Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, it give me pleasure this afternoon to welcome to the Legislature two grade 8 classes from the Sacred Heart School in Chapleau, accompanied by four of their teachers including Mrs. Champion and Mrs. Seguin. They are accompanied by their very courageous bus driver, Mr. Bruneau, who has driven 500 miles over northern Ontario highways. I hope the Legislature will welcome them.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

GRAND RIVER FLOOD INQUIRY

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the appointment of President A. D. Booth of Lakehead University to inquire into the nature, extent and cause of flooding on the Grand River May 16 to May 18 last.

Dr. Booth has wide experience in the field of engineering, particularly in hydrology. Before coming to Lakehead University, he was dean of engineering at the University of Saskatchewan, where he had established the first division of hydrology at that university. He will inquire into the actions of the Grand River Conservation Authority, member municipalities and the province in the operation of the major dams and reservoirs and the flood warning and communication systems in order to make available at the earliest possible date a complete report of all the essential facts necessary to determine the cause of the high flows and the resulting property damages. Dr. Booth will begin his assignment to- morrow morning.

HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS IN ONTARIO MINES

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, 10 days ago I made a commitment to the standing committee of supply, studying the estimates of my ministry, that I would announce by today a programme of action dealing with the health of workers in mines, with particular reference to the uranium mines in this province.

In making this commitment, Mr. Speaker, I felt that it was my duty, as the minister responsible for mines, to investigate to the furthest possible extent any reasonable doubt cast on the effectiveness of the ministry’s mine safety programme in accomplishing the goals set for it by the government and expected of it by the public of this province. I am accordingly announcing at this time a five-point programme which will only be the beginning of the investigation that I intend to carry out.

During the past 10 days I have received all the information the government has compiled over the last several years relating to the question of environmental health and the safety of workers in mines. This is a very complex matter, particularly with reference to silicosis, and a great many medical and scientific deficiencies in our knowledge of its causes remain to be investigated.

For this reason, the first step that I propose to take is to appoint a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act to investigate all matters brought before the estimates committee having to do with the health, environmental and safety factors affecting workers in mines in Ontario. As part of his terms of reference, the commissioner will select a medical doctor whose field of expertise includes lung cancer, silicosis, environmental health and any other qualification determined by the commissioner to be necessary to his investigation.

In this way, it is my hope that the commissioner will be able to provide the public with a complete assessment of the latest available information on the question of environmental health affecting miners. He will select as well a representative of the mine workers, a representative of the mining industry and a mining engineer. He will be assisted in his inquiry by counsel and such other technical and support staff he considers necessary.

The inquiry will also include a review of the basis for the Workmen’s Compensation Board awards as they relate to environmental health matters affecting miners.

It will make a detailed analysis of all data relating to silicosis, lung cancer and environmental health conditions pertaining to mining activities. It will hold public meetings and will accept submissions from all interested persons and groups and meetings will be held in mining communities of northern Ontario. It will recommend specific further steps my ministry might take to improve the standards of health hazard administration in the mines of Ontario.

Secondly, as I indicated to the members of the committee, Mr. Speaker, it is my feeling that sufficient information is available to the government in the form of reports requested over the past three years to justify a reorganization of my mines engineering branch.

I am, therefore, announcing that it is my intention to create a health hazard section in the mines engineering branch to be staffed by qualified personnel capable of recognizing incipient health hazard situations and setting standards, training and advising field staff in the protection of workmen in all of our mines.

This new section of my ministry will be prepared to respond to recommendations of the commissioner as they become available so that undue delays in the implementation of the recommendations as they become available to the government will not occur.

Third, from now on all mine inspectors’ reports will be posted at the mine site. In addition, ventilation monitoring data collected by the Mines Accident Prevention Association will be available and posted at all mine sites, and the results of health tests will be made available to miners or to their physicians on a regular basis.

Fourth, I will ask the committee to review the functions, organization and purpose in consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth), of the Mines Accident Prevention Association to place this association in closer relationship with mine workers.

While we in Ontario can deservedly take pride in our record of reducing accidents in mines and in the work of the Mines Accident Prevention Association, it would appear that this is the time to go further than we have gone before to restructure this association to meeting changing needs and conditions in our mines.

Fifth, I am recommending to my colleague, the Minister of Health, a programme to provide annual x-rays of miners at chest centres in Ontario so that lung function tests and hearing capacity tests will be given to all miners on an annual or more frequent basis, and that sputum testing will be further evaluated for use in the Elliot Lake area.

I wish to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that these announcements are only the beginning. As the work of the commission proceeds and new information becomes available to the government no effort will be spared to ensure that whatever deficiencies may be found to exist in the government’s sensitivity to the health needs of the miners of this province they will be rectified.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): At long last.

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some remarks of my own to support the comments made by my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, in relation to the health of the workers in mines, mills and crushing plants.

First, in keeping with recommendation 1.5, on page 19 of the report of the task force on the administration of the Workmen’s Compensation Board in Ontario, from June 1 my ministry has assumed responsibility for the miners’ chest-examining stations.

Second, certain modifications of the procedures carried out at these stations have already been planned. These modifications, which I will specify, will be implemented at the earliest possible date.

(a) To utilize staff and equipment more efficiently and to provide better service, the miners’ examining stations will be amalgamated with the provincial chest clinics wherever this is practical.

(b) Reports on all miners’ chest x-rays will be sent to each miner’s own attending physician.

(c) In cases where the reported findings indicate consultation with the attending physician would be advisable, a letter to this effect will be sent to the miner concerned.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): That’s first rate.

Hon. Mr. Miller: (d) In cases where the miner has no attending physician, but where medical consultation is indicated, the chest clinic physician will contact the miner directly.

(e) Any cases of infectious disease such as tuberculosis also will be notified to the appropriate medical officer of health as required by section 64 of the Public Health Act, 1973.

(f) Chest clinic physicians will be available as consultants in matters of chest disease to the local practitioner.

(g) Pulmonary function testing equipment will be placed in all chest clinics concerned.

(h) Basic tests of lung function will also be performed on all applicants for miners’ certificates.

(i) Similar tests will be performed on all miners other than applicants at intervals to be decided upon by my staff at an early date.

(j) Permanent records of pulmonary function tests will be maintained with each individual’s records at the chest clinics.

Mr. Speaker: Are there further statements by the ministry?

Mr. Lewis: What about (k)?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): What about a concurrent statement from the Minister of Labour dealing with the WCBO?

Mr. Speaker: If not, oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

GRAND RIVER FLOOD INQUIRY

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I’d like to ask of the Minister of Natural Resources if the terms of reference he put forward for the inquiry into the flooding in the Grand will require the commissioner to hold public hearings in the communities that were directly affected by the flood?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the commissioner will be instructed to hold public hearings in those areas that were affected.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: When the minister said he expected a report as soon as possible, is there a specific time limit that has been given to the commissioner for reporting to the minister and to the House?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not given the commissioner a specific period of time. But, as I indicated, he will be starting his work tomorrow morning, and I would hope that it would be done as quickly as possible.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister advise what staff will be made available to the commissioner in order that we might know whether he will have sufficient background, especially in municipal liaison or in police information, to deal quite clearly with those matters of warning?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the commissioner has already been given the authority to engage the type of people that he wishes to have with him; and, of course, any support staff he needs will be provided at his request.

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): A supplementary: In the last three years there have been two floods in Grand Valley in my riding occasioned by ice jams. Will this inquiry look into that situation as well?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference deal only with the flooding that occurred between, I think it is May 16 to May 18, and it will not be retroactive.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): A supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. I may have missed it. I was writing something. Did the minister indicate whether the terms of reference would include a review of the priority-setting of the conservation authority to determine whether or not flood control is, in fact, receiving sufficient consideration by the authority in its overall programme?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, that is not part of the terms of reference that we have made out for the commissioner, but he may well feel free to make comments along those lines, and we have so indicated to him -- but we have not instructed him to do so.

Mr. Deans: Would the minister mind instructing him, since that is a very major part of a lot of the concern that is being expressed?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is first things first. We have to get to the cause of the high flows, of course, and resulting property damage. It may well be that the next step would be a study to which the member refers.

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

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, I missed the terms of reference, if the minister did announce them. Did they include the assessment or the evaluation of the effectiveness of the present system as it relates) to controlling the water in the Grand River watershed, which would include the warning system -- the monitoring devices which now exist as far as warning and monitoring the present flows?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in my terms of reference given to the commissioner, these points are part of his terms as well.

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

ACCEPTANCE OF DOCTORS BY HOSPITALS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he has a statement to make with regard to the appeal court decision in the case of Dr. Schiller, that has been before this House for so long. Is he going to allow the law, which is a part of the emanation of this House, to result not only in that doctor not being permitted to practise, but just as important, in being loaded with legal fees and costs of over $40,000, having availed himself of all of the appeal procedures available through this House?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think for me to judge a decision of the courts and to try to relate it to the wisdom of our law would not be fair.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That’s what the minister is there for.

Hon. Mr. Miller: This decision was decided by the courts on the merits of the case before it, not on the merits of the law before it. Certainly we will not do away with authorities, such as boards, to make decisions simply because a higher authority turns their decision around -- as happened in this case.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the minister is not prepared to judge the judges -- and I can see his wisdom in taking that position -- is he contemplating amendments to the Public Hospitals Act which, in fact, will open them up to the practising physicians of the province, without the elaborate procedures which have resulted in ham- stringing the abilities of so many qualified doctors to practise as they see fit?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I assume by that question, the hon. Leader of the Opposition means am I going to let any doctor practise in any hospital he elects to choose.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: When I say “open it up,” I would say let us move in the direction whereby we are not going to be confronted with so many cases where properly qualified physicians are not able to use facilities provided at public expense in their own community.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, quite properly, the decision as to whether a physician is accepted by a hospital or not lies with the board of that hospital. That board has to decide upon the hospital’s ability to absorb the physician into its physical plant and to relate the acceptance of that physician to the other skills already on staff and available.

There is no question that you cannot have an unlimited access of both specialists and general practitioners.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): How about his personality?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Parkdale.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Will the minister accept the idea that a doctor who is practising in a particular area should have a right to send his patient to a hospital which is nearest to him?

Hon. Mr. Miller: He has a right, Mr. Speaker, to send the patient to the hospital of his choice. He doesn’t necessarily have the right to practise in that hospital.

Mr. Deans: But he should have.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): I phoned the hospital, they’ll pay for him.

Mr. Deans: It’s a throw-back to the private hospital system.

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

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: As a matter of policy, does the minister not feel that hospitals, as public institutions supported by public funds, should not be a closed shop for doctors?

Secondly, as another supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: There should only be one supplementary at a time.

Mr. Roy: Is the Speaker going to allow me more?

Mr. Speaker: I have called other members to order for that very thing. There should be one supplementary at a time.

An hon. member: Yes, one per day.

Mr. Roy: I don’t want to bother the minister with too many supplementaries.

Hon. Mr. Miller: If the member allows for the limitations of my competence and places them one at a time I’ll remember them one at a time.

Mr. Roy: Okay; give me an answer.

Mr. Singer: He forgot it.

Mr. Roy: I’ll repeat the question.

Mr. Breithaupt: He doesn’t have a very long attention span.

Mr. Lewis: That was the closed shop question.

An hon. member: It’s my turn now.

Mr. Speaker: It must be precisely the same.

Mr. Roy: I think you were extremely wise, Mr. Speaker, in limiting me to one supplementary. He has forgotten even that.

The question, Mr. Speaker, was simply this: Does he not feel, as a matter of policy, that hospitals, being public institutions supported by public funds, should not be closed shops for doctors?

Hon. Mr. Miller: That is a very simplistic approach, which is in keeping with the member.

Mr. Roy: It is a logical approach.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister is getting back to his comedy role again.

Hon. Mr. Miller: That would tend to aggravate a very real problem we already have and that is the tendency for physicians to try to go to the hospitals with the most equipment and leave those other hospitals, particularly in the remote parts of the province, unattended.

Mr. Roy: We have second-class hospitals now.

Mr. Deans: That is not a very good answer.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a further supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Roy: Thank you. Maybe I should repeat my first one because I didn’t get an answer to that. Mr. Speaker, the other supplementary I have is: Does the minister not feel that the present system whereby Dr. Schiller is now encumbered with something like $45,000 in costs --

Mr. Bullbrook: Right.

Mr. Roy: -- is patently unfair and that somewhere along the way he should amend the Act to limit the number of appeals? Does he not feel he should intervene and do something about the taxed costs Dr. Schiller has against him for fighting a system which is inherently wrong?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on that latter point, certainly I am concerned that the costs were awarded against Dr. Schiller.

Mr. Roy: What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am certainly going to consider the options I have and I understand I have several.

Mr. Roy: What are they?

Hon. Mr. Miller: One of the options, of course, is to have them paid on his behalf.

Mr. Roy: Now he is talking.

Mr. Bullbrook: Very reasonable.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am going to consider those options and determine whether or not they should be used.

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

DROP IN NHA LOANS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask of the Minister of Housing if he has been made aware of the recent figures from CMHC indicating an alarming cutback in. NHA loans approved for new housing in Ontario in the first four months of the year, from 16,645 units for the period January to April, 1973, to 6,965 units for the corresponding period in 1974, a drop to 41.8 per cent? With these figures in mind, if he’s aware of them, is he not concerned that he is going to fall far short of the goals he established on Monday with his housing action programme, in the actual building in the province?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Ministry of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specific report the Leader of the Opposition refers to. I think one can obtain quotations from almost any reliable source which are contradictory to each other. The last one of any consequence I saw was by the chief economist for the Canadian Construction Association who simply said new housing construction is unlikely to drop this year.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I am not sure on what the chief economist you are referring to was basing his figures, other than probably the same optimism the minister feels, but these being the CMHC figures for Ontario would surely be a barometer, at least, of the housing starts associated with that method of funding which, I think is something that perhaps we ought to have some more control over.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That particular method of funding is not tremendously significant in the total picture of funding. The chief economist I quoted was really talking --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was significant to the extent of 16,000 starts in the first quarter of last year.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, 16,000 out of 110,000.

