, regardless of whether the documents were produced to the ministry any time between now and the 16th or some date after the 16th.

I might point out that the federal capital gains tax relies on records that may well go back over years, and I suppose if one is about to falsify records he’ll falsify records for capital gains tax purposes or for whatever reason. I don’t see that there is any significant difference between the possible abuse suggested by the member for Riverdale and that kind of situation. I don’t think there is any significant difference.

It seems to me that if we can avoid putting impediments in the way of the orderly conduct of proper and legitimate business, then it behoves us to do so -- and why put unnecessary roadblocks in the way?

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of section 1 standing as part of the bill will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

I understand that we will stack this with any future vote on this bill. Is that correct?

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I think we might as well vote now.

Mr. Renwick: I think we will vote now, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Hadn’t your House leader agreed to stack it with any other vote on this bill?

Mr. Renwick: My House leader and I are in constant communication.

Mr. Chairman: I understand it is stacked then.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 2 stand as part of the bill?

Section 2 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 3 stand as part of the bill?

Section 3 agreed to.

The committee divided on whether section 1 should stand as part of the bill, which was approved on the following vote.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 67, the “nays” are 15.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be reported? Carried.

Bill 54 reported.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House reports one bill without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion.

Bill 54, An Act to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act, 1974.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): We support the third reading.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour has assented:

Bill 14, An Act to amend the Territorial Divisions Act.

Bill 23, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk Act, 1973.

Bill 31, An Act to provide for the Annexation of certain Lands to the city of Cornwall.

Bill 33, An Act to amend the Ontario Educational Communications Authority Act.

Bill 34, An Act to amend the Master and Fellows of Massey College Act, 1960-61.

Bill 36, An Act to amend the Ministry of Housing Act, 1973.

Bill 53, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act.

Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the city of Niagara Falls.

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the town of Oakville.

Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the city of Toronto.

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

LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT

Clerk of the House: House in committee on Bill 25, An Act to impose a Tax on speculative Profits resulting from the Disposition of Land.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 25 then; the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen moves that the reprinted copy of the bill be the copy considered by the committee.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: On the bill then.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): On a point of order, perhaps you could direct me, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to understand how we can give that particular nomenclature to the bill when we haven’t amended it yet?

Mr. Chairman: It was requested by a number of people on all sides of the House that for the easier consideration of the bill the amendments be incorporated in a reprinted bill. The motion has been put and carried, that this bill shall be the one that shall be considered.

Mr. Bullbrook: With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, you realize that’s wrong.

Mr. Chairman: No, it is firmly established in precedent.

Mr. Bullbrook: What is firmly established?

Mr. Chairman: The matter of considering a reprinted bill.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman, it was a motion, as I understand it, by the Minister of Revenue. Is that right?

Mr. Chairman: It was put, placed and carried.

Mr. Renwick: It was carried? Didn’t we object to it?

Mr. Chairman: Any comments, questions, --

Mr. Bullbrook: As a point of order, just what was carried?

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): If you were here, you would know.

Mr. Bullbrook: Where did you come from?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister had moved that the reprinted bill be the bill that we consider before the House.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to a point of order? I am serious about this point of order. I want to know how the Clerk of the House can read out consideration in committee of An Act to impose a Tax on Land in respect of certain speculative Transactions affecting the Control or Ownership of Land, when there is no such Act?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): He didn’t say that.

Mr. Chairman: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: This is what I asked. This is why I got up on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman: If I may clarify that, the Clerk did not read that.

Mr. Bullbrook: What did the Clerk read then?

Mr. Chairman: The Clerk read An Act to impose a Tax on speculative Profits resulting from the Disposition of Land, Bill 25.

Mr. Bullbrook: All right, okay; and then what happened?

Mr. Chairman: Then the minister rose to move that the bill as amended, as we discussed the other day, would be the bill that would be considered.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): All right. Now on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I heard you start to say: “Are there any comments, etc., on any of the sections.”

Mr. Chairman: Had I got that far?

Mr. Singer: I think that is improper. I think you have to deal with each addition, because we are replacing all these things with hands and arrows and underlining. We are substituting those for what was in the old Act. So you have to call each of those or the minister has to present each one of those as an amendment. Right?

Mr. Chairman: No, no.

Mr. Singer: Oh yes; indeed he does. Merely putting them on this paper and our agreeing to consider the bill as reprinted does not mean the amendments are before the House. You have to put each amendment; let’s have the minister move it and we will see whether or not the House likes it.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Chairman, if I might raise another point of order, I thought the Clerk read --

Mr. I. Deans (Went worth): How about dealing with the one that’s been raised first?

Mr. Roy: No, no; this --

Mr. Chairman: Let’s stay on this one first.

Mr. Roy: Just a second. This point of order has to do with even the title of this thing, because --

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Deans: Surely you can’t have two points of order before you at the same time?

Mr. Roy: The title was amended and passed.

Mr. Singer: No, no.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order. I wouldn’t want the member for Ottawa East to misunderstand it. We don’t want to speed this thing up too much. Let’s take them one at a time.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding the other day that the minister proposed an amendment to the title calling it “disposition”; we had a vote on it and it was passed.

Mr. Chairman: I’ll call each one in order. The vote was on section 1, subsection 2.

Mr. Singer: You’ll have to call each one as an amendment, and/or underlinings; or whatever they are.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. In my opinion, when the House accepted the motion to study this --

Mr. Singer: To study it, but there are no amendments before us.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. As amended, as it’s reprinted, that in effect is placing each amendment en masse.

Mr. Singer: That isn’t it at all. It’s merely a matter of convenience.

Mr. Chairman: And by carrying each section it automatically takes care of the amendment.

Mr. Singer: They’re each an individual thing.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, it can’t be that way, simply because on second reading we passed a bill in principle which is considerably different from the bill that’s before us; and in order to have this bill passed it must be necessary for each section to be moved independent of and compared with the previous section.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: It doesn’t actually preclude the minister from having to move each amendment individually. We’ll have to carry each one.

Mr. Deans: That’s right. You’ll have to move and carry each one.

Mr. Chairman: I’ll ask you, for instance, in section 1, 1(a) or 1(c), whatever the proper --

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Chairman, on this point of order --

Mr. Chairman: Order please. I’m not finished speaking.