Mr. Lewis: Come on. There were 40,000 to 50,000 funded that way alone throughout the year. That is half the number of starts.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If I may carry on, the chief economist for the Canadian Construction Association was referring to the very kind of moral persuasion and other techniques which are being used by governments at all levels, to encourage and increase the flow of mortgage money, to reduce the cost of housing in a variety of ways and to change the mix of housing which will have the desired effect.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, despite all the evidence that accumulates on the CMHC mortgage funding and on the projections based on the figures for the first four to five months of this year, does the minister still insist he will build 100,000 to 110,000 units in 1974?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I have never insisted that I or this government will build 100,000 to 110,000 houses in 1974.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In this province.

Mr. Breithaupt: The headlines do.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That was a projection of the total production in Ontario by a variety of techniques.

Mr. Deans: It is going to fall short.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We have said that this government will intervene in the market for housing to the tune of 30,000 to 35,000 housing units this year in a variety of ways.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): No, the minister’s statement said he would come substantially close to 110,000 starts.

Mr. Lewis: He is backing down again. Again, he is backing down.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, doesn’t the minister realize that we all have a responsibility, that I suppose we share to some extent with the minister, and that it is unacceptable for him to quote some nebulous sources that tend, surely, to attempt to bolster his optimism? We hope the minister’s optimism is correct, but doesn’t he realize that these figures indicate a substantial shortfall to the projections that he and his advisers have been making for the last three months? A substantial shortfall.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Many of the figures were developed and many of the projections were made by other so-called authorities without full knowledge of the extent to which this government and others are willing to intervene in the housing market to ensure the maintenance of production.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The starts are down 60 per cent compared to last year.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Obviously, if a man doesn’t know that this government is willing to intervene to the tune of 30,000 units he is not aware of the fact that those units are going to be built. Therefore, his projections and I his prognostications are based on in- complete data.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask -- I’m sorry.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): A supplementary: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing if he has taken into consideration, in his optimistic figures along these lines, the extremely tight mortgage situation which exists today, and how does that reflect on his position in the other market, apart from the government market that he is referring to?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we have taken into account the mortgage situation, since it is one of the basic factors in housing production. We are aware of it. There are a number of remedies. I understand that the Prime Minister of Canada made an announcement yesterday which he hopes wall have some effect, and we do too. We share his hope in that. I don’t believe for one minute that our projections are optimistic.

UNION GAS AND FIRESTONE DISPUTES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour for a report on two situations. One was raised by the leader of the NDP just a couple of days ago, having to do with Union Gas. Is it true that the two sides have more or less drawn apart and they are back to where they were some weeks ago?

Second, what action does the minister intend to take in that Firestone Tire and Rubber strike in Hamilton? Evidently 100 police were needed on the picket line yesterday. Is there any special action that he as minister is directing his people to take?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, first, in regard to the Union Gas matter, they are not meeting today but they had been meeting up until yesterday. My information is that the mediation services have had some 39 meetings altogether and that they have been meeting continuously from May 14 up until yesterday. They met up until June 3 and I think they are meeting again at the first of the week. As yet, I have no intention of getting into the matter, but certainly we are on top of it and keeping in touch.

As far as the rubber industry in concerned, the cost of living is the issue in that dispute. Both parties have made their positions clear. There are no meetings scheduled, but at the same time neither party to the dispute has expressed any interest in getting together. It may be that my ministry can prod them a little bit, but until they are interested in talking --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Goodyear in New Toronto would like to meet --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- I don’t know whether we can do too much other than to encourage them to talk. That is all I have to say, unless the hon. member for Lakeshore, who I know is interested in the matter --

Mr. Lawlor: The union in my riding wants to meet with the minister’s office.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question, if I may: Is the minister aware that the Firestone plant in Hamilton did, in fact, tentatively accept a proposal on a cost-of-living clause in the presence of Jack Speranzini and, subsequent to that, withdrew their offer to have that included, and that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the withdrawal was on the direction of the parent company in the United States? Does the minister not feel that after consultation with his adviser, Mr. Speranzini, perhaps he could become involved in that dispute, which is now three months old and which is now in a position of bordering on direct confrontation, which may cause a lot of harm?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am aware of the possibility of confrontation and, of course, we regret it. I was not aware of the matter that the hon. member for Wentworth raises. I will make inquiries into that and see if there is some way our ministry can assist in the situation.

Mr. Deans: Just one final supplementary, if I may: In the matter of the cost of living, is it the government policy that in fact the cost of living should be a matter which could be rightfully discussed at the bargaining table? Is the minister aware that in the three other major employers in the Hamilton area, the Steel Co., Dofasco and Canadian Westinghouse, cost of living was recently instituted and upgraded as a result of off-season bargaining?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t want to say that cost of living is not an issue that can be discussed at the bargaining table.

Mr. Deans: That’s what Firestone said.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I certainly think it can be and I don’t think the government has any policy on it, at least not so far as I know.

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

The hon. member for Scarborough West.

HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS IN ONTARIO MINES

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I first ask the Minister of Natural Resources, has the minister in mind a deadline by which the commission of inquiry into the mining industry will report? Will that commission of inquiry be empowered to recommend major structural changes within the mines themselves in order to provide for the safety features related to ventilation and so on that may be required?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, we have not given a time limit to the hearings themselves. I would say to the hon. member that we are searching the Province of Ontario, and indeed Canada, to get the most capable and the most able person to head this particular commission at this time and we are anxious to make that appointment as quickly as we can. He will be given that authority to make those recommendations to which the member refers.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): I have a supplementary question of the Minister of Natural Resources. In his statement today, he announced he is appointing a commission to look into the health and welfare of the miners in Ontario. Will this include the smelting operations in Ontario too or is it just directed to the mines at Elliot Lake?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I think the main thrust of our efforts in this particular inquiry will be with the health hazards and the environmental hazards in underground mining as they relate to silicosis. It may well be that the commissioner will want to comment on the aspects to which the member refers and he will be free to do so.

Mr. Haggerty: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will this include the quarry operations in Ontario too for silicosis?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will.

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

OIL PRICES

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. Does the Premier recall saying back on March 28, when he made a statement to the Legislature on oil prices: “The exact timing of retail price increases to Ontario consumers has not been determined, but we could fully expect the federal government and the industry will be able to maintain existing prices until present stocks are exhausted”? In light of the apparent evidence that existing stocks were not exhausted and existing prices therefor not maintained, and adding that evidence to the increase at the pump and the increase in home fuel oil beyond that which the Premier anticipated, does he not now think it appropriate to set up a commission of inquiry into the behaviour of the price-setting policies of the oil companies and the fiscal accountability which they have to the government of Ontario?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Energy dealt with this matter on Tuesday. I can only add that when I made my observations in March -- and the same observations would be made today -- the question of the length of time and the information that would be available as to when the new prices should go into effect are quite obviously a matter of federal responsibility. I don’t think there is any question about this. I would not alter what I said then. I would say the same thing now, that it was their responsibility and still should be.

It is not our thought at this moment, Mr. Speaker, to institute a form of inquiry although, as I have expressed on other occasions, we are concerned obviously about the increase which, roughly calculated, is probably a cent and a half to two cents more than we had anticipated it might be. At the same time, the question of the 45 days or the number of days with respect to the existing stocks, whether they be from domestic sources or from foreign sources, is something that is really entirely within the control of the federal government.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since there was so much misunderstanding, misinformation and incorrect information, since even on Tuesday the Minister of Energy, not appreciating it I think, was totally wrong in his suggestion that 45 days was an average for all of the provinces west of the Ottawa Valley -- he was out by about 40 days, but that’s apparently predictable -- and since it is costing the consumers of Ontario between $160 million and $240 million more than the government anticipated, does he not feel any obligation, as Premier of the province, to protect the consumers regardless of fixing responsibility? Whether it’s federal government, oil companies or someone else’s, does he not have to step in and protect the consumers from the gouging of the oil companies?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Don’t fight the federal election here.

Mr. Lewis: Is that not legitimate?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously we’re concerned about this matter. I would only say, in answer to the first part of the observation, I have never found the Minister of Energy to be substantially in error; in fact I rarely find him to be even partially in error. He is one of the most able people among any ministers in this country to be dealing with this issue when it comes to matters of energy.

Mr. Martel: When he makes one it is a big one though.

Mr. Deans: There is always a first time for everything.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I only wish that the federal Minister of Energy had the same ability, in which case we might not have encountered the same difficulties.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: I take it by the Premier’s answer then, that as far as he is concerned the oil companies doing business in Ontario have a licence to take from the people of this province every penny they can extort without ever expecting government intervention to protect the consumer; I take it that’s his position?

Mr. Roy: Right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member knows that it isn’t; so the answer to that, very simply, is no.

Mr. Roy: Well show us.

An hon. member: Well do something then!

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just saying it isn’t and the member knows it.

Mr. Lewis: Give me one piece of evidence to show that it isn’t. Give me one piece of evidence to show the Premier’s response since May 15.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Questions?

Mr. Stokes: That’s a question. Give me a piece of evidence.

Mr. Speaker: I don’t consider that as a question.

Mr. Lewis: And because there is no answer I accept it. I thank my colleague from Thunder Bay for pointing that out.

Mr. Breithaupt: The fact that it goes up at the end makes it a question.

Mr. Singer: They might think the member is Welsh.

Mr. Speaker: This is a question period, not inflexion period.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, would the minister consider saying to the automobile insurance companies of Ontario that they are not permitted to increase their premium rates, specifically in northwestern Ontario given the jump of over 19 per cent that’s anticipated, because the evidence that has now been found --

Mr. Singer: He can’t do that until he proclaims the appropriate sections of the Insurance Act --

Mr. Lewis: -- through the auto insurance agents in northwestern Ontario, who have themselves indicated in the last 24 hours that costs haven’t gone up that high, that the figures are out of proportion and that the people of the northwest are therefore again suffering unduly in comparison with the rest of the province which God knows is suffering enough?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, would I be prepared to say that? I don’t know at the present time.

I just want to make comment, and I think all members of the House should be aware of this: With reference to the percentage increase that’s been referred to, quite accurately, as in the neighbourhood of 19 per cent to the people in northwestern Ontario, I secured from the superintendent’s office some figures and I think we must, in fairness to the industry and to the consumer, not only deal with percentages but take a look at this in terms of dollars. I won’t bore the House, Mr. Speaker, with all of the information I have here, but I’m prepared to make it available.

With a $50,000 PL policy and certain other things, $100 deductible and so on, in Toronto -- and these proposals, I should say, or the companies’ submissions, are only recommendations to their members of the association -- in Toronto the CUA recommendation is $107 for that coverage. The lie is $105. In northwestern Ontario it’s $80 under the CUA and $76 under IIC. In other words, the third party liability is still substantially less in terms of dollars than it is in Toronto. That is from northwestern Ontario as compared to Toronto.

Mr. Renwick: Does the minister drive with a $50,000 coverage for third party liability? Of course he doesn’t.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The percentage of increase has correspondingly risen 19 per cent over last year, but it was substantially less than Metro.

Now on the collision aspect: Toronto is $67, northwestern Ontario is $81. I inquired into that, I couldn’t believe that the people in northwestern Ontario, for example, were that much more negligent than the people in Metro.

Mr. Stokes: They’re not.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I found out, and it was very interesting, that a very substantial amount of losses incurred under the collision loss in northwestern Ontario was for destruction of windshields which are very expensive to replace.

Mr. Stokes: That’s because of the poor road conditions.

Mr. Breithaupt: It must be true of Highway 401 as well.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The accidental coverage in both parts of Ontario remains the same, $13 premium per policy. So I think when we are talking in terms of percentage increases, we must also look at the dollars involved.

To use an extreme example, if the policy went from $1 per annum to $2, I don’t think the fact that it increased 100 per cent over one year would really indicate that someone was being exploited. So I bring those to the member’s attention.

Mr. Lewis: Why has the minister become --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. A supplementary?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has interested himself so extensively in this, surely it would be worthwhile that a standing committee of the Legislature, which would include representatives of all parties, should have an opportunity to question the experts -- not just the people from the companies, but others -- in the very detail that the minister is trying to describe and justify at length? Surely that is the whole purpose of the procedure.

Mr. Renwick: The company people --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, if we took a route such as that, I don’t know whether we should take it in the form of a standing committee.

Mr. Roy: Call it what you will.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t necessarily say that that’s the only format, but it might well be that some advisory committee, representing the public interest, might well be a good idea.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, oh. Might well!

Mr. Singer: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker: We must alternate. The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister saying, from the figures put to him by the superintendent of insurance, that the number of collisions and the cost of repairs in northwestern Ontario have escalated at a rate four times that in Metropolitan Toronto, since the percentage increase is four times that of Metro Toronto?

Mr. Lewis: You see. That is what the industry won’t tell you.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that we can equate that unless we look at it in terms of dollars; other things must be considered. The average wage rate for repairmen in Thunder Bay has increased by 112 per cent from 1964 to 1973.

Mr. Foulds: What about between 1973 and 1974?

Hon. Mr. Clement: In Toronto it has risen 103 per cent. In Thunder Bay auto mechanics’ wage rates have increased by 110 per cent during that same period of time and in Toronto by 95 per cent.

Mr. Roy: What about Moosonee?

Mr. Foulds: What was the disadvantage they started with?

Hon. Mr. Clement: And during that same period of time insurance rates have escalated by 75 per cent.

Mr. Foulds: Why does the minister find himself an apologist for the insurance companies?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even though there have been a reasonable number of questions, I believe we will permit an unreasonable number and recognize the hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question of the minister. Does he not believe that the time has now arrived when the government should proclaim the two sections of the Insurance Act that have stood on the statute books for over 35 years, which would give the government power to direct insurance rates if it felt it was appropriate and if the circumstances might come to the government’s attention that perhaps some of the increases are in fact too larger

Mr. Breithaupt: The sections were there before the minister.

Mr. Roy: They can’t accuse him of being too hasty.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of those two sections, which were touched upon by the hon. member last year in my estimates --

Mr. Haggerty: And the year before.

Mr. Singer: And the year before that.

Mr. Lewis: They have been touched on for 10 or 20 years.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I felt, in view of his advanced years, that possibly he was a member of the House at the time, but I find that that was not the case.

I am advised that it has been the experience of those jurisdictions, particularly in the United States where such rate fixing has been mandatory under State law, that the rates tremendously exceeded those in the areas that don’t have them.

Mr. Singer: That is no answer.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, what answer would the hon. member like?

Mr. Singer: I would like the minister to take the power so he could use it when he wants it.

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

HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS IN ONTARIO MINES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Health why he left out section (k) of his statement, which he distributed to others in the House -- and I assume it is a public document now -- which said that serious consideration is being given to the matter of audiometric testing of both applicants and miners and to the intervals at which tests should be performed?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that is always one of the risks of having a written statement, isn’t it?

Mr. Lewis: I guess. It commits one to things one doesn’t want to be committed to.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I looked at that and purposely did not read it because I wanted to check up on the actual frequency of those tests and what position we were in currently and legally in terms of our right to give the information once we had it.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. member for Kent, the hon. Minister of Housing has the answer to questions asked previously.

Mr. Roy: Did O’Sullivan kick the minister out of his riding? Is that why he is here?

HOUSING IN OTTAWA AREA

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a question asked by the member for Ottawa East. I thought he might be interested --

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Since he is only here one day a week.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is very difficult to answer questions of the member because I don’t like to answer them in his absence.

The question asked was:

Could the minister advise us about Ontario Housing in relation to a project announced March 1, where 155 units will be constructed at a price of $3.5 million, which works out to $22,500 per unit, when in fact last year in the same area they were constructing these units in October and August for $11,000 per unit and $17,000 per unit?

Mr. Speaker, first you have to take and put them in their proper context.

Mr. Roy: I got the figures from the minister’s department.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is quite true. The two Ottawa projects which the member uses for comparison on price were built much earlier and are totally different types from the project that he compared them to. The project quoted at $11,000 per unit is a senior citizens’ development consisting of 115 one-bedroom units and the price of $11,000 per unit was obtained on a proposal in August, 1969. The project quoted at $17,000 per unit is a family development consisting of three- and four-bedroom units located on Friel St. in Lower Town East, and the price was obtained in December, 1970. The units used for comparison obtained in the fall of 1973 obviously are higher than prices obtained in 1969 and 1970 for projects of completely different styles.

Comparing apples and oranges is not very constructive, Mr. Speaker. The project in question is located’ in an urban renewal area and, because of that, the city of Ottawa, quite rightly, has imposed certain restraints including height limitations. Also, it required the development of the project as two buildings rather than one in order to get the proper number of units. The soil considerations required the installation of deep pilings, thus considerably increasing the foundation costs and, finally, the price was obtained? on an open tender call with the lowest price submitted in 1973.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary to this? Is the minister aware that the figures I asked for were for construction in the previous year? In fact, I got the figures from his department, from Ontario Housing.

Secondly, does he still feel it is justified that there should be an increase, whether it’s for a period of a year or two years, a great jump from $11,000 to $17,000 to $22,000 per unit?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I just don’t follow how one can compare one-bedroom senior citizens’ apartments with three- and four-bedroom family units, low-rise apartments with high-rise apartments, deep pilings with shallow, over a period of four years. There is simply no way of comparing them in a logical’ way.

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. minister have the answer to another question?

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a question from the member for Port Arthur concerning senior citizens’ housing in Thunder Bay. The hon. member asked whether or not we have systematically ignored the advice and recommendations of the Thunder Bay Housing Authority over the past year and a half.

I can find no substance to that suggestion. Some problem of communication has occurred between the housing authority and the ministry, but now that we have a full-time office of the Ontario Housing Corp. in Thunder Bay, we hope that there will be faster and more accurate communications between us. I’m advised that at present the housing authority is pleased with the relations, co-operation, communications and consultations it shares with the Ontario Housing Corp. and the ministry.

As the member knows we’ve provided 291 new units of housing for senior citizens up to now and expect to complete another 221 units for those on the waiting list. We’re developing another 120 units, subject to bylaw amendments and meetings with local groups. In addition, a senior member of the Ontario Housing Corp. was in Thunder Bay in the middle of May to discuss the possible acquisition of land for another 400 units of senior citizen housing. Once these developments are complete, the waiting list will be eliminated.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister not aware that the waiting list for senior citizens’ housing in Thunder Bay is some 600 people, and that the point scale in Thunder Bay is 80 points before an application is even considered, whereas the average in the rest of Ontario is 26 or 28?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we know that we have reduced the waiting period considerably. The last count that I have is 519 on the waiting list and we have over 600 units under development.

Mr. Foulds: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When does the ministry expect to catch up? Can the minister give me a year?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We are hoping to be caught up completely by next year, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.

PERMITS FOR SEPTIC TANKS

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware of the many complaints from municipalities concerning apparent inconsistencies in the approval of applications for septic tank permits by the medical officers of health? Would the minister explain why permits have been given for septic tanks to be located 50 to 100 ft from a body of water nearly on the same level while in other areas, at a number of feet higher in elevation and with considerably better drainage, permits are refused?

Mr. Roy: That’s par for the course.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, that’s a very good question. Under the regulations of part 7 of the Act, which was proclaimed on April 16, we are asking the health units throughout the province to continue this service. The idea of bringing in the regulations was to bring in some uniformity throughout the province on these systems. I don’t know exactly where the member is talking about but one MOH may say, “Yes, we will approve this particular tank under the regulation” but another may have a different opinion, or the inspectors may.

If the member has a particular problem or any particular case he would like us to look at we will be glad to do it.

Mr. Spence: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In cases where municipal councils feel there are inconsistencies in issuing permits for septic tanks, does the minister’s department make an inspection or an investigation into these complaints from municipal councils?

Hon. W. Newman: In most cases, under part 7 of the Act, we are co-operating with the health units and the MOH and the inspectors already there. In most cases we have agreements with the various counties throughout the province and we are working with them. If they need some help on severances or other things we are prepared to co-operate and work with them.

Mr. Good: Who has the final authority?

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

ASSISTING NATIVE PEOPLE TO ADAPT TO URBAN LIFE

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. In view of the new awareness meetings held in northwestern Ontario last fall and the most recent safari of a group of ministers to northwestern Ontario last weekend, when is she going to embark upon a plan of assisting native people, the non-resident territorial students, so that they can better adapt to the cultural abyss they are confronted with when coming from rural areas into more heavily populated urban areas for educational purposes?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, the committee met in Kenora, as a matter of fact, with the regional people and this was discussed. There will be information coming very quickly.

Mr. Stokes: A supplementary: Has the minister now made herself aware of a scheme presented to the Ministry of Community and Social Services through the Indian community branch and, concurrently, to the Minister of Health, whereby they did present a very realistic and encouraging proposal to solve this very problem?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, to the member, yes. This was thoroughly discussed at our meeting in Kenora.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the minister has indicated both yesterday and today that she is aware of these proposals and is very concerned about arriving at a solution, would she not agree that it is time we have something other than a patchwork approach to a solution which at least lies partly within the ambit of the power of this Legislature and within the power of our Treasury? Would she not give further consideration to a group from the Legislature, representing all parties, meeting with the Indians around their own council tables rather than with the intermediary insulation, let’s say, of the bureaucracy which in some respects probably reduces our ability to cope with what’s become an incredibly bad situation?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition, we have set up a committee of all the senior regional people in that area -- from Health, Education -- and they will be meeting with the social policy field.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): We’re talking about elected representatives.

Mr. Stokes: They say they are completely frustrated.

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

POLICE RAID ON HOTEL

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General. Is the Solicitor General yet able to announce the form of inquiry that is going to take place into the Landmark hotel incident? Can he tell us whether the inquiry will be fully open or not and whether he would consider, perhaps, someone like James Chalmers McRuer or the Chief Justice of the High Court, Dalton Wells, as the commissioner to conduct the inquiry?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, I will have a statement for the Legislature early next week -- hopefully on Monday -- in relation to the type of inquiry and the particular people who will be involved in the inquiry. It will be a fully open inquiry as far as the question of the hon. member is concerned.

Mr. Speaker: I think there are just a few moments left. Several members would like to ask a question. I think perhaps we should defer the supplementary.

The hon. member for Wentworth.

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

Given that the Province of Ontario is involved in studying land in Hamilton harbour which was previously owned by the Harbour Commission with an eye to acquisition; and given that the province is also acquiring land at the east end of the harbour which the commission has jurisdiction over; and finally, given that the city of Hamilton is in fact an emanation of the Province of Ontario responsible to the Ministry of Treasury and Intergovernmental Affairs, will the province support the request of the city of Hamilton for a full and open judicial inquiry into the operations of the Hamilton harbour and its commissioners, also recognizing that one of those who has been charged was a former Ontario Provincial Police officer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the question that has been raised by the hon. member has not been considered by the government. There are now charges pending of course. I question whether we should even be discussing this aspect of it here in the House. There has been no representation to this government that I know of with respect to a judicial inquiry.

Quite obviously, from what little I know of the nature of it, any such determination would have to be made by the federal authorities. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I know very little about it other than what I have read in the press and I am very reluctant to discuss the question here in the House with the charges that have now been laid and are awaiting hearing.

Mr. Speaker: There is time for one more question. The hon. member for Kitchener.

ASSISTANCE FOR FLOOD VICTIMS

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Can the minister advise whether the cities of Cambridge and Kitchener and other municipalities have now made application to be designated as disaster relief areas, and can he advise which municipalities have so been designated?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this would not come under the jurisdiction of my particular ministry. I believe the provincial Treasurer has responsibility for the disaster fund in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to allow me to pass that question on to the Treasurer -- as to the designation of municipalities and those which have applied and been so designated?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Yes, sir, there will be a designation later today including five municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

FAMILY OF CHERYL HANSON

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Mr. Speaker, I know I am out of order but I hope you won’t call me out of order. I’d like to reach as many members of the House before they leave as possible, with an appeal on behalf of Cheryl Hanson’s family.

As many of the members know, Cheryl Hanson is the little girl who has been missing for seven days up in Aurora. I went to see the parents yesterday. The only thing that pretty well has been established for sure is that she was picked up by a car about 300 yd from her home.

This family is very grief-stricken. The family came from the east coast just a few years ago and got established in a new house in January in the Aurora area. As well as the problem of the missing daughter, they also have a financial problem at this time.

After I came back from visiting the family yesterday, I was at the Legislature and several members of the Legislature asked me what they could do. They said they would like to give a donation to the family at this time. The husband has been out of work for a week. There is no chance of his going back, and it’s going to be some time before he goes back because of the condition that he is in at the present time.

I thought it only fair that I ask, not on behalf of the family, but for the family whether each member of the Legislature would like to give a donation at this time to help out with the financial situation at home. The girl who is in the whip’s office has offered to take any donation and will list them and I will make sure that the donations get to the Hanson family.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. J. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table certain information that was requested during the consideration of my estimates and which has now been prepared.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that Mr. Ewen be substituted for Mr. MacBeth on the standing public accounts committee.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Further motions.

Introduction of bills.

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend the Ministry of Government Services Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to improve the operating capabilities of my ministry in the following way:

The normal support services of the Ministry of Government Services will now be able to be extended to Crown agencies, in addition to ministries of the government.

The existing provisions are revised to make it clear that the Ministry of Government Services is to be operated as a service agency for the government, but the responsibility for the services required by a ministry is that of the ministry.

The expropriation powers of the ministry are clarified; the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council is retained for the disposal of real property, but dispensed with in the case of the grant of a lease for less than 21 years or the grant of an easement.

The rights of the Crown affecting land in respect to any public work are clarified.

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this bill is to make it possible for present contributors to the Public Service Superannuation Fund to purchase service credits for certain periods and certain kinds of public service previously excluded.

Perhaps the most significant of these, certainly the one most frequently requested, is covered by section 14 of the bill and will permit contributors to purchase credit for active service in the armed forces of the Crown during the Second World War and the Korean War. Up to now, such service could only be qualified for credit under a ruling of the Civil Service Commission if persons were employed in the Ontario public service both immediately before and immediately after their military service. The bill also permits other non-continuous periods of contributory employment in the public service to be added together. In all cases, the additional periods can be picked up at the option of the contributor but, of course, subject to payment of appropriate contributions as set out in the bill.

Another amendment provides that former contributors to the teachers’ superannuation fund, who become civil servants and who elect to contribute to the public service superannuation fund, will get full credit for the transferred contributions. Previously, this was limited to 70 per cent, because of various differences in the two plans.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill proposes a number of minor changes and some amendments of a housekeeping nature.

Mr. Singer: Does that apply to members of the Legislature too?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, not that it really makes a great difference, it wasn’t planned this way, but I think it’s somewhat significant that this bill picking up the military service is introduced on the 30th anniversary of D-Day.

Mr. Singer: The government should do it for members of the Legislature too.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT

House in committee on Bill 65, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 65, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act. I believe we had an amendment and a subamendment before us when we rose.

The hon. minister.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the subamendment, if I might, in order that all members who weren’t here on May 24 to take part in the discussions understand exactly what did happen on May 24 and what we are endeavouring to do on all sides.

The amendment suggested by the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is to qualify landed immigrants of at least one year’s residence in Canada to be able to vote in municipal elections.

Now Mr. Chairman, I was asked before the adjournment of the House by all members of the House to look into this matter very carefully. I have done so and I would like to review what I have found in regard to the elections Acts -- federal, provincial and municipal.

It would seem to me that we have very great distortion and inconsistency in regard to voting procedures throughout the three Acts. I said on Friday morning that what we are trying to do, as far as I am concerned, is to try to obtain uniformity in voting procedures for all people.

I believe pointing out the various discrepancies to all members at this time is very much in order. We have in the Municipal Elections Act the condition that only a Canadian citizen and not a British subject is currently eligible to be a candidate in a school board election in Ontario.

We have in the federal Act of 1970 the qualification enabling a British subject who was a qualified elector in the 1968 general election and who has resided in Canada continuously since June 25, 1967, to be eligible as an elector and permitted to vote at any federal election up to and including June 26, 1975. After June 26, 1975, only Canadian citizens will be qualified as electors in a federal election.

I might add that we also had before the federal House on March 21, 1974, a proposal in Bill C-131 which reduces the qualification period from five out of eight years to three out of five years. This bill may, of course, not be brought forth again, but in any event I think I should point out to the hon. members that it was proposed.