For example, on the title! I’ll ask shall the title stand as part of the bill, and it’s up to the House to decide whether it shall or not.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): That’s good. That’s what we want to be asked.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: With respect, Mr. Chairman, we have a bill here, and for the sake of convenience the House gave consent to consider a reprint with amendments in it. There is no amendment in fact put before the House unless the minister rises in his place and puts each amendment. Unless he does that you just can’t deal with the bill that way. We haven’t got an amended bill here in front of us at all unless each amendment is put.

Mr. Deans: Individually.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman: on this point of order, I think there was a very related precedent set last year with the University of Waterloo bill, in which the then Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. McNie) entered about a dozen amendments into a bill after the first printing and advertising. The only way it could be dealt with was that he had to introduce a new bill including all the amendments which had to be debated, or all of his amendments had to have the consent of the standing committee that was dealing with the bill.

The same situation exists here. We have to approve the amendments introduced by the minister. I think the main purpose of reprinting the bill was to facilitate the mechanics of the passage of the amendments. We couldn’t deal with them in any other manner. So either we have to introduce this as a new bill and go through everything; or we have to continue with the amendments individually and vote on them.

Mr. Singer: Right.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Chairman, with respect, the hon. member for Waterloo North is referring to the procedure under the private bills committee and the requirements for advertising and the like. In the case he’s speaking of, if memory serves me, there was a ruling that there was inadequate advertising, so they had to go through the whole procedure again. But that has nothing whatever to do with this procedure. What we have before us today is a reprinted Bill 25 that incorporates the various amendments which I gave to hon. members of the House on Tuesday.

Mr. Renwick: Was this a private bill?

Mr. Singer: They were never approved. They are not before the House.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: At their request, and I acceded to that request, we incorporated those amendments into this now reprinted copy of the bill for the convenience of the members here today. As I understand the rules of the House -- and, Mr. Chairman, you can correct me if I’m wrong -- once this bill as printed in this form as before you was moved, as I have done, and the House carried it, that --

Mr. Bullbrook: No; we didn’t carry it. That’s the thing.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- that it be used for the purpose of consideration of the committee, that then you may deal with each of these sections and subsections wherever there has been an amendment, or indeed on through every one of the sections and subsections whether amended or not, in the usual form. The hands indicating any changes, therefore, are for the benefit of the members so they can debate the matter.

Mr. Bullbrook: No, no. That’s why I rose on the point of order. I want to say to you, sir, I want you to know unequivocally, that that’s why I rose on the point of order. I wanted to know what the order of business was. I still don’t know the nature of the motion that was carried without consideration by the House.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Lawlor: My point was precisely the same, Mr. Chairman. What was the order? What is the interpretation or construction of that particular motion? It couldn’t possibly be what the minister has just put before us. We would not accept that. We were trying to accommodate the minister, but not that kind of flim-flam.

Mr. Singer: No, sir.

Mr. Roy: How would you like to have a vote without ringing the bell?

Mr. Singer: No, we will ring the bell.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. This procedure was established in previous years. I remember it quite distinctly.

Mr. Singer: This has never been done this way.

Mr. Chairman: Yes it has.

Mr. Singer: Never.

Mr. Renwick: Not in the time I have been here.

Mr. Chairman: However --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me, I haven’t participated in the point of order yet. I will simply draw to your attention, sir, that the only time a bill with the amendments in this form is put forward, without the amendments having been placed, is if they actually come from a committee discussion.

Some hon. members: Right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are in a committee discussion now and I would ask you, and I would certainly ask the minister, not to hold up the proceedings any further, but to allow us to use this reprinted bill --

Mr. Renwick: The minister has caused enough trouble already.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- as a convenience, surely, with the amendments that he is proposing. But he must surely move the amendments before the House, have the Chairman put them, have a debate and a discussion -- perhaps a division -- and move through the bill step by step in that way.

An hon. member: Right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, if you so rule I will be content to do that. But as I understand the practice, that was not the requirement.

Mr. Roy: Why does he argue?

Mr. Bullbrook: Move the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Meen: If they want me to go through that routine, I will, but I don’t think that is the practice.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: Start with the title.

Mr. Chairman: Order please, I am sure I remember having done it the other way. To make myself clear -- and I’ll make my ruling in a moment -- I’m sure I recall, I could be mistaken because we are all human, but it seems to me that when the minister moved that this bill be the one to be considered rather than the combination of the old bill and a mass of amendments on separate pieces of paper, that automatically, in effect, places all the amendments.

If you wish, you can do it the other way and have each amendment proposed. They are all clearly marked out, it just takes a little longer; it accomplishes the same thing in the end. Is that the wish of the House?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: All right. The first amendment, then, is to the title.

Hon. Mr. Meen moves that the long title of Bill 25 be struck out and the following substituted, therefor: An Act to Impose a Tax on Land in respect of Certain Speculative Transactions Affecting the Control and Ownership of Land.

Mr. Roy: That wasn’t very definite.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the motion be carried?

Mr. Singer: No. Mr. Chairman, we had a long debate on the minister’s first change of title on Tuesday. After a division it was carried, and then the minister came in with a second change.

Mr. Chairman: May I rule on that? Really, in that case, then, if we are going back to the original procedure I ruled on that situation where we left it. If you recall, I told members the basis of my ruling.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, that is correct, you did.

Mr. Chairman: I had a ruling here.

As was just mentioned, the question was raised on Tuesday as to whether or not the title of the bill could properly be the subject of an amending motion. I ruled at that time there is no question that the title, being part of the bill, can be amended the same as any other part.

There have been a number of occasions when titles of Acts in the statutes have been changed by an amending bill. And as the hon. member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon) pointed out, and it was brought to our attention, there was a case in 1966 when the proposed new title of the Department of Agriculture Act was changed by amendment in committee from the Department of Food and Agriculture Act, to the Department of Agriculture and Food Act.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No change in principle there.

Mr. Chairman: When the second amendment to the title was then proposed and a lengthy debate ensued, you will recall I decided to reserve ruling on that matter. Not because there was any doubt about the authority of the committee to amend the title, but to give myself some opportunity in a somewhat more relaxed atmosphere to decide whether the proposed amendment could in any way affect the principle of the bill.

As the proposed new title appears to explain the purpose of the bill as set out in the explanatory notes, I am of the opinion that it cannot be considered to affect the principle. I therefore rule the amendment in order, as proposed at that time.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: You may discuss that -- not the ruling but the amendment.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I find it a little difficult to follow that; not only the ruling but particularly the purpose that lies in the minister’s mind.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order --

Mr. Bullbrook: We don’t challenge rulings lightly.