We have said consistently, and I would like to quote page 2453 of Hansard, May 24, that we wish to have uniformity without disenfranchising anyone. This was supported not only by my statements but also by the hon. member for Downsview (Mr. Singer), the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) and I believe the hon. member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick).

It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very complex subject, which was very properly brought to my attention by the hon. member for Downsview. It seems to me that we must have more discussions at all levels. I propose at this particular time to say to you that we will not accept the subamendment as proposed by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Right now you would lose if there was a vote.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and we will not proceed with the amendment which I put forth on Friday morning. I believe that it would be well if all members of this House were to reconsider some of the statements we made on that particular day and to remind ourselves that we have a duty to proceed with a study of what is needed in regard to all elections; and in particular what is needed after the federal government has proceeded, or otherwise, with the legislation that died on the order paper. I would undertake, on behalf of this government certainly, to be a party to that study.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will not debate any longer, except to say that we are voting against the subamendment and I will be withdrawing my amendment.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): You are leaving the bill the way it is?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat regrettable that the minister has reversed himself on this matter that we had earlier suggested.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): He’s as flexible as a Liberal.

Mr. Breithaupt: The problem, of course, is one that we all view seriously, because none of us would wish to knowingly disenfranchise anyone. We think, however, especially because of the reference which the minister made to Bill C-131 and the comment made by the present Secretary of State, the Hon. Mr. Faulkner, with respect to the implementation of the lowering of the time to acquire citizenship from five to three years as a policy of the present government if it is returned, that this matter, surely, is of great importance to all of us.

We were of the view, and still are, that citizenship is the most important single criterion for the ability to vote within our society. We feel that the matter of lowering the time qualification from five to three years would go a long way to resolving the problems which might otherwise arise when Canadian citizenship becomes the sole criterion for voting in federal elections after June 26, 1975. We are of the view that to tie amendments in a bill such as this to that date, along with having encouragements for persons to become citizens and to take an active and fully committed role within our society, would have been a healthy balance.

I do regret that the minister has not been prepared at this point to proceed with the amendment which he was going to bring in, but apparently he has been encouraged not to do so. We feel that amendment would be a positive step forward to encourage Canadian citizenship.

However, I must say that certainly members within our caucus and within the New Democratic Party caucus have suggested that we should, while we push citizenship forward, not be regressive by the fact of removing the right to vote from those who have it and who have exercised it, and done so honourably, over perhaps a goodly number of years. Indeed, the whole idea of what is commonly called a grandfather clause in many other forms of legislation perhaps is also peculiarly fitting in this case, because the persons with whom we would be dealing are probably more likely to be grandfathers and grandmothers than is the case in the manner in which the cause is used when we discuss other forms of legislation.

I hope that the minister will encourage, perhaps a committee of the House on some occasion, or at least some possible outside group of persons as well, to look into this matter of the right and the responsibility to vote within our society. I do not want to harp long on this particular matter because I think the comments which we might make could well be considered by some to be divisive, and that is certainly not the reason for the interest that I think has been shown in this bill. The comments which I had made and which my leader and others in both of the opposition parties had made have been meant to be positive, have been meant to be encouraging and have been meant to be pro-Canadian and not anti-anybody else. I am sorry the minister cannot continue with the amendment which he was going to suggest to us. We were of a mind to divide on this bill if the amendment was not made and certainly we will consider whether the point should be brought to that length in view of the minister’s comments that he intends to improve upon the present situation.

The comments made by the member for Ottawa Centre and the suggestions made with respect to the right to vote in municipal elections when landed immigrant status was granted have some appeal, I will confess, personally. Yet I think the basic criterion should be citizenship, especially if citizenship can be acquired within a three-year term, and especially if citizenship for British subjects who have been in the country for a goodly number of years can really be acquired within the matter of a few weeks if they should decide to take out that citizenship. The embarrassment might be there, I suppose, but the delay certainly is not; so that any one who wished to participate, should these rules be changed, would have every availability to do so without any particular burden in order to acquire the citizenship in the country in which that person has lived for many years.

I do regret, as I have said, that the minister has not brought in his amendment. I hope that, perhaps even before this debate is finished, the matter can be reconsidered.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to tarry long over the point. The arguments were made on May 24, arising out of the intervention in that debate of the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. J. R. Smith). I rise to say that we support the amendment moved by my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre. There is no question in our minds that the amendment moved by the Liberal Party, to which our amendment was a subamendment, was uncalled for at this time and would have had the effect -- and the minister fell into the same trap -- of disenfranchising a large number of people in the Province of Ontario who, for one reason or another, mainly of long residence, do not feel compelled to take out formal Canadian citizenship in order to indicate their allegiance.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But we did say we wouldn’t disenfranchise anyone.

Mr. Renwick: I understand that. I am glad to see that wisdom prevailed, as we thought it would when the bill was stood down.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I said that before. I said on Friday, May 24, that I was not about to disenfranchise anyone and there would have to be a grandfather clause.

Mr. Renwick: It may well be there would have to be a grandfather clause. I don’t know how a grandfather clause would solve the problem that we are basically faced with.

The thrust of the minister’s comment really had something to do with making the voting provisions at the federal, provincial and municipal level consistent. I am going to say that there are odd occasions when consistency is important, but this is not one of them. I think it is fair to say that other considerations apply at the municipal level, which would indicate that it is quite proper not to have a false consistency introduced into the electoral law.

What we are talking about in the amendment moved by my colleague from Ottawa Centre is that persons who are landed immigrants in Canada and have been here for one year and are ordinarily resident in Canada -- which, strangely enough, is the language which is going to be used in another bill later on this afternoon -- should be entitled, in the municipal field, to cast their vote. The element of allegiance to the Crown, which I think can be made as an argument or as a necessary part of the voting qualification at provincial and at federal levels, is not one which in my judgement carries a great deal of weight at the municipal level.

I’m sure that the minister read the lead editorial on Monday, May 27, in the Globe and Mail, headed: “The Value in Early Involvement.” The arguments which were put are, to my mind, persuasive and conclusive.

I just do not accept the proposition that because the Secretary of State of Canada -- I believe that is the portfolio held by the hon. member for Peterborough in the federal government -- makes the statement that they’re going to reduce the period of time from five years to three years for landed immigrants to become Canadian citizens -- which, by the way, was made prior to the last federal election and has been mooted for some time -- I do not accept that that should have any bearing on the question we are discussing.

What we are simply saying is that there are in the city of Toronto and elsewhere in the province, and particularly -- I’m not making it unique, but particularly, because I’m aware of it, in my riding in Riverdale -- in wards 7, 8 and 9 of the city of Toronto -- a substantial population of persons who have made a greater commitment to Canada than accidental birth in Canada by leaving their countries, by moving their families, by facing the struggles and the difficulties which are involved in making that kind of a relocation. They have affirmatively made that commitment to this country and are contributing every day.

Now it seems to me that at this point in time at the municipal level, they are intimately affected by what their governments at that level do. And particularly are they affected with respect to voting on money matters, and particularly are they affected in the Province of Ontario at the municipal level by the levying of the real property tax. Those are factors which make it extremely important that a country such as Canada and a province such as Ontario should reach out to those people and say to them: “Yes, we trust you; we believe in you. We understand that you should have an opportunity to vote in municipal elections.”

I want to deal with that red herring the Treasurer (Mr. White) raised about: “Well, if they vote in municipal elections they can be elected to municipal office.” Nobody in the city of Toronto, or in Metropolitan Toronto, or in any municipality in the Province of Ontario, feels that we are going to end up in the next municipal elections, if our amendment were adopted, with a Greek-speaking city council in the city of Toronto. It may well be that in certain areas they would be able to have an effective voice in what goes on in the city, and their interest in the political institutions and in the decision-making process would be much enhanced.

I think, really, all I want to say is that at the municipal level other considerations apply. I do not think we should enter upon a discussion with respect to qualification for electoral purposes with some idea that we must achieve a consistency at all three levels of government. It just doesn’t make sense when you consider the different factors which are involved, and indeed many of the arguments which were referred to in the editorial in the Globe and Mail.

We certainly would have voted against the Liberal amendment and we would have voted against the minister, if the minister had persisted in limiting the vote to Canadian citizens at the municipal level. But we will support the amendment made by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, which was to extend the franchise to landed immigrants who are in the country for one year and are ordinarily resident in Canada. We intend to divide the House on that matter.

Strangely enough, the British subject situation, as stated in the bill, poses an immense anomaly. In fact I know of a family of British subjects, who are not yet landed immigrants in Canada but who have made application for landed immigrant status. They are resident in the city of Toronto, and simply because they are British subjects but have not been granted landed immigrant status in Canada -- so they cannot apply for Canadian citizenship -- they will, in fact, be able to vote in the municipal election. That may be only one of those anomalies that appear from time to time, but I want to point out to you there are those situations.

The people living next door to that family are landed immigrants in Canada but are not Canadian citizens, because they haven’t been here long enough, and they are not going to be able to vote. I can’t for the life of me make, at the municipal level, the kind of distinctions which may very well, in my mind, have validity with respect to the question of allegiance at the federal or provincial level.

We will, therefore, support the subamendment of the member for Ottawa Centre and we will propose a division of the House.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, just to refresh my memory, could you tell us what amendments are before the House on this section?

Mr. Chairman: Yes; Mr. Irvine had moved that the words “or other British subjects,” or some words to that effect, should be removed; then a subamendment to that had been moved by Mr. Cassidy, that after the word “citizens,” the words “or landed immigrants of at least one year’s residence in Canada” should be added. We are dealing first with Mr. Cassidy’s subamendment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): The amendment has been withdrawn.

Mr. Singer: Can we then have a subamendment?

Mr. Chairman: Not yet. The amendment will be withdrawn by the minister, I presume, after we deal with Mr. Cassidy’s subamendment.

Mr. Singer: This gets very peculiar. I don’t know how you can have a --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. We have to deal with the subamendment first --

An hon. member: The amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Singer: Pardon?

Mr. Chairman: The amendment to the amendment is dealt with first and then we deal with the original amendment.

Mr. Singer: Then let me talk for a moment, if I may, because I have an amendment here that I want to move.

Mr. Renwick: Are you speaking on a point of order now?

Mr. Singer: No, I am not on a point of order because -- well I may still be, because I am not quite sure.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we could deal with your point after we deal with these first two?

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): No.

Mr. Singer: Then the section will pass.

Interjections by hon members.

Mr. Chairman: If there are further comments --

Mr. Singer: No, on a point of order, I want to move an amendment. The minister, as I understand him, is withdrawing his amendment --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Exactly.

Mr. Renwick: He can’t withdraw.

Mr. Singer: -- and therefore it’s no longer before us.

Mr. Renwick: No, that is not right. May I speak to this?

Mr. Singer: How can we have a subamendment to an amendment which is no longer here?

Mr. Chairman: No, no. Order please.

He will withdraw it when he has the opportunity. We will deal with the amendment to the amendment first of all; then we will deal with Mr. Irvine’s amendment, which he may withdraw at that time.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Suppose the amendment is lost, which it will be, the subamendment carries.

Mr. Chairman: Then we’ll deal with the original as printed in the --

Mr. Singer: Then at what point can I move my amendment?

Mr. Chairman: I would say just after Mr. Irvine has withdrawn his.

Mr. Bullbrook: You’d better be careful.

Mr. Singer: Then I have your assurance I will have an opportunity to --

Mr. Chairman: Absolutely.

Mr. Singer: -- move this amendment which I am about to propose to this section?

Mr. Chairman: Absolutely.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, just in case there is any doubt, let me say that my amendment is withdrawn as of now. Whenever the chance comes -- and I am not sure as to the legalities of it -- but --

Mr. Renwick: Fine, when the chance comes you may do so.

Mr. Chairman: We’ll place Mr. Cassidy’s subamendment first of all.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Sir, on a point of order.

Surely, sir, wouldn’t it be easier for us to deal with this matter, which is not that complex, if you simply permit the minister to withdraw his amendment and Mr. Cassidy to place his amendment?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it is quite obviously simple. The motion is now the property of the House. It is not for the minister to withdraw. It has had a subamendment proposed to it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is baloney!

Mr. Renwick: We vote on the subamendment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why would you refuse him permission to withdraw the amendment --

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Renwick: Obviously the minister can --

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Renwick: -- with the consent of the House presumably, withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Order please, order please.

We will deal with the subamendment first and then we’ll get to the first amendment.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s amendment will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack this with the future one then?

Mr. Renwick: I think we should call in the members.

Mr. Chairman: Could we not stack this with the other one that deals with the same matter?

Mr. Renwick: No. I want the House to divide on this vote, if I may, and I don’t consent to stacking it.

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to the amendment of clause 5, section 12(b) and section 13(b) of Bill 65, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 12, the “nays” are 65.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost. I will recognize the hon. minister now.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. Mr. Irvine’s amendment is accordingly withdrawn. I do now recognize the hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Renwick: With the unanimous consent of the House.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Well, with the consent of the House.

Mr. Renwick: Unanimous consent.

An hon. member: No; Rule 35.

Mr. Singer moves that in section 5, the words “or other British subject” be deleted where they appear in item 12(b) and item 13(b), and that there be added to each of those sections, “provided that no person who was, on June 6, 1974, entitled to vote by reason of being a British subject shall lose any such entitlement by virtue of the provisions of these sections.”

Mr. Singer: I don’t know if you can read that, Mr. Chairman. I think the amendment speaks for itself. It’s the grandfather type of clause the minister was talking about. Certainly we don’t want anyone to be disenfranchised and I think this form of amendment would take care of that problem.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that it’s a shame the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain isn’t here so he could let us know his views on this. The minister has very clearly indicated that he would like to support an amendment of this type.

We know the federal law has been changed to gradually make Canadian citizenship mandatory. As I understand it, it does not contain the proviso that this amendment has and, in fact, the federal legislation will disenfranchise those who do not choose to become Canadian citizens by the time the federal amendment comes into full force.

The purpose of the amendment put forward by my colleague emphasizes our belief that people taking part in the electoral, democratic process here should be Canadian citizens. This is not too much to ask. Our traditions, however, have recognized the common democratic background, particularly with those associated with the British tradition, who have until now been permitted to vote without accepting Canadian citizenship. This, in fact, requires Canadian citizenship as one of its major provisions. But in addition, it permits the franchise to be retained for those who have the franchise as of the date that hopefully this amendment is accepted.