Mr. Renwick: I am not questioning your ruling. I want to resolve in my own mind the inherent contradiction which is involved in the decisions which you made last week. As I recall it, when this matter was before us, you ruled that the amendment to the title was in order --

Mr. Chairman: I ruled it was proper to make an amendment.

Mr. Renwick: Yes. Your ruling was challenged and you were upheld by vote of the House. Then the minister introduced the amendment, and then he introduced what I understood was a sub-amendment.

Mr. Singer: Right. It was seconded.

Mr. Renwick: Your real question was about the sub-amendment, as I understand it; that was the matter on which you reserved your decision.

Mr. Chairman: If I may explain it; it wasn’t as to whether or not it was proper to do that but as to whether it might change the principle of the bill. I have ruled now that it did not change the principle of the bill.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, again from the point of view of clarifying, as you may understand, my own rather confused thinking about this matter, what you are saying is that the substantive change originally made by my friend, the Minister of Revenue, was all right but the sub-amendment was all wrong?

Mr. Chairman: No, I didn’t say that.

Mr. Renwick: The words now in the bill are “speculative transactions,” and that was the motion by the minister for the sub-amendment.

Mr. Chairman: No, I held my decision over as to whether the sub-amendment changed the principle of the bill. I ruled today, upon reflection, that it did not change the principle of the bill and therefore is in order.

Mr. Renwick: May I ask a further question, Mr. Chairman? Did you receive an opinion of the law officers of the Crown with respect to this matter, and if so would you read it to us?

Mr. Chairman: In consultation with others, I came to this conclusion.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, you are an officer of the House; you are not a member of the government. If you have received, on behalf of the House, an opinion of the law officers of the Crown on this question, I think we are entitled to have that opinion read to us and to have it as part of the proceedings of the House.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. You are questioning my ruling now and it is out of order. I have come to this conclusion and the amendment to the amendment is in order. If you wish to discuss the amendment to the amendment, we may proceed. If not --

Mr. Singer: No, having got to that stage, Mr. Chairman, I would like some kind of an explanation from the minister, because I think it is about time the government laid all its cards on the table. Why has he piddled about --

Mr. Renwick: Face up.

Mr. Singer: -- with the tide unless he is prepared to admit to us there now exists in the minds of the ministry some very substantial doubt as to whether or not the income tax officials of Canada will allow the tax intended to be imposed by this statute as a deductible business expense? It has nothing to do with constitutionality at all. I want to know why and how and for what reason you think you can bring a bill like this before us without taking the basic step of contacting the responsible minister in Ottawa, be he the Minister of Revenue or be he the Minister of Finance or the deputy minister.

Mr. Drea: They aren’t ministers now.

Mr. Singer: They are still ministers and they will still be ministers after July 9.

Mr. Roy: I hope you go campaigning for him because it is going to help him.

Mr. Drea: I don’t lose nominations; now be a good boy.

Mr. Roy: Never mind, you’ll lose your seat next time.

Mr. Singer: I want to know, Mr. Chairman, how this bill can come before us, intending to impose a tax in the manner proposed in the statute, without the minister being able to tell us he has approached the people in Ottawa who would make these decisions and had a ruling from them. If he can’t explain that, then there is no point in dealing with this bill at all. Because if this tax is not allowed as a business expense, if this bill passes, the government of Ontario will be imposing a tax in certain instances as high as 112 per cent of the amount to be taxed, which is confiscatory and ridiculous.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, this minister or his deputy or his senior official could have gone to Ottawa in the time this bill has been before the House, since April 9 -- or the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. White) or his deputy could have gone -- and could have got some sort of ruling. They could have spoken to Mr. Gray or Mr. Turner or the deputy ministers of either of those people. Perhaps they could have gone to the technical interpretation section of the Department of National Revenue and got an opinion. Perhaps they could have gone and got a ruling from the income tax people; those things are known. Or, Mr. Chairman, somebody could have picked up the phone and said: “This is the government of Ontario. This is what we propose to do. What is your attitude going to be about it?” And unless or until that kind of information can come forward in a definitive statement -- not in shilly-shallying or in fake stories about constitutionality, but in a definitive statement -- there really is no point in considering this bill because we don’t know what kind of a bill we are considering. Are we talking about a bill that will impose a tax of 50 per cent of profits or are we talking about a bill that is going to end up imposing a tax of 112 per cent? I think the people of Ontario are entitled to know.

Mr. Lawlor: We are going to have to vote against it.

Mr. Singer: And I think it’s up to the minister to explain and to come clean at long last --

An hon. member: Come clean!

Mr. Singer: -- with this House and with the people of the Province of Ontario and tell us what kind of a ruling he has from the people in Ottawa.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, in the course of the time that this bill has been stood down, one ruminates on the very question which the member for Downsview again raises in the Legislature and which goes to the root of the problem.

The ministry -- at least the minister hasn’t done us the courtesy of providing us with the information -- cannot even give us the decision, section by section, under which this tax will be deductible even under the Corporations Tax Act of the Province of Ontario. They cannot even correlate this particular --

Mr. Bullbrook: Maybe he can. Ask him. Ask him today if he can. He’s had time to find out.

Mr. Renwick: He’s had time to find out but he obviously hasn’t. He thinks that in his unlimited discretion he will be able to allow the deduction of this tax for corporations tax purposes in Ontario --

Mr. Singer: He doesn’t know the rules of the game, more than anything.

Mr. Renwick: But there is no such discretion vested in the minister. He is not anointed to do that kind of thing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In fact he cannot make any policy at all.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): He’s not anointed for anything in my observation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But he won’t be responsible for policy.

Mr. Renwick: There is no question whatsoever that the conservative backbench members of the Conservative Party will not lend themselves to imposing a tax without debating the tax if it is confiscatory, which it would be if it is not deductible either for Ontario corporations tax purposes or for federal tax purposes. Now unless there has been some change since we last debated this bill, the minister has told us that he had no communication with the government in Ottawa. He told us that he thought it was deductible for corporations tax purposes --

An hon. member: There is no government.

Mr. Singer: There is no Parliament, but there is still a government. The hon. member had better go back to the textbooks.

Mr. Renwick: But there is no way in which it is deductible. There is no general principle in the Province of Ontario that if it levies a tax, that automatically that tax is deductible. There has to be a specific section, either of the Income Tax Act of Canada and/or of the Corporations Tax Act of Ontario, under which the matter can be deducted.

As I say, we all have our bibles. I happen to have the 22nd edition of Gilmour’s handbook, and if the minister will look at the index and the headings and read the book, there is nothing which provides for a deduction of an Ontario tax unless that tax is specifically identifiable, either in the statute or in the regulations, and it is not so specifically identifiable.

We cannot possibly vote on a change in the heading of the Act if the minister cannot satisfy us about this matter.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, the rulings from Ottawa in the past have been that costs directly related to any particular transaction are deductible as an expense of that transaction. When they are not related to the tax picture of the corporation for its fiscal year, or of an individual for his taxation year, then they are related to the transaction itself; as, for example, the land transfer tax that is payable on an ordinary transaction and the cost of one’s legal fees when the transaction is being completed. All of these things are appropriate deductions before computation of tax. Our provincial corporations tax sections are virtually identical to the federal tax sections in this regard. We think --

Mr. Cassidy: You think?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- that it is quite appropriate indeed that, barring some ruling to the contrary --

Mr. Singer: Oh come on. Barring some ruling to the contrary!

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- we are entitled to proceed in the future on the basis of the laws as they stand at present and as they have been interpreted.

Mr. Bullbrook: Interpreted by whom?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Obviously we could not submit the draft bill to our colleagues in Ottawa --

Mr. Singer: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- before April 9. And now, of course, I suppose it’s fair to say there’s no one up there to whom to submit them.

Mr. Singer: Come on!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, there is!

Mr. Bullbrook: You could go up there and ask.

Mr. Drea: There is no government there now.

Mr. Bullbrook: He is as crazy as you are to take the attitude that there is no government. There is no Parliament.

Mr. Drea: Be very careful about using those words about me.

Mr. Singer: He is as crazy as you are. There is always a government.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In any event, the Minister of Finance of Canada was asked, a week ago Tuesday, what his position was, and a week ago Tuesday, he advised the House in answer to that question in the Commons that until he saw a final copy of the bill he was not prepared to make any ruling. Consequently, we are left to proceed on the assumption that the law will remain as it is at present.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to go ahead just for a moment. May I say that for you as a minister of the Crown to infer for even one moment that in view of the fact that there might not be someone there, you hesitate to approach Ottawa at the present time to make some definitive conclusion from the federal point of view as to the impact of this statute, is almost as incredible as the comment made by the hon. member for Scarborough Centre? There’s always a government with which you will deal.

But I want to reiterate something that has been said by my colleagues on several occasions, and that is the gloss of the Treasurer standing there on April 9 and pointing up to his guests, approximately 60 of them --

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): In the Speaker’s gallery.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- in the Speaker’s gallery, and saying: “Now, we’ll give you the pronouncement.” The fact of the matter is that it was nothing but gloss, Mr. Chairman -- nothing but gloss.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Will you speak to the amendment?

Mr. Singer: He is.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m speaking right on the amendment.

I want to say this to you: Your Treasurer didn’t for one moment consider the technical impact of what he was saying in his general platitude, and this is quite obvious.

My colleague from Downsview has asked you the question, have you got a ruling in this connection? He wants to know, as does everybody want to know, whether this tax is a confiscatory tax. Because we, as Liberals, have said that the principle of this type of taxation is attractive and beneficial to the people of Ontario and we voted to support the principle of the bill. But on Tuesday my leader (Mr. R. F. Nixon) made it amply clear to the minister responsible for the collection of this tax that we can’t support it if it’s going to be confiscatory.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the question in the appropriate stages. The first bill that was given to us read: “An Act to impose a Tax on speculative Profits.” Now it’s known by all that that isn’t what the Act says. The Act was to impose a tax on land. Now you saw the difficulty, at that time the Minister of Revenue saw the difficulty.

I want to digress by saying it is indeed unfortunate that the Treasurer of Ontario, who is responsible for the policy, is never here to join in the debate on these most significant matters. As much as we admire the responsibility of the Minister of Revenue, he is nothing more than a tax collector, and he and his predecessors have told us this on many occasions. He is not responsible for the development of the policy that led to the institution of this particular bill, and we should have the Treasurer here.

The fact of the matter is that now you have asked us to support you in a proposed amendment in connection with the name of the statute itself.

And the reason you bring forward this particular amendment is to extricate yourself from the difficulty that the tax itself will not be a legitimate expense to people, and that it will result in a tax of 112 per cent on a gain, which nobody in this Legislature could possibly support in conscience or content.

So I want to put this to you. It was obvious negligence when the Treasurer of Ontario said to a reporter when asked about the bill’s impact with respect to federal authorities: “I don’t know what the federal authorities will do.” That was his very response on the day he presented the budget.

Now you are saying, in effect, that nothing has been done by this government to give assurance to this House or the people of Ontario as to the impact of the tax. I want to put the question to you, in line with the comments made by the member for Riverdale but not just relating to the provincial corporations tax. I want to know and I want to have, without equivocation, an understanding that if I am to vote for this change in name it is to assist the minister in being able to argue on behalf of the people of Ontario that the change in name is appropriate so that we can extricate those people from the possible difficulty of being involved with a tax of 112 per cent. I take it that is the purpose?

All right. Now we do have a nod from the minister, Mr. Chairman, which says: “Yes, the member for Sarnia is correct”?

Mr. Singer: Then why did the minister take the path about constitutionality when he came in the first time?

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to vote in favour of the change in name, and it is not just “a rose is a rose” situation here. The change in name is a significant, purposeful one. So I want to know how the minister’s officials have come to the conclusion that by deleting the word “disposition,” defined on seven separate occasions in the bill, and substituting for it the word “transaction”, the name change will assist the minister in assuring the House that it will be a legitimate expense concerning the calculation of expense in connection with the federal tax. That’s what I want to know.

Mr. Chairman: On the same point, the member for Lakeshore?

Mr. Lawlor: My colleague the member for Riverdale rightfully made this fundamental point. Apparently it went right by the legal eagles in the Liberal Party.

Mr. Singer: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will look at Hansard --

Mr. Lawlor: I read Hansard.