I believe it is reasonable. It should be the policy of all reasonable people and presumably, therefore, of the government. We would ask the minister to indicate he would support it, along with his colleagues.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would like to say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that I would like to have further time to consider this amendment. I feel that it is one that shouldn’t be dealt with lightly.

Hon. Mr. Irvine 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 progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves second reading of Bill 56, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few comments on Bill 56, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act.

I would say first of all, in referring to section 1, and specifically subclause 2, this changes the definition for resident Canadians by adding the words, “or has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence.”

I was wondering, in this particular matter, whether the minister has at any time considered the possibility of taking into account in this amendment the fact that a landed immigrant could accept responsibility in a company for those first five years until he is able to became a Canadian citizen.

I think this is something the minister should consider. However, I realize this ties in with many of the other bills which are on the order paper.

Now with reference to the other sections in this Act, I believe these amendments have come about because of a private bill which had gone to the House; a private bill pertaining to an Irish company. As I recall it, the company wanted to transfer to the Province of New Brunswick.

It’s most interesting. I tried to find out how many companies this legislation might affect; and I just haven’t been able to find out whether it’s two or whether it’s 22. I’d appreciate it if the minister could inform me how many companies this Act would apply to.

It appears to me this allows a non-resident company to be incorporated in Ontario. Possibly it’s due to the fact that it might add a little prestige. I suppose the minister would agree with this particular statement.

I really wonder, basically, if there is any need for this type of legislation. Naturally, the private bills committee saw fit to approve the legislation. Of course, I presume this will supercede that particular private member’s Act. It could be that the solicitor for that company, who is Mr. Goodman, presented such a good case to the private bills committee that it went through.

I can see no harm in the legislation if it is of some benefit. But I just can’t see that there is a tremendous amount of benefit to the residents of Ontario, because I can see only filing fees as the amount received here in the province.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I only have two brief comments. I think somehow or other the minister is wrong to introduce general legislation at this time, unless he has the kind of statistical and basic information about the number of companies affected that the member for Perth commented upon. When the Tara bill was before the Legislature, I think it was quite clear that rather than have the Tara Exploration Co. move to New Brunswick because New Brunswick was closer to Ireland -- which I think was the comment of the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) -- that the point that was made before the private bills committee was that, as in the Province of Ontario, people in Ireland are concerned about the ownership of natural resource industries and control of the companies that have influence in the natural resource industry. It seemed to be the consensus of opinion that the private bill as presented by Tara Exploration, as a result of discussions with your ministry was a very bad solution.

I think that had time permitted the private bills committee would have been of a mind to have exempted that company specifically, with whatever the appropriate wording would be, from the provisions with respect to Canadian residency that is imposed by the Act. I think in many ways that would have been the best way. And other companies, if they could legitimately have come before us in the private bills committee and made a specific request and made a good case, then the committee could have dealt with it.

I am concerned about this. First of all, I must fault the minister and those engaged in drafting it. Because if my reading of the bill is correct, it is practically incomprehensible because of the way in which you have incorporated, by reference, the provision of the Income Tax Act of Canada. I think it is extremely difficult to understand what the minister intends.

Apparently, for practical purposes, he’s saying that any companies which are foreign business corporations for the purposes of the Income Tax Act of Canada, can be exempt from the Canadian residency requirement of the Business Corporations Act if they are Ontario corporations.

I am inclined to think that that tradition of the foreign business corporation exemption is much too broad, it is not clearly understood and its ramifications are too wide. Now this isn’t the kind of bill on which one stands on principle and votes against the bill. But I want to put on the record the difficulty which the minister has put in the Business Corporations Act, by incorporating, by reference, this difficult definition from the Income Tax Act of Canada.

What the minister is asking us to do is to amend subsection 1 of section 1 by adding a paragraph, item 18(a), defining a “non-resident corporation.” And he does it by incorporation by reference:

“Non-resident corporation” means a corporation that is not deemed to be resident in Canada under paragraph (c) of subsection 4 of section 250 of the In- come Tax Act (Canada).

And when one looks at subsection 4 of section 250, item (c), of the Income Tax Act of Canada, you get this incorporation by reference:

For the purposes of this Act, a corporation shall be deemed to have been resident in Canada throughout a taxation year if;

(c) in the case of a corporation incorporated before April 27, 1965 (other than a corporation to which subparagraphs (b)(i) to (iv) apply), it was incorporated in Canada and at any time in the taxation year or at any time in any preceding taxation year of the corporation ending after April 26, 1965, it was resident in Canada or carried on business in Canada.

Therefore, this section, which is about corporations deemed resident, appears to say that somehow or other a non-resident corporation is a corporation that is not deemed to be resident. The not-deemed-to-be-resident corporation, if one looks at this gobbledygook that the minister is incorporating into the Business Corporations Act, appears to be -- the kind of corporation which I now understand he is not imposing the Canadian resident requirements on -- is a corporation that:

(i) was incorporated before April 9, 1959,

(ii) was, on June 18, 1971, a foreign business corporation, within the meaning of section 71 of this Act as it read in its application to the 1971 taxation year that was controlled by a corporation resident in Canada,

(iii) throughout the 10-year period ending on June 18, 1971, carried on business in one particular country other than Canada, and

(iv) during the period referred to in subparagraph (iii), paid dividends to its shareholders resident in Canada on which its shareholders paid tax to the government of the country referred to in subparagraph (iii), it was incorporated in Canada and, at any time in the taxation year or at any time in any preceding taxation year commencing after 1971, it was resident in Canada or carried on a business in Canada.

I don’t understand it. If I have the correct section that the minister is incorporating by reference, and if I have quoted it correctly and it in turn refers to another section which in turn refers to a number of other specifically very technical matters in the Income Tax Act of Canada, then I simply say when we pass this bill into law the minister has created an immense confusion in the Business Corporations Act surrounding the kind of company which may be exempt from this Canadian resident requirement.

Those are the comments which I have. As I say, I don’t feel sufficiently exercised to make it a matter of principle, but from the point of view of the readability of the Business Corporations Act, the minister is turning it into a complicated exempting section with technical language taken holus-bolus right out of the Income Tax Act of Canada but not even repeated here. When our bill is passed, people have got to go to the Income Tax Act of Canada and then figure out what those sections were that I read into the record.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I too am concerned about the sufficiency of this bill and the reasons why it is being brought to the House at this time. As the member for Perth has said, it would appear that the only benefit for corporations which are going to be non-resident corporations for income tax purposes is to allow us to acquire the original incorporation fee and the filing fee.

I follow the comments as well of the member from Riverdale and ask why this kind of change is being made in general legislation at this time. It seems to me there is very little benefit to Ontario from what I have gauged from the remarks that have been made by the previous two speakers.

Comments were made during the debate on Bill 25, the Land Speculation Tax Act, concerning this matter of definition, because it appeared at that point that we were defining companies because of their non-resident ownership that might avoid tax under that bill, but yet might attract tax, because they were more than 50 per cent owned by foreign persons, under the Income Tax Act of Canada.

It would appear to me, Mr. Speaker, as amendments are going through with respect to this Act we should be very careful to make sure that the definitions being used for taxation purposes are not working at cross- purposes; that the definitions with respect to the Income Tax Act of Canada, with respect to this Act, and with respect as well to the Land Speculation Tax Act, are sufficiently clear that lawyers and accountants can advise their clients just how they will fit into a certain scheme of things. It is most important, from my point of view, that the matter of resident requirements is clearly spelled out in this and the other items of companion legislation to which I’ve referred.

I would appreciate hearing from the minister why he has excepted these non-resident corporations once he has defined them. How many particular instances are there, to his knowledge, or how many applications have been made, for this consideration from corporations which are otherwise injuriously affected unless these amendments are put be- fore the House?

Perhaps the minister in his remarks can enlighten us on this matter. I must agree with the member for Riverdale that in his bringing in the amendments in this form and in continuing references, which are not otherwise immediately apparent, to the Income Tax Act of Canada, we are left in some general confusion as to why the items which the minister is bringing forward at this time are being put into general legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate?

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want briefly to express some personal views to the minister. I cannot understand why we should be changing our legislation to accommodate this sort of company.

As I understand it they do not trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange, nor in fact do business here. They don’t even have to provide a public prospectus of their operations. They may have to report certain specific information to the companies branch, no doubt that is so, but it seems strange that we should be making these changes in the legislation governing companies in Ontario simply to permit companies which want to do business elsewhere, as a convenience, to have the benefit of an Ontario charter. It’s almost like a shipping line wanting to register in Panama or Liberia because the governments there somehow allow their rules and regulations to be so lax that it is a convenience so to do.

Surely if a company such as this wants to raise its capital and do business elsewhere but simply wants its corporation to be registered here, we really should not be undertaking this sort of an amendment simply to make it more convenient for them? It may well be that for a special case, as was brought before the private bills committee, some consideration could be given. To put it into general legislation, more or less making this a kind of haven for companies which want respectable registration or the name of a respectable jurisdiction affixed to their charters before they will go off and do business elsewhere, seems to me to be asking for trouble.

I really regret that the minister is proceeding in this fashion. I would hope there would be some further explanation, which has not yet been apparent, which he can give to us.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter into the debate? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, the question has been asked by two or three of the members how many companies are affected or will be affected by this type of legislation. There will be, as far as we can ascertain, approximately 14 to 17 companies affected by this legislation.

The member for Kitchener inquired how many companies had contacted the minister. There have been only two which have made submissions to me in the form of telephone calls or letters. They are Shell Venezuela (Ontario) Ltd. -- or something like that -- and Tara Explorations.

Under the amendments requested to this legislation, in order to qualify for the non-resident exemption, a company would have to have been incorporated in Ontario prior to April 26, 1965, and from that date onward -- and even prior to that date -- have conducted the whole of its business outside Canada or certainly outside Ontario. I am sorry; it would have to be outside Canada in order to be a non-resident. The minute it conducted business within Canada it would lose its non-resident status.

I have inquired of both the solicitors who called me; I forget the name of the man who spoke to me last year in connection with Shell Venezuela. As a result of that inquiry, a private bill was taken before the private bills’ committee of this House which dealt with that matter. The solicitor in this instance, a Mr. Gibson, spoke to me on it.

Both of the companies involved had incorporated in Ontario prior to April 26, 1965. Shell Venezuela was doing all its business down there. Tara has done all of its business in Ireland. There have been no aspects of business conducted within the jurisdiction here by which they would be deemed residents.

When the Business Corporations Act of Ontario came into effect, because of the mandatory requirements dealing with residency and mandatory meetings and this sort of thing, our legislation brought them into this jurisdiction. They lost their non-residency status -- or are about to -- our legislation brought them into our jurisdiction and thus they attracted federal income tax.

The federal legislation referred to by the hon. member for Riverdale -- I believe it is section 250, subsection (4) of the federal Income Tax Act of Canada; it was amended -- said in effect, any companies incorporated in any jurisdictions in Canada -- and these are my words, certainly not the Act’s -- following April 26, 1965, are going to be deemed residents. We don’t care if they do business exclusively outside Canada; they are going to be deemed residents and because of that they attract income tax.

Quite properly, the question has been raised --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did the minister say because of that they are subject to income tax and deemed residents?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On their profits earned anywhere?

Hon. Mr. Clement: On their profits earned anywhere. I can’t anticipate or interpret why the federal legislation was introduced, but probably it was introduced to bring companies back into the fold tax-wise even though they were doing business outside Canada. I think the off-shore thing, which is so common to many of us, probably gave rise to this thing. Of course the grandfather clause gave the testing date of April 26, 1965; those which were non-resident at that time and kept out of the country in their operations following that date were still non-resident. Our legislation brought them in and would make them resident.

Last year the private bills committee approved a private bill put forward by Shell Venezuela, and this year the same route or a similar route was followed by Tara.

In the course of my discussions with Mr. Gibson, the solicitor for Tara, it became very apparent that if the company immigrated to New Brunswick certain problems were going to be created for the shareholders of that company. The problems were this. Certain individuals or corporations invested in Tara because it was an Ontario incorporated creature; because it was subject to the laws of Ontario dealing with corporations. The investors were aware of and knowledgeable as to the Ontario requirements and that was a very important factor in their deciding to invest in Tara. If that company, Tara, moved into another jurisdiction, namely New Brunswick, the investors indicated their concern that in their opinion the rules and regulations of the Business Corporations Act, or the equivalent of New Brunswick dealing with companies in that particular jurisdiction, were not as protective toward the investor as the Business Corporations Act of Ontario. They felt their position was being jeopardized by the company immigrating to New Brunswick. Now, New Brunswick was picked as the target by Tara, I am advised because its legislation did not bring the non-resident feature into being.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, Premier Hatfield gave them the assurance he wasn’t going to introduce it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, I don’t know what assurances were given by the premier of that province-

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And did he?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Goodman got that assurance for Tara.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- but this was our purpose. We took a look at it and said the shareholders who have invested, many of whom, I am advised are Ontario residents and residents of other jurisdictions but who look to Ontario and invest in Ontario because of what we feel are our rather stringent corporation requirements, might well be biased. Then we wondered how many more were going to come forward in terms of these other 12 or 15 companies and perhaps go before the private bills committee next year. So we felt we should bring it in, as a matter of government legislation, to exempt those companies.

If someone asks me why I have advanced this legislation, it is to protect those people who have invested in Tara believing that they were going to have the provisions and protection of the Ontario legislation provided to them because it was an Ontario company, and who now find in fact that is not going to be the case.

Under the Business Corporations Act, the company can emigrate, without any private bill, to Alberta or Manitoba. But the legislation in those two jurisdictions is somewhat identical to ours, and there would be no point to it because they would be caught as a resident if they went into either one of those jurisdictions.

Mr. Renwick: And they’re farther from Ireland too.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think Shell Venezuela, in its private bill, sought leave of this House and obtained it last year to emigrate to the Netherlands. I haven’t talked to those people for a year, and I just don’t know what has happened, if anything, in connection with that emigration. But the reasons have been mentioned here.