Mr. Singer: During the second reading of the debate that was the first point I made; and I made the first speech on it. So as usual you are wrong.

Mr. Lawlor: Then in the face of this matter, which has become of such catastrophic and horrendous significance all of a sudden, the Liberal Party is now about to go volte-face and fall straight on its -- rectum I think is the word.

Of course the point is well taken. Of course you have to alter the impact of your legislation and the very wording, because as we see it the tax is confiscatory. I have in my hand a host of transactions which will attract various incidence of the tax ranging from about 70 per cent to about 117 per cent. You will find yourself in that bind if you can’t conclusively state to this House that the tax will not have this effect. If you can’t do that, then I think you must, on the basis of good Conservative principles as much as anything else, withdraw the bill very quickly and reconstitute your whole scheme. Because it seems to me to be vitiated right from the outset by the very concept of taxation which you have invoked here.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Just let me say this --

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman --

Hon. Mr. Meen: It happens I was on my feet ahead of the hon. member for Riverdale for a change.

Mr. Renwick: I yield graciously.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I’m sure.

Frankly, I think it might just assist a little bit to tell you this, if indeed there is any doubt. What worried me from the beginning when I looked at the title, after I had received a few letters raising this point and after listening to the expression of doubt by some of the hon. members opposite, was the reference to profit.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): It didn’t worry the minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The taxation of profit worried me, because, really, some people might interpret it to relate to a fiscal period, or to the taxation year of the taxpayer. Of course that was not what we were seeking to do. It was, therefore, on my instruction that my people went back to try to come up with a name which would be descriptive of the nature of the bill --

Mr. Singer: Or two names, or three names.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- but which did not use the word “profit.” In doing so they came up with the reference to disposition and without reference to speculation, which is what we all call this bill. We all call it the “Spec Act” or the “Spec tax Act”; or the land speculation tax Act as I have for the short form or whatever.

Mr. Singer: We just invented it the day before you brought it into the House.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Nowhere else is it referred to as such except, I guess, in the very last section of the bill.

In any event, in looking at this and listening to the objections raised by members opposite on Tuesday, it seemed to me that we would have a long title more descriptive of the fundamental principle of the bill if I were to revert to some kind of terminology that included the reference to speculation, because that’s what we were dealing with. In doing so, I felt that looking at the word “disposition” and the definition of “disposition” under sub clause (4) of 1, (1), which talks about the sales --

Mr. Singer: You are answering everything except the questions we asked.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- it is evident it’s really not a tax in reference to the sales or transfers; it’s a tax in reference to the increase in value, you might say, between the acquisition value, with its basic allowances and the sale proceeds.

Mr. Cassidy: That is the profit value.

Hon. Mr. Meen: So “disposition” seems to be a far more narrow term than I wanted to apply in a generic way to a title. Consequently, we arrived at the view that the words “speculative transaction” grasped the whole of the area, from the acquisition of the property through to its sale, and consequently reflected the increase in price.

Mr. Cassidy: You are on weak ground. This is not a political debating point.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Therefore, it was just a matter of looking at the difference in price. Then imposing the tax on the land in reference to that differential in price is the way in which the Act applies. Of course, in coming back to the question of the title, therefore the amendment to the title describes it as dealing with speculative transactions.

Just to reiterate on the matter of the imposition of the tax, I would assure the hon. member for Sarnia that our thinking is as his, that we would not want the tax to be confiscatory. I don’t think any of the members in this House seek to have a confiscatory tax.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right, without knowing what we are doing.

Hon. Mr. Meen: If one achieved a net taxable picture of the order of 100 per cent, one would never see any lots placed upon the market. So although some of us might like to see a tax pretty close to that, we’ve got to be realistic about these things. And it follows then, that our approach at 50 per cent, on the assumption of the current application of the Income Tax Act being continued --

Mr. Singer: That’s not so.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I would say, with respect, to the hon. member for Downsview, that that is the opinion of our best legal advisers.

Mr. Singer: Who gave you the opinion? Did you get an opinion from Clarkson and Co. Ltd.? Did you get the opinion from the law office? Did you get the opinion from your own people?

Mr. Chairman: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Our best law officer of the Crown.

Mr. Singer: Did you get an opinion from Ottawa?

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Of course we have no ruling from Ottawa, and I told the hon. members why.

Mr. Singer: You haven’t? You haven’t even asked Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The point is that if, and this what I say to your colleague from Sarnia -- I’m saying this to the member for Downsview -- that if a ruling should come forward that was different from our interpretation of the law as it stands at present, then the Treasurer has indicated, and I have already indicated, we would have to take a look at the application of our Act and the percentage factors again, so that it would not be confiscatory in the net result.

Mr. Cassidy: I think you are violating the sacred right.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, none of us here are tax experts, including the Minister of Revenue, so we can’t fool around with the game by trading expertise.

Mr. Cassidy: I think the Hansard reporter knows more than the minister.

Mr. Renwick: I happen to have a Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. tax letter, dated April 15, dealing with the budget and presumably it is the document they sent to all of their clients with respect to the Ontario government budget. Under a very interesting underlined heading, “Other Anomalies and Questions,” it says:

“It is not immediately clear from Bill 25, as first presented, whether the proposed land speculative profits tax is or is not of the nature that would be deductible (as an expense) in computing the vendor’s income for federal or provincial income tax purposes. If not so deductible, taxes on sale of trading land would aggregate more than the profits.

“While the bill does strive to make clear that its charge is imposed ‘on the land,’ the matter appears to fall into the unsettled areas in distinguishing between what is recognized as a tax in the course of carrying on a business and what is looked upon as a sharing of profits (with the governments) after they have been realized; under existing income tax laws the latter is not allowed unless specifically provided for. This may be the subject of much technical -- and political -- dispute. Indeed, this may have been one of the matters in mind when the Treasurer stated, ‘thus during the first year of operation I envisage a series of amendments and refinements to the land speculation tax bill.’”

My own guess is that if the minister had the tax letters to the clients of the other leading accounting firms, they would find similar qualifications with respect to the question that is involved. I cannot conceive that we are being asked to pass the kind of tax legislation which raises that kind of problem for the business community and the financial community, according to those who are much more knowledgeable than we can ever expect to be in this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, it’s all very well for us to play our verbal games, but in the light of that kind of expertise, we cannot possibly tolerate for one moment the suggestion that we can pass this bill and then leave it until some indefinite time in the future before the incidence of the tax, the nature of the tax, the basis of the tax, the subject of the tax, the matter of the tax and who is to pay the tax are clearly enunciated and stated. It’s as simple as that.

Let’s not fool around, because one of the fundamental obligations of a legislative assembly is to know what it’s doing when it imposes a tax. We just cannot participate in a game that this government wants to play. They don’t know, we don’t know, tax experts don’t know, the federal government in Ottawa doesn’t know; and the minister doesn’t know. With the greatest respect for his opinion on some matters, the minister’s opinion about tax matters can be matched with mine, or with the member for Sarnia, the member for Downsview, the member for Lakeshore, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) and others. We can dispute this question until nightfall, but it will not be clarified in this debate.

We cannot, therefore, support either the change in the title of the bill or the substance of the tax, and that has been our position right from the beginning. It puts us in a very uncomfortable position when you ask us to vote on a matter that none of us understands, including the government, the minister, and the Treasurer whose policy it is. He doesn’t even deign to come into the House except when you are in trouble.

For all practical purposes I don’t know what makes you want to subvert the system. You can be capitalists, you can do whatever you want to do, but you can’t fool around with the obligation of the assembly regarding the just levying of taxes on the people.

There is no sex appeal in this issue for the ordinary voter out there, but it is a fundamental principle. I don’t know whether or not the minister ever reads any sort of constitutional history, but I suggest that he read the first volume of the life of William Pitt the Younger. He should read about the fiscal reorganization of the government of England at the time when the Treasury straightened out all of the matters in relation to their responsibilities to the citizens of England with respect to the levying of taxes and the way in which the Treasury was conducted.

You can’t fool around with us on this kind of an issue. Nobody is going to go to the guillotine over it, but I think it is very important the minister understand that for many of us here in this Legislature, including colleagues of ours in the Tory back benches, it is vital that we do not fool around on the question of the levying of taxes. If they want to levy the tax, do it. Do it well, do it understandably and do it clearly; but don’t fool around with us.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief suggestion to the minister. I think he might be able to save face, and the government’s face, if he would go along with the following suggestion: You should be prepared, Mr. Minister, to put a section into this statute, right at the beginning, saying that in the event your guess is wrong as to what the rules of the game are, the government of Ontario will refund whatever proportion of the tax is necessary to reimburse those people who would be taxed at the extra rates they would have to pay if they were not allowed to claim a business exemption.

Mr. Bullbrook: It’s the assurance we want; right!

Mr. Singer: It is just not sufficient that you give that kind of assurance here. That kind of assurance should be in the bill in a brand new section. If you do that, then we will look at this quite differently.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Actually, I think that is not a bad idea to think about. I don’t know whether I can build it into the bill. I’ll ask my staff to consider whether we could do that. But I don’t think that is a bad idea at all.

I don’t know whether one then tailors it to the various types of transactions, or whether one says that if this should happen then we will work it back as though it had been according to the way we believe it to be. And whether we do that under this Act or whether we do it under regulation, but that certainly is my intention it should not be more. If it is altered upward by an adverse ruling, say, in the courts -- if it comes to that -- there would be a rebate. In fact, I would anticipate that would be a cornerstone of our whole practice of collection of these moneys. We have no intention of making this confiscatory.

Mr. Singer: Have you agreed to write that into the agreement?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I don’t know whether we can, that’s my worry. But one way or the other --

Mr. Lawlor: As a contribution to the drafting of that particular kind of thing there would be two things at least -- two tiers of two things -- which should be taken into account. One of them would be a distinction between whether it’s an income expense -- an expense against income -- or whether it’s a deduction from the capital gains setup. Where is the weight of this particular expenditure to fall? Or would it be an accretion to capital gains which would have a depreciation factor written into it? None of that is spelled out.

That is only the first step. The major step, I would suggest to you, in any determination as to how this tax falls, what it’s incidences are, what it’s all about, would be the distinction between those people who are in the business of land dealing on one side and those people, individuals and corporations, who are either in or not in the business. The tax is wholly different in different contexts.

For instance -- I won’t run through all of the figures -- on a $10,000 land gain for individuals who are in the business, the tax now is 61.3 but after this would be 80.7. If that same individual is not in the business of land dealing, the tax as it presently stands is 30.7 against 65.3.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would that line of debate not be more appropriate later in the details of the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: No, it’s appropriate now.

Mr. Lawlor: I think it’s terribly appropriate now.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I didn’t ask the member for Ottawa Centre his opinion. It seems to me you are discussing the details of the bill, percentages and otherwise and the definition of designated land, those who will be taxed and at what rates and so on, which comes up later in the bill. Am I right in that, I ask the member for Lakeshore?

Mr. Lawlor: No, with respect, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: How does it affect the title?

Mr. Lawlor: -- we are talking about the deductibility features in this tax. All I’m seeking to do is spell out --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. What I’m getting at is how do your comments affect the title of the bill?

Mr. Lawlor: What does any of the debate have to do with the title of the bill? The title of the bill is a constitutional issue. The reason we altered the title of the bill is because of certain tax implications written into that. We had to extrapolate that and we’ve done so.

Now we are talking about precisely what those tax implications are. The tax implications have been handled in a blanket form up to this point. I simply want to point out some of the niceties connected with it.

If, as the minister has just indicated to you, Mr. Chairman, he is prepared to give some consideration to introducing a brand new clause in this legislation, lifting the tax or alleviating people in case certain types of tax benefits are not granted with respect to other taxes already levied, these considerations, I think, are most pertinent and apropos. They are vital to his cause in the very process of drafting. If what I’m saying now isn’t crucial and to the point, nothing which has been said here for the last hour is.

Mr. Chairman: I’m just trying to determine whether it’s part of the title or whether it’s second reading material as well. We are getting into details, it seems to me, that are part of the bill.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, if I may relieve your mind, I’ve almost finished. I won’t press on. I won’t give lots of figures etc. These are the considerations -- that a corporation in the business of land selling pays substantially more tax than a corporation in a different category. It is this type of categorization you must be very cognizant of if you make a proposal as deep-reaching and, naturally, as essential to the purposes of this legislation as I see it here.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Really what I’m saying, Mr. Chairman, is that if a ruling were made contrary to our understanding of the way in which the taxes would be applied in the sequence, we can tailor the amount of the tax appropriately so that the taxpayer would be in the same position as though the tax had been applied in the way in which we see it now.