As far as Ontario is concerned, I take the position, Mr. Speaker, that we’re protecting those investors, both Ontario residents and non-residents, who have invested in Tara, an Ontario company. There are going to be no more of these creatures created, because it doesn’t matter where you incorporate now; if it’s an Ontario company or a Manitoba company, for purposes of income tax the federal Income Tax Act says they’re a resident in any event. A very limited number is involved.

Some of these other companies may well be in the process of winding up or going out of business or they’re not active, so I don’t anticipate that the whole 13 or 14 or 15 will take advantage of this legislation. But I think it’s realistic to anticipate there might be three or four more that might take advantage of it.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 56.

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.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Renwick: That’s just because I don’t understand it.

PAPERBACK AND PERIODICAL DISTRIBUTORS ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves second reading of Bill 57, An Act to amend the Paperback and Periodical Distributors Act, 1971.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Perth.

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this particular bill, and I will refer first to section 1(2). I believe in the previous bill this same amendment was placed. I ask the minister whether he would consider changing this amendment, because I feel that in this section a landed immigrant is excluded from the definition of non-resident. I personally feel that consideration should be given to the fact that this should be up to a period of five years, the point at which that individual or landed immigrant has the right to take out Canadian citizenship. The minister didn’t make any reply to that suggestion on the previous bill; I would hope that he might make a comment to this effect in reply on Bill 57.

The other sections in this bill refer, first of all, to the change in definition of equity share. I have looked this over very carefully and note that the main words that have been deleted are by reason of the occurrence of any contingency. I have also been informed by a person in this ministry that it is just a cleaning up of the wording. I would like to hear the minister state whether there is any change or whether it is putting it in a more compact type of legalistic wording.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, the sections of this bill are most interesting, and I hope I understand it correctly. I feel that a company could have a great number of shareholders. For instance, if there were 1,003 shareholders, the company could have 1,000 who are Canadian with one vote, and they could have the other three shareholders who are foreign shareholders with a type of class A share that could each carry 500 votes each. In this way, directly it would have foreign control by foreign shareholders. I believe that’s the main purpose of the amendment in this section.

I agree with section 2. I think this is the most important section of this bill, particularly the amendment that states “each share that carries the right to more than one vote shall be calculated as the number of shares equalling the total number of votes it carries.”

Mr. Speaker, I think that those are the only comments I have on this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does any member wish to participate? The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the amendments and will support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather interesting amendment. When the bill was taken through to third reading on July 28, 1971, apparently there was a matter which was overlooked by the ministry at that time. We’ve had no problems on this to the present date, but this is the purpose of bringing this through.

My friend from Riverdale smiles; he knows the error, of course. A share could have attracted more than one vote. One could have the situation where you might own 90 per cent of the shares with one vote attached to each and I could own the other 10 per cent of the issued shares with 40 or 100 votes attached to each share. Thus, by really only owning 10 per cent of the treasury shares, I could have control by the number of votes attached to a rather small number of shares. That is the purpose of introducing this legislation. It has been spotted by my staff and they recommended it.

I think the other changes in the legislation, dealing with landed immigrants who are excluded from the definition of non-residents, are self-explanatory. People can come to this country and be in the process of biding their time prior to making applications for citizenship. We feel they should not be discriminated against. It’s consistent with legislation that I intend to touch on in the other bills that are still to be dealt with by the House.

I don’t think I have any other comments to make. I would take the position that it’s a housekeeping bill, save and except for the clarification of this share thing. It was a loophole and we’re trying to plug that hole by clarifying the votes which attach to the equity shares in the company.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, before second reading be proceeded with, might I just ask if the minister would review the matter in subsection (3) which he has not referred to? That is the matter of constituting control. Can he advise me just why the wording was this way with respect to the 50 per cent of the votes?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m sorry. Would the member repeat his question, because I don’t understand it?

Mr. Breithaupt: I won’t take the time of the House Mr. Speaker. I can deal with it directly with the minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 57. Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion.

Bill 57, An Act to amend the Paperback and Periodical Distributors Act, 1971.

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

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT

House in committee on Bill 56, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 56, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act. Are there any questions, comments or amendments on any section? If so, which one?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman, I only have one question which I want to speak with the minister about very briefly. It’s simply an educational exercise on my part, because I don’t understand it. That is subsection (1) of section 1, the specific definition of non-resident corporations. I want to ask the minister what the definition of “non- resident corporation” means.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I am sorry.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): If the minister doesn’t understand it the bill is very poorly drafted.

Mr. Renwick: This says that a non-resident corporation means a corporation that is not deemed to be resident in Canada under paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of section 250. I take it that means that if it is deemed to be resident in Canada under (4)(c) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, then that section doesn’t apply. Any other company is a non-resident corporation. This is where I need some help -- I really need it. Item (c) of subsection (4) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act states, under the heading which says: “Corporations deemed to be resident”:

For the purposes of this Act a corporation shall be deemed to have been resident in Canada throughout a taxation year, if,

(c) in the case of a corporation incorporated before April 27, 1965 (other than a corporation to which subparagraph (b)(i) to (iv) apply), it was incorporated in Canada and, at any time in the taxation year or at any time in any preceding taxation year of the corporation ending after April 26, 1965, it was resident in Canada or carried on business in Canada. So any company that doesn’t fit into item (c) must be a non-resident corporation. Will the minister correct me if my logic is wrong?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think that is right. That’s my impression.

Mr. Renwick: It says deemed to be resident.

Hon. Mr. Clement: If all these things happen, they are deemed to be resident. This section says, if that doesn’t occur, if the federal government doesn’t deem a corporation to be a resident under that section then these apply.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Well why didn’t the minister put that in the bill?

Hon. Mr. Clement: We have put it in the bill, and as the member correctly points out it is a very involved thing. My law officers were very concerned about it and went through it very carefully with legislative counsel. What we are saying is that if it isn’t brought into a resident status under that section, clause (c) section 250(4) of the federal Income Tax Act, then it is a non-resident corporation and the exemptions apply.

Mr. Renwick: I want to go on then because, as I take it, to decide whether the exemption applies, you look at 250(4)(c); and if you don’t fit in that --

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, if you do fit in that.

Mr. Renwick: No, if you do fit in that you are deemed to be resident --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Right.

Mr. Renwick: So for the purpose of whether you are a non-resident, you mustn’t fit into it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That is right.

Mr. Renwick: Therefore, if a corporation that I have to advise comes to me and says, “Are we a non-resident corporation?” I look at the Income Tax Act, section 250(4)(c) and I say: “If I fit within that section, then I’m not a non-resident. If I don’t fit within item (c), I’m a non-resident corporation.” Then every company which was not incorporated in Canada before April 27, 1965 -- well, if I may use the phrase, it boggles my mind. I don’t understand it.

I don’t know what kind of company doesn’t fit within item (c), because the criterion for being non-resident is that you don’t fit into item (c). I really think it defies statutory interpretation.

I am quite prepared to let the bill go, having stated my objection, provided the minister asks one of his law officers to explain it to me some day -- preferably over a drink.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am glad the member asked me these questions pertaining to the federal Income Tax Act, because there isn’t anybody in this House who has had more difficulty with that Act than me.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): So, why doesn’t the minister pay?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m not so sure I have steady work.

Mr. Renwick: The minister is now working.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There are two kinds of companies, as I understand it, which will attract federal income taxes. There are those which, because of the nature of their operation, the situs of their incorporation, their business headquarters and so on, are residents. We are not concerned about them. They are residents; they pay tax.

Then there is a type of corporation -- it’s a peculiar type -- that’s a deemed resident. Those deemed residents are dealt with under the particular section of the federal Income Tax Act we have been talking about.

Now I would suggest a test for the hon. member for Riverdale, rather than having his mind boggled. When he is consulted by the client, the first thing he should do is look at the date of incorporation of the company. And if the company has been incorporated anytime either on or after -- I think it is after -- April 26, 1965, then the effect of the federal legislation is it’s a resident. Now if it’s incorporated anytime prior to April 26, 1965, then he has to make a second inquiry.

Mr. Breithaupt: Then he looks at your statute.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Then he looks at our statute and the operation of the company and says: Have you been operating in Canada? Have you a venture here that you are operating within the boundaries of the Dominion? And, of course, if the client says, Yes; well, then that’s it. But the client may say: “No, we haven’t. From the time we incorporated, up to the present, we have operated wholly outside of Canada. We paid non-resident in federal income taxes all these years, but the Business Corporation Act of Ontario now gives us some concern. And that is why we have consulted you.”

The member for Riverdale, if he has time, then looks up the federal statute and finds out if it’s a deemed company, or could be construed as such. If it’s a deemed company, they pay tax. If it’s an undeemed company, then the amendment to Business Corporations Tax Act I have before the House today will apply, and no non-resident taxes will be attracted. They still pay a 15 per cent resident tax.

Mr. Breithaupt: This is because, Mr. Minister, a company that had been incorporated, even though it was a non-resident company before April of 1965, would have been included for taxation purposes if it carried on any business within Canada anyway; so that would have been taken care of. The date of the federal statute would have then taken care of all others thereafter. So what you are dealing with, as you say, are perhaps a dozen or so firms incorporated before that date and not otherwise subject to federal income tax legislation.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right. You see the new Act, in effect, back in 1971 or 1972 -- whenever it became effective -- says so many of the directors’ meetings shall be held within Ontario. Then the legitimate concern of the companies involved is that this is where they are doing business. The decisions are to be made at the directors’ table in Toronto. But all of the directors are people from Ireland. They have never been in Canada, for example. But now, legislatively, we are going to bring them into Ontario to conduct the business of the company. And the minute they conduct business in this jurisdiction, they attract the federal income tax.

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

Mr. Renwick: I think I almost got it, but I am not sure. The criterion in item (c) is incorporation before April 27, 1965. So the first thing that you look for is --

Hon. Mr. Clement: April 27; that is right. I am sorry.

Mr. Renwick: So the first thing you look at is whether or not the corporation which you are trying to decide is non-resident or not, you look at the date of incorporation. Now if it were incorporated --

Hon. Mr. Clement: That would be the best way to do it. You would still get the same fee.

Mr. Renwick: If it was incorporated before April 27, 1965, and if after that it was resident in Canada or carried on business in Canada, it is deemed to be resident in Canada under the Income Tax Act --

Hon. Mr. Clement: Right, that’s it.

Mr. Renwick: So that the question of whether it is non-resident is that it must be incorporated before April 27, 1965; but it must not carry on business or have been resident in Canada after April 26, 1965. So that doesn’t help Tara at all.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Sure it does, because Tara was incorporated prior to April 26, 1965, and has carried on its business wholly outside of the Dominion of Canada prior to and following that day, and wants to continue to do so.

Mr. Breithaupt: It never carried on business in Canada.

Mr. Renwick: And its board of directors met in Ireland; is that right? They are resident in Ireland?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Renwick: I see. Well, isn’t that very clever.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I just want this noted, Mr. Chairman: If the member ever earns any fees -- and I know him and I suspect he will out of this, and give a very learned dissertion to his client --

Mr. Renwick: I always live in hope.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- I would just hope that if there is any equity or justice in his heart that he will look this up and refresh his mind and not just look it up in Hansard and have the benefit of these discussions this afternoon.

Mr. Breithaupt: I would like to follow the views of the minister, and hope I get a share, too.

Mr. Haggerty: Is he suggesting a conflict of interest?

Mr. Renwick: If and when the three of us have no conflict of interest, we could discuss that aspect of it.

But let me ask one other question. I take it, then, that the part in parentheses in item 4 doesn’t apply at all? You ignore that in trying to figure out what this means? Let me read item (c) without the parentheses and then refer to the parentheses.

We talked about a corporation, using Tara as an example incorporated before April 27, 1965. Correct? “And not since that time resident in Canada or carrying on business in Canada”, therefore it’s not deemed to be resident in Canada, therefore it is a non-resident corporation and we’re home free.

But stuck in item (c) is the part in parentheses “other than a corporation to which subparagraph (b), items (i) to (iv), apply.” Presumably one could say that the kind of corporation set out in item (b) which, for substance, is the foreign business corporation, is also a company which is non-resident for the purposes of this amendment we’re passing.

It seems to me that by the exception in the parentheses of item (c) we have brought into the exemption the companies incorporated before April 9, 1959, which were on June 18, 1971, foreign business corporations and that throughout a 10-year period ending on such-and-such carried on business in any one particular country other than Canada. All I am saying is, does it apply or doesn’t it apply?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No; I submit, Mr. Chairman, that subsection (4), if we can call it that, of section 250, really deals with two classes of companies, the one referred to in paragraph (a) -- the one incorporated prior to April 26 1965 -- and that other type of company, the foreign business company, referred to in (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) under clause (b). It says there if any of those things happened and it was incorporated in Canada and at any time in the taxation year or any time in any preceding tax year commencing after 1971, it was resident -- and then it goes on to say something else -- that attaches a residency, not a deemed residency, and this does not apply to the Tara-type corporation.

We go from paragraph (a); we skip all of (b), with little (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) and then into the rest of the paragraph. There are very few which will be affected by this and I stress that there are two things -- the date and the operation -- and they just --

Mr. Renwick: And the residency.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, and that they are all Canadian residents on the board --

Mr. Renwick: There are three things.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right; there are really the three things. Apparently in Ireland --

Mr. Renwick: You can forget foreign business corporations.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments on the later sections of the bill? If not, shall the bill be reported?

Bill 56 reported.

Hon. Mr. Clement 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 asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion.

Clerk of the House: Bill 56, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act.

MORTGAGE BROKERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves second reading of Bill 58, An Act to amend the Mortgage Brokers Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, this is an Act to amend the Mortgage Brokers Act and it’s a replay of Bill 57, which we agreed with. Therefore, we would agree with this.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): We agree with the bill as well.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to participate in the debate? The hon. minister.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The members have quite properly perceived it’s just a mirror-like image of the bill we dealt with a few minutes ago, dealing with the paperback and periodical distributors.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 58, An Act to amend The Mortgage Brokers Act.

COLLECTION AGENCIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves second reading of Bill 59, An Act to amend the Collection Agencies Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Perth.

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, on Bill 59, An Act to amend the Collection Agencies Act, there are some small changes that are being made here.