That’s a complicated thing to do at best and I’m not at all convinced we could put together something in the form of a section in the Act which would accomplish that. I am reminded by my staff of section 22 sub (2) sub (k) -- if the hon. member wants to look at that now or later -- which is a provision for regulation to relieve against tax. Under that section, it would be possible to draft -- and I would set about doing just that -- a provision to protect the taxpayer against the adverse kind of ruling we’ve mentioned. And section 22(2) (c) of the Act allows for the repayment of tax that might have been overpaid.

So, through those provisions built into the Act already, we have the capacity to deal with this problem. Then you have my undertaking that we would have regulations to accommodate this kind of problem if it should arise.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, while we are looking at the particular title of the bill, the minister certainly can be concerned again with the matter of the 13 days that the member for Riverdale had mentioned.

Just as the land transfer tax was to be amended 13 days ago -- and the amendment has now passed the House -- so my recollection of information in the press has been that 13 days from now on May 22 there will be a meeting of the Canadian Bar Association to discuss the effects and results of this bill.

It would appear, of course, that if members of the association attempt to follow the procedure in this debate, which indeed might be still continuing by that point, they are going to be as confused as many of us are as we look at the particular title of this bill. Suggestions have been made with respect to an additional section that might be put in, and the member for Downsview has commented as to what its contents could be.

I suppose as a drafting assistance, one might refer to section 8 in Bill 32 that is before the House. That section of course, as members will recall, reads in this form:

“Finally, this Act applies and shall be good for anyone who thinks it should, provided that if strong objection shall be expressed to any section, that section shall not have effect except for those who don’t object.”

It may be that that bill as introduced by the member for High Park could form the basis of the clause that you are going to attempt to put into the bill.

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, excuse me, on a point of order. I have not suggested I would put any such clause into the bill. I have told the hon. members, Mr. Chairman, that there are sections in the bill now that provide for the rebate of tax overpaid and for sufficient authority for me to adjust the amount of tax. I have just finished telling them that it is a complicated matter and I think that, at least for starters, in this pioneering --

Mr. Lawlor: You could do it by regulation.

Mr. Cassidy: There will be no overpayment in the cases in this House.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- in this pioneering legislation, we can do this by regulation, and probably in the fall --

Mr. Deans: No you can’t.

Mr. Lawlor: Take a look at it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- when we have had a few months to see how this is working, some of these clauses that we have worked out might then be enshrined into the Act by amendments. But, at this stage, I would really hate to try to put together a suitable section to accommodate the area we are talking about.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: I think that point can be discussed, could it not, on section 22?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: If we get that far. It will be sorted out by that time on section 22.

Mr. Deans: May I, Mr. Chairman? The minister says he would handle the matter of a rebate by regulation. But the regulations of an Act can’t engage the principle or purpose of the Act, and in spite of what is written on page 30, under section 22 (2)(c):

“Any Act taken by the minister authorizing the refund of any tax and specifying the conditions on which the refund shall be made has to conform with the intent of the legislation and the intent of the Legislature to levy the tax.”

You can’t levy a tax in one section and then grant the minister the power not to levy it in another. You can’t do that by regulation. You’re not permitted by regulation to exempt someone from paying a tax. You can exempt them by condition of the law. You can say that under certain conditions a person shall be exempt from paying the tax and spell it out, but if you don’t spell it out in the Act you certainly can’t do it by regulation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the point has been well made. I would just like to say this, that although the minister talks about the rules of the game leading him to assume that this would be deductible as a cost of doing business, I think that if he examines the statements in the recent budget -- and without, let’s say talking about changes in the government in July, which might lead to a different policy and which we would regret, and which we would not expect to happen -- the minister might as well assume that the government of Canada is not going to be keen to give up $25 million in support of the revenue of the Province of Ontario under these circumstances. I think the government of Canada and the three opposition parties have all gone on record as being against speculative land profits. As a matter of fact, one of the opposition parties had, as one of its direct demands, that the government of the day bring in legislation controlling and taxing speculative land profits.

As you will notice in the budget which was brought down a few days ago, many of the impositions at the provincial level which have been deductible from federal corporation tax as a cost of doing business are not to be deductible any longer. I refer particularly to royalties and certain payments made by resource industries. Without arguing about what is going to happen in July let us assume that that is the policy of the government of Canada and it might well continue to be the policy.

The minister has been correctly criticized for not having negotiations with Treasury officials -- if not at the ministerial level at least at the technological level -- as to whether or not this would be considered or looked on with some favour as a deduction. In his attempt to make it as attractive as possible when those negotiations do begin sometime -- presumably it would be well into the summer -- he is suggesting the name be changed so that the word profit be taken out and transaction put in. At least he had the good sense to leave the word speculative in there essentially because in my view its removal did tamper with the principle of the bill. Although many of the minister’s colleagues have said the purpose of the bill is to reduce housing prices and to make more land available for housing, the actual purpose is contained in the title as it was and, in my view, is contained in it as the minister wants to amend it. It is a tax on speculative profits and if it has to do with money dealing with transactions, we’ll have to consider that.

The minister might as well assume that this $25 million -- or however much it will be -- is not going to be deducted by the government of Canada in the interest of the revenues of the Province of Ontario. It might be hoped that it would be, but I think the assumption should not be that it will be deductible as a cost of doing business, but that it will not be deductible. For that reason, I believe it is essential the minister have a clause in here, in the area where the tax in its amount is specifically referred to. He can say, without in any way endangering the commitment he has given in words, that notwithstanding the effect of this tax the amount actually paid by the person concerned and affected by the tax will not go over a specific amount -- that is, as the minister has indicated in the principle of the bill, 50 per cent of the profit or the increase in profit based on the April 9 basis.

I do suggest to the minister that he is being naive if he assumes that under the rules of the game, to use his own phrase, this amount payable will be deductible. I would suggest to him that whatever the government of the day will be, he would be very fortunate indeed if he were to negotiate such a deductibility. I don’t believe it will be forthcoming.