The first one, is in section 1, subsection (1)(aa) where the definition of collection agency has been changed by deleting, I believe, the words “dealing directly with a debtor.” I realize that this has been brought about because of section 4 in the Act, but I’m wondering, because of the experience I’ve had with some fast-talking salesmen who sell prepaid collection forms, if his type of agency would now have to be definitely registered as a collection agency. This is the type of agency that could collect funds in advance and probably go out of business overnight. This is one area that is of concern to me.

I note the other sections in this legislation are again redefining equity share, which is similar to the previous bills that we have just approved. The other additions are similar to many of the Acts. They are encompassed in the Mortgage Brokers Act, and I believe the Paperback and Periodical Distributors Act. It seems strange to me that it probably takes the ministry this length of time to include this in this particular legislation.

I am wondering about section 4. Again, this is a section which adds a subsection to the main section which allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make orders in council. I am wondering if it is really necessary to have a provision by which the cabinet could make exemptions from this Act, the Collection Agency Act. Why doesn’t it spell out the exemptions in the main Act?

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter the debate? The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: We agree with this bill. I think the explanatory note is clear, that these provisions simply implement the requirement that collection agencies be owned by Canadian residents. They are patterned upon similar provisions which have been used to protect that Canadian ownership in the case of other types of companies with a specific public interest.

The only comment I would ask the minister to make is on the question of the selection of the date, May 9, 1974, as the effective date with respect to these provisions.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to enter this debate? The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, in order to avoid the matter going to committee perhaps the minister could advise me, when he responds on the bill, how much of a problem is being resolved by requiring that collection agencies be owned by Canadian residents?

I agree it is a good idea that collection agencies be owned by Canadian residents. I am wondering if the minister can advise us what the experience has been? Have there been any particular difficulties in the operation of the agencies or in the supervision by the ministry because of any non-resident persons who might be of other citizenship? What has the experience been that has led the minister to this matter of requirement for ownership by Canadian residents?

Mr. Speaker: I presume no other members wish to enter the debate? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, referring first to the comments offered by the hon. member for Perth, the prepaid collection type of service provided by certain agencies is still included. There is no reduction of the responsibility or shrinking of the responsibility of the ministry. The collection business, like other types of businesses, is having modifications put forward. Some of them are very acceptable and very successful; others we find are not that desirable. We do receive a fair number of complaints mostly relating, when it comes to collection agencies, to the methods used by the canvasser who is trying to recover the debt.

The question was raised by the member for Riverdale as to May 9, 1974. That was the day the bill was introduced for first reading and that’s the only symbolism in that particular date being used in subsection (3) of section 11, being amendment No. 3 to the Act.

The other sections really do deal exactly with the things we have referred to in our earlier discussions in terms of shareholdings and equity shares.

I think those are the only comments I can validly offer. I would like to stress, and I think the members of the House are well aware, that we believe that in activities such as the gathering of personal, credit or collection information that in the best interests of the people of this province, data gathered by these industries operating here must be physically stored within Canada. And for very good reasons; because data is accumulated and stored in countries other than Canada.

This residency requirement has been the policy of the registrar for a number of years. It seems to be in the best interests of the public. Such a practical policy should at some point be introduced into legislation, either by statute or by regulation, so that the public, by an examination, can look and see what the requirements are.

I must confess I have been somewhat concerned. In other areas we have had policy that has seemed to work well and that policy has been challenged. The solicitors involved have made a very good case of saying: Look, I look at the statute, and it tells me the requirements. I look at the regulations and there are some more additions and tests that must be met. I told my client that, in my opinion, he is eligible for registration, or whatsoever it might be. Then I run face to face into policy that says: “No you can’t, because your client is a resident other than Canadian.”

So in these areas it has been my feeling that we should reduce these policies to writing, put them in the statute, debate them here as we are today, or make them regulations; but ensure that they are available in printed form. This is just an extension of my personal feeling in that area.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. Speaker, I just want to be certain of the minister’s comments with regard to pre-collection agencies.

Mr. Speaker: This, I believe, is a point of clarification.

Mr. MacDonald: Yes. Are we on second reading?

Mr. Renwick: You had better raise it by way of clarification. I think they will let you in.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By way of clarification, the minister stated that the government has no objection to pre-collection agencies as such, but that in some instances they have had some unfortunate experiences, and that therefore you examine each one on its own merit or record. I have raised with the minister one particular instance which seemed to involve general harassment from the ministry in terms of a pre-collection agency as not being the kind of agency which is, perhaps, as desirable as the traditional kind. I would just like some assurance from the minister -- are we going into committee?

An hon. member: No.

Mr. MacDonald: We are not going back. I would like some assurances from the minister on this point, because I think there are misunderstandings and the sooner they are clarified the better.

Hon. Mr. Clement: My understanding of some of the difficulties we have met with, Mr. Speaker, is where this type of business says: “We are not a collection agency and therefore are not monitored by your legislation. We don’t contact the debtor, we don’t phone him and we don’t send people out to knock on his door. We have a pre-paid service and our only contact is by mail.”

We have received numbers of complaints. I am thinking of a particular agency, and I don’t wish to identify it here, because I think litigation is either pending or has been commenced. Our investigations have resulted in that particular agency refusing, in fact, to discuss or let our people examine its operation. We have asked under the existing legislation that our inspectors be allowed to go in and do an inspection and have been refused. There has been some difficulty with reference to that particular agency and members of my staff. We are of the opinion that the services that it performs -- I am passing no comment on that, because I just don’t know -- but we are of the opinion that it is a collection agency.

Mr. MacDonald: It is.

Hon. Mr. Clement: We feel that it is a collection agency. If they have a peculiar form, or an unusual, or different form, I don’t mean peculiar in the sense that I mean critical, of retrieving debts and perform a useful function in that way, that is fine. But we say that they should; be under the same guidelines and under the same legislation as the traditional type of collection agency that is so well known to us.

I would not tolerate harassment by any member of my staff. I would not tolerate any abuse being heaped on my staff by any industry that we monitor. I think many times these things boil down to the personality problem -- where you and I are toe-to-toe and it doesn’t matter what we say to each other, it raises a flare in the eyes of the other.

I will make this assurance: While I’m identified with this ministry, there will be no harassment. If there are any breaches of the legislation I will press my staff to make sure the people are properly tried, or charged, or follow the procedures that are laid down in the legislation. There has been some difficulty and the member and I have had a discussion about this. I think he knows the agency that I’m talking about today.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 59; shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion.

Bill 59, An Act to amend the Collection Agencies Act.

Clerk of the House: The 27th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF ‘AGRICULTURE AND FOOD (CONTINUED)

On vote 1702:

Mr. Chairman: We’re on vote 1702, item 2 and dealing with the last sub-item under that -- veterinary. Are there any further comments on the veterinary item on page R17?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman, my first major intervention in the Agriculture estimates some years ago was in connection with the warble fly control programme. The minister at that time assured me that the programme was very effective and was working along very well and the warble flies were under control. I have reason to believe --

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): That is under the livestock section, and that was carried.

Mr. Chairman: I understand that those comments would be more appropriate on livestock.

Mr. Renwick: I can’t possibly have missed it.

Mr. Chairman: Well, you did.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, you did. It was under livestock.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps the minister would do me the courtesy of telling me whether there has been any change with respect to the warble fly control programme and whether it is now not as much under control as it was when I originally asked the question a few years ago? I have reason to believe that it isn’t.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: I think the minister will confirm that there has been a re-emergence of the warble fly in the Province of Ontario and the programme requires a great deal more diligent application than it has up to now.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Does the minister have an answer on this?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, it’s gone by.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything further under the veterinary item then?

All right, will it carry?

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): No.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: I wanted to mention to the minister a matter of concern to some livestock producers in the province. It relates to the incidence of brucellosis in the last few months.

This is really a federal programme but I notice that one farm organization in the province had asked that the federal government compensate farmers for 90 per cent of their losses as a result of the brucellosis discovery. The cases that were cited to me were two in number which happened to be in my area and which have inflicted very severe financial hardship on those people so affected. I am wondering if the minister has taken any position with respect to this matter with the federal minister, as to whether the testing programme should be reactivated again, again.

I believe there was an instance of brucellosis in a big herd in Alberta just recently, and a lot of the herd bad to be destroyed. The two cases with which I am familiar happen to involve farmers near Moorfield, which isn’t all that far from where I live. I think both of these people were in the dairy industry. The one chap was selling replacement heifers, as I recall, and it practically wiped him out.

So I wonder what the minister feels with respect to this matter -- if, in fact, he is of the view that the testing programme should be revised or if it’s just an isolated circumstance where the matter really isn’t all that serious other than for those farmers who happen to encounter it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly say, as the member for Huron-Bruce has said, that for those farmers who are involved, it is a very serious matter. It is a very great loss.

Now, as far as the federal people are concerned, we have been in constant communication with the health of animals branch; Dr. Kenneth Wells, the veterinary director general, is an excellent man, completely dedicated to the job. He’s just concerned as anyone is. But there is no real, easy answer to it.

I suppose it’s safe to say that Canada has the highest standard of livestock health of any country in the world. I believe that that is a fair statement to make, and it’s attributed to the very cautious approach that has been taken. Sometimes we are inclined to think it’s over-cautious. Some didn’t think so. But it has resulted in a standard of health among livestock where our cattle are accepted virtually anywhere in the world.

It was with that thought in mind that we first embarked on that clean-up of the brucellosis programme -- the compulsory vaccination programme, the test and slaughter programme. When it reached the point where it was virtually eliminated across Canada, it was decided in the interests of export trade that we should abandon calfhood vaccination, since there were some countries in the world that were saying they would not accept breeding stock from countries where calfhood vaccination is practised. This was because there was a carryover, and because it was a live vaccine, raising the danger of it breaking out in those countries where the vaccinated cattle would be introduced to herds where there was no vaccination.

And so the programme was abandoned, I think with general unanimity. But for those people who wanted to protect their own herds and continue to build up the resistance within their own herds, we supplied the vaccine free of charge through our ministry. The veterinarians in the local areas were designated as those who could inject the animals and certify that they had been so injected. That service is still available.

It’s difficult to know what really did happen. But I suppose it could be considered that the same thing happened right within Canada that some foreign people were afraid would happen in their country -- that the treated heifers would be in contact with those that weren’t, and perhaps infect the cattle that hadn’t been treated.

Whether that’s a logical conclusion to reach as to what did happen, we don’t know, but we know there have been some outbreaks. There aren’t very many. There are very few, as a matter of fact, comparatively speaking, when one thinks of the number of breeding cattle in Ontario today.

The federal people and their own staff have been in constant touch on it. There doesn’t seem to be any clear decision to be made as to whether the programme of calf vaccination should be reintroduced. I think if it is there is great fear that those who enjoy a reasonably good export market now will have that market placed in jeopardy. I think that’s an absolute fact.

Because of the comparative lack of incidence of the disease, it has been decided not to re-introduce that programme, but the random testing of females slaughtered in Ontario will continue and the back checks will go on. If there is the slightest evidence of anything resembling brucellosis among herds everyone is duty bound to report it to the federal people so that they can get control of the thing as quickly as possible.

With regard to increased compensation, that matter is being discussed in the meetings that are being held on an ongoing basis with the federal officials. I haven’t personally injected myself into it, with the federal minister, other than to support with our people any discussions that might lead to an increase in compensation where it is deemed necessary.

I think we are all aware of the fairly substantial salvage value of female breeding stock that goes down in the test due to the rather substantial cattle prices that we have had up until the last few months. What will happen from here on I just don’t know. I think there is some reluctance on the part of the federal people to increase that compensation beyond what they think is a realistic level, coupled with the salvage value of the beef.

Mr. Gaunt: If I recall correctly -- the minister mentioned it -- but does not the farmer have to pay for the vaccine unless he gets approval from Ottawa, in which case then the vaccine is free? I had a case just a matter of weeks ago where a farmer at Tiverton phoned me and said, “I am going to have to pay for this vaccine, what do I do?” So I called Ottawa, they approved the use of the vaccine and then they paid for it. There was no charge to him.

Is that the way it works? That was my understanding of it. The farmer has to pay for it if he doesn’t get the approval from Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That could be right, but I was of the opinion that we paid for it. Maybe it is that we pay for the veterinarian.

Mr. Gaunt: I think you pay for the veterinarian.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We pay for the vet and then he pays for the serum, but only the veterinarians who are designated can get the serum -- that’s the point.

Mr. Gaunt: That’s right. That’s it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We pay for the vet but he can only obtain it providing he is designated by us to administer it. I know we have some that aren’t so designated.

Can they get vaccine free from Ottawa? Does my hon. friend say that Mr. Chairman, if that herd is designated for such vaccination?

Mr. Gaunt: Yes. As I understand it, you don’t have to make an application, but in this particular instance the gentleman had to indicate his desire for the vaccine and the reasons why he thought he should have it. Then the approval came from Ottawa -- I guess from Dr. Wells’ office -- to the veterinarian, and the vaccine was then supplied free of charge to the farmer. That’s the way I understood it.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on veterinaries?

Item 2 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything on item 3, crop insurance?

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I wonder if the minister can give us a capsulized account of last year’s experience? The latest annual report we have covers the period ending March 31 last year. I assume that last year we had very heavy deficits because of the weather conditions and things of that nature. In short, an up to date report that I would like to read in the annual report but haven’t got.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The 1973 crop year apparently was a fairly normal year for crop production in Ontario. There were areas and crops that were severely affected. Eastern Ontario, because of the excess amounts of rain, had those difficulties.

The commission’s loss ratio on spring rain was the worst in history last year. The wet spring resulted in thousands of acres that farmers were unable to seed. The bare ground coverage plan was introduced for growers who had insurance. Under this emergency plan approximately $500,000 was paid out. The apple crop was also severely affected by the wet spring and the loss ratio was well over 300 per cent.

The overall picture was fairly favourable, with losses approximating premium income.

While there were areas of the province, particularly eastern Ontario, that were badly hit, western Ontario probably had one of the finest harvesting seasons it ever had. In other words, there were some bad losses as far as apples were concerned -- with first of all the wet spring and the bees didn’t work nearly as well as they should have, and then we got some bad hail storms in apple-growing areas -- so that was rather badly affected. But the corn crops got off last year and we didn’t run into the kind of losses that we might have had.

Are those sufficient figures or do you want the liabilities and cash resources as of March 31, 1974?

Mr. MacDonald: What was the loss last year in terms of income and payout? You say it was a normal year overall?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The revenue last year was $3,847,000. The expenditures last year were $3,795,000. We just about broke even.

Mr. MacDonald: Really?

The specific point I wanted to raise with the minister is with reference to a situation that happily doesn’t take place too often, but when it does it is pretty crippling for the local farmers. That is when they run into tornadoes or the equivalent thereof.

I had the opportunity not too many months ago -- back last fall if I recall correctly -- of visiting areas south of Ottawa where twisters had come in. As the minister knows, when a twister moves in, it can have a very strange pattern. It can cut through a farm and wipe out a field here, yet literally a quarter of a mile away everything is normal. When I had an opportunity to listen to the representations of the farmers there and of the Federation of Agriculture county committee, which happened to include the chap who is chairman of the crop insurance committee for the provincial federation, they were raising pretty sharply what they deemed to be inequities in balancing out losses across the whole farm rather man dealing with the fields that had been wiped out completely because a twister just cut a path through.

It seemed to me that this is the kind of thing that wouldn’t represent a serious drain on the insurance fund, and yet at the same time would grant greater equity to those few farmers who happened to get caught by that kind of a situation. I know that OFA, through their crop insurance committee, made representations. As I recall, there wasn’t too much detail in their brief to you but they make representations periodically and met with various departmental officials. I am wondering whether the department, or the ministry, or whether the minister himself has come to any conclusions as to remedying that -- fortunately a small number of cases, but pretty devastating when they do take place.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, it is really spot-loss coverage that the member is talking about.

Mr. MacDonald: Right.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The same thing can apply in a hailstorm. You can have a hailstorm cut across the comer of a field or an orchard or a tobacco field or what have you.

As far as hail damage is concerned, I believe that there is spot-loss coverage but it has to apply on something over two acres -- something like that -- I think that’s worked into the policy.

I don’t have the various plans here but I know that in relation to the problem that happened south of Ottawa, that too is reflected in the continuing average production of those various farms. That would be reflected against next year’s crop insurance. There is a five-year averaging programme for every farm in Ontario and that adversely affects it as well, but I was of the opinion that if one could prove tornado or cyclone damage, there was some consideration given to settling for that portion of the crop at a given stage. I thought if it was at harvest time, where it was determined there was no way you could salvage it, there was some consideration being given for that particular aspect.

As I understand it this is a change from what we originally started out with, so I think that that is being taken care of.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): May I ask the minister a question with regard to the number of farmers taking out crop insurance? It is on the increase, if I understand correctly. Is the number of farmers using the crop insurance plan here in the province increasing?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Oh, yes.

Mr. Spence: And the farmers are accepting it a lot better since you increased the premium, your percentage, and Ontario added another 25 per cent to the premium. And with the crops that you cover under this plan, are you considering covering more crops this year than last year?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have quite a substantial increase in the number of people using the insurance plan every year. I think the 50 per cent premium helped; and the 100 per cent coverage of administration costs. There are many farmers saying, “Well, we can’t afford to be without it” and now, this year, they have wiped out the planting dates because any person who has crop insurance, which includes the bare ground coverage, at about $1 an acre, gets it automatically.

It seems there was no necessity to maintain those dates, because, really, the weather is the thing that counts. It is impossible to set a date. This year, I suppose lots of us would say that we were too late getting some crops in this spring. But who knows? If we get the right kind of growing weather now and frost-free days in the fall, we might harvest just as good a crop as we ever did.

So to me it is a bit fictitious to set a date and say, “Well, you have to have it planted before that date or your crop insurance is void.” That doesn’t make sense. So we eliminated that date and there are more crops covered. I could list them all if you wish me to, but every year we are trying to work in more as we go along.

We work it out with the people who grow those crops. It is much easier where there are commodity plans because you can bring in the board that represents that group and go out to the various areas and talk to them. There is a great deal of background work that goes into the development of a plan, and it is always worked out in conjunction with the producers. The Soil and Crop Improvement Association of Ontario is very much involved in those plans as well. We try to get input from those various bodies before a plan ever reaches my desk.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Just briefly on this, Mr. Chairman, to the minister. I don’t know whether he has these figures but I was noticing, for instance, in the report ending March 31, 1973, under “corn,” for 1972-1973, grain and silage are now together. There it shows the number of farmers insured as 1,914 and that there was a loss of $900,000 on that particular crop.

I was wondering if there was any trend as to the areas where the losses are. Knowing the situation that happened in eastern Ontario in the last few years, we would assume that that is a heavy loss area.

Do you have any comparisons to make on the effect of the type of soil, and whether the land is tiled, and so on, on overall losses? I suppose that is probably static at the present time, but I wonder if you do any comparisons between land that is tiled and not tiled, as to claims running over a period of two or three years.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, there is a trend, there is no question about that. On well-drained soil, generally speaking, you don’t expect a loss ratio. I believe now that there was consideration given to this, but I am not exactly sure whether it is in this year’s plan or not. It had been considered that where tile drainage was a factor, that there would be some credit given in the premium paid. It was a sort of a bonus. I think that just made common sense, because the risk was not nearly as great.

I wouldn’t say there were any particular trends insofar as areas are concerned, other than in eastern Ontario where that unusually wet weather adversely effected the crops. Generally speaking, there hasn’t been any trend in the normal corn-growing areas of Ontario, other than where really bad, adverse weather would set in at planting time. That may not be an accurate description of it, but we have detected no trends at all in that regard.

Mr. Chairman: Item 3.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, does the minister know the number of agents he has across the province? Is this number increasing, or has he pretty well maintained the same number that he started out with?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, really it hasn’t increased. It hasn’t changed. We added a few in the tobacco-growing area, because we took in flue-cured tobacco the year before last. But there wouldn’t have been any extensive increase at all this last year. My guess is that the figure would be almost constant. I don’t have that figure before me. I doubt very much if there has been any change in the number of agents at all this last year.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister if the tobacco industry is using this crop insurance for the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, I think I could tell you the number of policies we had. I think we have the number right here on tobacco --

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Flue-cured?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: There were 742 contracts for flue-cured tobacco for 1974, and I understand that the number is up substantially again this year.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Minister, do you give coverage up to 90 per cent as the other insurance companies do? At the beginning when the crop insurance was started, there were complaints that your coverage on tobacco wasn’t the same as that offered by other insurance companies. Did you change your crop insurance plan to meet the flue-cured tobacco growers’ request?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes. Of course, one of the reasons the tobacco growers were attracted into the plan was the increase of the subsidy to 50 per cent. That had a major impact to start with, and some other changes were made. The point that my friend from York South mentioned about that spot-loss coverage in tobacco is an important factor. It was one of their chief objections in the past.

With regard to the point raised by the member for Essex-Kent, in trends for areas where losses occur, you can certainly trace them as far as hail is concerned in tobacco counties. Some areas get hail almost every year to some degree, and those areas show up very definitely. They showed up in the private insurance coverage, and they show up in our plan. But that has been worked out with the tobacco board, so coverage is provided. I can’t tell you whether its 90 per cent, as I don’t have the details of each plan here, but as far as I know it must be satisfactory, because the tobacco board was working these details out with the Crop Insurance Commission, and they brought them forward on that basis.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire from the minister as to how the agents are paid, if I may get back to that? Do you know the system by which they are paid? How do they get compensated?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They are paid on a “so-much-per” policy, as I understand it.

Mr. Gaunt: A flat rate?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: A flat rate. I think it was about $15, if I am not mistaken. That doesn’t seem to be very much, but they are local agents in the local community -- as far as I know that’s what the rate is. I don’t see the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hamilton) in the House. He’s on the commission, and he’d probably have that figure right at his finger-tips. I don’t have the exact figure in my statement here. And, as you know, I don’t have the staff around here, but I think it’s $15.

Mr. Gaunt: And they don’t get any expenses -- travelling allowances, or anything like that?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They get some expenses. I can’t tell you offhand; I just don’t know but I can get that figure for the hon. member and will be glad to relay it.

Mr. Chairman: Item 3 is carried. Item 4.

The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: I am interested in this matter of the Ontario Junior Farmer Establishment Loan Corp. deficit for 1974-1975. It is certainly up substantially from what it was last year. Last year it was $950,000; this year it is $2,913,000.

What’s the problem there which would account for the tremendous jump? I would say that’s a very substantial jump in one year. I can’t understand why that would happen; things on the farm surely aren’t that bad? We’ve been told this year was pretty good in terms of income and I can’t figure out why your ministry would be programming for a deficit of that size with respect to the junior farmer loan programme.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It’s to make up the difference in the subsidy. You see the junior farmer loan was granted at five per cent on the loan that was in in my day. Previous to that it was at four per cent. On all those loans which are outstanding, we have to pay the difference between the four per cent and five per cent, which we receive from the people who hold the junior farmer loans, and the going rate of interest. Our ministry is charged with that subsidy.

I suppose one could say, “Why doesn’t it show up in the provincial Treasury?” But the system the government operates on now is that each ministry is responsible for the debt load that’s assessed against that ministry.

Mr. MacDonald: Next year it will be about $5 million.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That’s the way it is.

Mr. Gaunt: The higher the interest rate goes, the bigger the deficit?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The more we have to pay. That’s why the deficit is so high. This is the highest it’s ever been right now and that’s where it comes from.

Mr. Gaunt: I was wondering, in this connection do you have handy there the figures with respect to how many junior farmer loans have gone into default and how many are still outstanding?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It’s very few.

Mr. Gaunt: I know it has always been a very low percentage.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It still is.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister, in regard to those farms which have junior farmer loans which haven’t run out. If the farmer decides to sell, in general, does your department or the junior farmers branch of your department approve of those junior farmer loans being carried on by the buyer who isn’t a junior farmer? I don’t know if that question is out of line.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, that’s right; we do, in certain cases. If the junior farmer qualifies at the same age -- that’s if the new buyer is the same age as the other one or in the age bracket up to 35 -- we normally transfer it at the same rate of interest, five per cent. If the new buyer is beyond that age limit -- I have those figures here but I can’t find them -- the board deals with the application and in some cases it is increased to something more approaching the Farm Credit Corp. Sometimes we can accommodate them by just transferring the mortgage.

We think that is a fair way to do it. I have had a good many people say that was a reasonable and the proper way to do it. I’ll get those figures for you. I’ve read them all and they are in this book but I’ll be blessed if I can put my finger on them. But I’ll have them for you.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York South.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, on occasion I have heard the comment made that the capital grants programme has not been upgraded to take into account the kind of inflation we have experienced in recent years. Would the minister make some comment on that? Some of the capital grant moneys are a block amount; when they are exhausted, that’s all. Are we faced with a situation in which, in some instances, there is no money available? Has there been any upgrading to take into account the inflation factor?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, there hasn’t, Mr. Chairman. It has been drawn to our attention that that is a concern all right. Last year I made an announcement that we would have only $10 million available, and because there were some other programmes that hadn’t been entirely used up within the ministry we persuaded Management Board to allow us to use those funds to honour the applications on capital grants. And we paid them all up. I think it was $18.5 million, something like that, last year.

Mr. MacDonald: Has the ministry any significant number of applicants it can’t meet?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, we cleaned up every applicant for last year. We started off with a clean sheet as of April 1 this year. How they will go this year, I don’t know. We are starting to catch up on the number of people who have used up their allocation, so it seems to have worked out reasonably well in that regard.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wonder if the minister could give us a report on any change in the farm tax reduction programme now that the individual farmers have to apply for it?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes. The grants that were paid out were almost $25 million this year; 1973-1974 farm tax reduction programme, $25,884,000.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Can the minister indicate what his experience was when the money went out automatically based on the assessment rolls? If he has to look it up, it is probably insignificant. I just wondered if there was some reduction, if some farmers felt that they would be prepared to apply.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It would be hard to know if there was a reduction or not. You see, we doubled the grant. Previously, it was 25 per cent --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But the minister would know the numbers involved.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Probably I have them. Just a minute. I don’t know whether I have them here or not. I have the amount that was paid out but I don’t think I have the actual number of applications. I don’t have that. There are some who haven’t been paid out and they are being dealt with by an appeal board, and we’re not sure whether that total will be increased or not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would be interested to hear the change in emphasis on the payment of that assistance.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: There is no question that there were a great many who had previously received it automatically but who didn’t get it this year.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Almost like unemployment insurance cheques?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, you could describe it that way. Certainly there was a great difference.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A great difference? What’s that?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I can’t tell exactly how many there were, but there were some people who normally had received that grant and weren’t getting it this year.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I must say I would be interested --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I haven’t got those figures because, as I say, those appeals are not dealt with.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would be interested in knowing, when the minister can perhaps collect those figures later, whether during the estimates or at a later time, just what the comparison was, particularly as he said there was a great difference. Because when the cheques go out automatically there wouldn’t be many people who would return them if they felt they didn’t deserve special assistance, but when the farmer has to sit down and make out an application, even though that is a relatively easy thing to do, it makes quite a difference. I would be interested to know just how much the difference would be.

Mr. MacDonald: I share that interest.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, on the same thing, if I remember correctly -- I don’t have the figures before me -- I thought the rate before was about $16 million, which was 25 per cent of the taxes at that time when it was sent out.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Half the education cost, I think it was described.

Mr. Ruston: Now it is 50 per cent and we are talking $25 million to $27 million, so it could be that there are anywhere from $3 million to $5 million that may have gone. This was also mentioned by the auditor, because he was aware of cheques going out to people and a number of them came back because the people didn’t think they should have them. I would also be interested in knowing what the difference was from 1972 to 1973.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I haven’t got the exact number of applicants, but I can tell the members that the farm tax rebate amounted to about $18 million to $20 million in years past and this year, with the applications and paying double the grant, it amounts to $25.8 million so far. That may be added to. But supposing it runs up another $1 million or $1½ million, that is quite a change. I would think that the auditor’s concern has been taken care of through the applications and certainly the Kowal committee, in its interim recommendation, recommended that the grant applications be made rather than that it be automatic.

Mr. Chairman: Will there be further discussion on the item?

Mr. Spence: I might ask the minister, does a farmer have to have all his taxes paid in order to collect?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Spence: He has to have them all paid?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

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