Since he and others have said clearly they don’t want the level of taxation to approach confiscation, surely he should make that a part of the bill, in the principle of the bill, by adding an amendment as was suggested by the member for Downsview. I don’t think it would be that difficult even to do. You have a platoon of very wise people under the gallery who must have been spending uncounted hours dealing with this in the past and perhaps it would be possible -- I believe it would be possible -- to bring forward such an amendment for our consideration.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Let me say this, Mr. Chairman, when we get to section 2, which deals with the application of the tax, we can have more discussion on this point. If, in the interval, I can come up with some kind of provision to deal with it -- or if the members opposite, who are assuring me it shouldn’t be very hard to do, can give me some idea as to the way in which we can tackle this and let my law officers have a chance to review the proposed amendment or perhaps give some thought to it ourselves over the dinner hour or in the course of dealing with this bill in committee -- I certainly would not object to a form of amendment.

In fact, contrary to what the hon. member for Downsview has imputed to me from time to time, I would be only too happy to enshrine any of this material in the bill itself if it’s satisfactory and we are satisfied its impact does not go beyond the section and into other sections.

I might just mention that I did in fact get a legal opinion from our law officers that summarized the position we are taking. I could read the whole thing; it is rather lengthy. I think I would prefer --

Mr. Chairman: That would be appropriate under section 2, would it not, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, I suppose that would be appropriate under section 2.

Mr. Chairman: In the meantime, we could dispose of the first motion about the title. Shall this motion carry?

Mr. Breithaupt: I have one question, Mr. Chairman, which may affect the views that members of the House take with respect to the motion. That is, to ask the minister if it was his intention to amend the title further in any way following the difficulty we had two days ago. Is it the minister’s intention that in fact this will be the final title to this piece of legislation?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I am proposing that the Act stand in the form in which it is printed with respect to the title, and for that matter, with respect to most other things.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, can I respond to the suggestion that the minister just put forward that perhaps I or one of my colleagues might supply him with some kind of a draft?

Just a few moments ago, I walked out of the chamber with Warner Alcombrack, who is senior legislative counsel for the Province of Ontario, and we were discussing problems of drafting tax legislation. I suppose there is no one more learned in drafting statutes and amendments to statutes than Mr. Alcombrack, presently available to the Province of Ontario, He said quite frankly, and I agree with him, and it is in keeping with what the hon. member for Riverdale said a few moments ago, that the expertise involved in writing tax statutes is an entirely different thing from any other expertise that exists.

I would hope that there lies within the department -- that is among the gentlemen sitting under the gallery -- that kind of expertise. I would neither be so brave nor so bold as to draft a section of a tax statute which might be definitive in some way. I would want to have the advice of the best tax lawyers and the best tax draftsmen.

Even when you get all that -- as those of us who have had to wrestle with the new federal Income Tax Act have seen -- some of the results that are achieved are not really what anybody intended in the first place.

A little aside: I have recently had to turn my attention to the meaning of section 41 of the Income Tax Act of Canada. Together with people whose advice I sought, we have come to the conclusion that there’s no possible way it can be interpreted. There was an indication in the tax papers, which have gone with the defeat of the government, that that section was going to be amended; but it won’t be amended, so it stands on the statute books apparently with no possible way of being interpreted.

So I wouldn’t essay the kind of exercise the minister invited me into. It is just beyond my knowledge to try to adapt that kind of a suggestion to this tax.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think the hon. member is indicating a recognition for the enormous problems that my draftsmen have had in putting together a completely new Act such as this. Consequently, the necessity for such a substantial body of amendments. All I can say is, okay, I had hoped you could give me some assistance.

I’ll take a look at it and see if our experts can come up with anything. Otherwise, I think the hon. member is pointing out the very thing that I have been saying all along -- that we need some flexibility by regulation to accommodate this kind of thing, if, in the first instance when we are putting a piece of legislation into place, we can’t incorporate it into the Act itself.

Mr. Singer: No, that isn’t what I said.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I think that pretty well concludes my thoughts, at least on the debate on the title.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I just make one comment to you -- facetious perhaps -- but may I presume to suggest to the minister that he might seek out the advice and expertise of the Treasurer of Ontario and his assistants, who first came to this conclusion? He put this minister, the tax collector, in the position of having to draft this statute. You might want to go back to the then Deputy Treasurer or the present Deputy Treasurer and ask them to help you out.

An hon. member: Good suggestion.

Mr. Chairman: Will the first motion carry then?

Mr. Cassidy: No, I wanted to make a point Mr. Chairman. I have been sitting listening to the lawyers for some time on this and I wanted to put this question about changing the title of the bill on a more practical kind of level. As far as the title of the bill is concerned, the interpreters -- that is, the lawyers -- are going to look at it and they are liable to say that the transactions described in the bill are a tax on profits. That then leads to the consequences that the lawyers had talked about in terms of the non-deductibility of this particular tax as far as federal tax is concerned.

The practical import or effect of that in the land market, I would suggest, will be that any well-advised speculator or investor or holder of land, on seeing that he may be liable to a confiscatory tax of a greater value than the profit that he expects to make, will simply keep his land off the market. The assurances that the minister has given in the House that something would be done retroactively in order to compensate him, nevertheless are not sufficient to compensate for that margin of doubt.

A lawyer would say, “It’s very fine, Arthur Meen is a fine man and a fine minister, and when the government says something like this in the Legislature, it normally carries it out. Nevertheless, at this moment in time, you would be liable to 110 or 120 per cent of the value of the profit that you are going to make.”

Therefore, no matter what we do with this particular amendment, and because of the ineptness of the government in not going to the Treasury and in simply relying on some backbench questions from the Conservative opposition in the parliament, the practical effect is that the Act will stifle normal transactions within the land market for a period that could well be as long as five or six months, until there is a new government in operation in Ottawa and until they get the thing sorted out.

One has to ask, why has the government got itself into this situation? I hope the minister will appreciate that whatever he says, whatever assurances he makes, the only way around this is to find some other amendment that will assure people that they will not be taxed to a sum greater than the amount of the profit.

It may be, in fact, that what the minister needs to do is to put a clause in here at some point that, quite regardless of definitions or anything else, will say that the sum of all taxes levied on the profit or the designated value, or whatever it is, shall not exceed 90 per cent of that profit. At that point, then, there is an assurance that people who are in the land market will at least not have to pay more than the profit that they manage to make.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I might say that that’s rather an interesting suggestion, though. I’ll take that into consideration.

The committee divided on the amendment moved by Hon. Mr. Meen to the title of the former Bill 25, which was approved on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 38; the “nays” are 28.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion carried, and the new title shall stand as part of the bill.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.