Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House, in the west gallery, the members of the First Dorchester Scout Troop and their leaders and ask the members to join with me in welcoming them.

Mr. J. Lane (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure at this time to introduce to the House a group of 4H Club members, seated in the east gallery, from Manitoulin Island. With the club members are Mr. and Mrs. Clinton Nesbitt from Gore Bay. Mr. Nesbitt is the agricultural representative for that district. I would ask my colleagues to welcome them to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): There’d better be some.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): What ministry?

Mr. Lewis: Come on, this is ridiculous.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Which one?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Oral questions.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): On a point of order, surely it is unfair that we should be expected to ask questions of two cabinet ministers.

Mr. Lewis: Absolutely.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Even though members opposite don’t have any.

Mr. Deans: Would the Speaker entertain postponing the question period until there may be someone to ask?

Mr. Lewis: Or, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, perhaps adjourning the House for 10 or 15 minutes until the cabinet can be pulled together.

Mr. Speaker: Has anybody any questions of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman)?

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, even if we don’t have a question period, I don’t know what business can be conducted because the bills that were indicated by the House leader last night are not under the supervision of anybody present. Just so that we can ring the bells for a while, sir, I shall move we adjourn.

Mr. R. F. Nixon moves the adjournment of the House.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order --

Mr. Deans: A motion to adjourn is not debatable.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): It’s not debatable. Call the vote right now.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, that’s right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no reason to believe the ministers who have bills coming forward won’t be present --

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The minister is breaching the rules.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. R. F. Nixon has moved that the House adjourn.

Those in favour of Mr. Nixon’s motion, will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Call in the members.

Those in favour of the motion to adjourn will please rise.

Those opposed to the motion will please rise.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 20, the “nays” 35.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.

Before we start the clock running for the question period, the Minister of the Environment has indicated he has quite a lengthy answer to a question, so I suggest that he give his answer under statements. We called that order earlier and then we actually called the question period, so I would like the permission of the House to revert to statements by the ministry.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to introduce a group of students from Port Credit Secondary School with their teacher, Mr. Ian McSkimming. I’m sure the hon. members will join me in welcoming this group of students, which I think is in the east gallery.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment.

NAPANEE INDUSTRIES

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to the question previously asked by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) concerning Napanee Industries.

The member did not state which ministry project he was referring to when he said it was the ministry’s ruling under the Public Works Creditors Payment Act which prevented Napanee Industries (1972) Ltd. from “putting a mechanics’ lien on the main contractor and collecting their money.” Speaking in general terms, however, the law is such that the Mechanics’ Lien Act does not apply to ministry works located on government-owned land. The ministry cannot change that by issuing a ruling. The legislation applying to ministry projects is the Public Works Creditors Payment Act.

As to the member’s implication that the Ministry of the Environment is responsible, directly or indirectly, for Napanee Industries closing down its plant, I emphatically deny that assertion. On the contrary, my ministry went out of its way to help Napanee Industries overcome its problems. On the basis of competitive quotations received, the ministry selected Napanee Industries as a supplier for prefabricated steel sewage treatment plants for four contracts awarded in late 1973 or expected to be awarded in early 1974.

Although the principals of Napanee Industries knew in October or November, 1973, that their steel quota was inadequate to enable them to fabricate these plants, they did not inform the ministry of this situation until Feb. 6, 1974, by which time the ministry had awarded general contracts and general contractors had placed orders with Napanee Industries for the plants.

The then Minister of the Environment (Mr. Auld) tried personally to help Napanee Industries by writing to the president of Stelco asking that Napanee Industries’ allocation of steel plate be increased to enable it to fulfill its obligations and avoid the laying off of workers. The reply of February, 1974, from the president of Stelco, indicated that owing to the shortage of steel it was unlikely that Napanee Industries’ quota could be increased until the second half of 1974.

As a result of Napanee Industries’ delay in informing the ministry of its inability to fulfill the orders for the plants, the ministry was put to considerable additional expense and delay on four contracts where the sewage treatment plants had to be redesigned. Earlier notification would have enabled the ministry to have avoided some of the extra costs by redesigning the works at an earlier stage.

On two other projects -- Geraldton and Havelock -- the ministry went to considerable trouble to draw up special arrangements with Napanee Industries to enable substantial financial interim payments to be made by the ministry to Napanee Industries before the materials and equipment were delivered to the job site. This special concession was to assist Napanee financially as payment is not normally made until the equipment has been delivered to the jobsite.

In spite of this special treatment, when the time came to deliver the materials and equipment to the jobsite, Napanee Industries delayed delivery for weeks so that eventually the general contractors concerned had to make their own arrangements for delivery. On one of the projects, Geraldton, many essential items of equipment were found to be missing and the ministry was put to considerable trouble ascertaining the deficiencies and ordering the items itself. Meantime, of course, the construction work was delayed and the general contractor gave notice of claims against the ministry. The normal arrangement on ministry contracts is that the contractor orders and pays for materials and equipment and the ministry pays the contractor for materials on site and work done.

Napanee Industries has been involved as a supplier of factory-built pumping stations or as a subcontractor on the supplying and field erection of sewage treatment plants on a number of projects. The projects which did not involve problems between the contractor and Napanee Industries were exceptional. Complaints by contractors of delays, deficiencies or lack of co-operation by Napanee Industries were frequent, and on numerous occasions contractors back-charged Napanee for additional costs incurred. Some contractors and consulting engineers vowed that they would refuse to become involved with Napanee Industries on future jobs.

I have copies of correspondence here from different contractors and consulting engineers who are or were involved in various ministry projects, complaining about delays or lack of co-operation from Napanee Industries.

I think I have said enough, Mr. Speaker, to refute the assertion by the member for High Park that the Ministry of the Environment is in any way responsible for the financial problems experienced by Napanee Industries.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: No; we are not in the question period yet. You’ll have that opportunity.

Oral questions.

CROWN EMPLOYEES BARGAINING ACT LEGISLATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier if he can explain to the House why there is this continuing delay in the introduction of the amendments to the Crown Employees Bargaining Act legislation, which will have a substantial influence, I would suggest Mr. Speaker, on the course of the negotiations which are presently on ice until the two sides sit down again early in December?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I think if the Leader of the Opposition wished to address his question to the House leader on Monday, he would have some answer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Would the Premier not agree that this matter is one of substantial policy and has to do with a matter of grave concern, not only to the public servants but to the people of the Province of Ontario, since the outcome of this certainly will have a tremendous influence on the provision of services if, in fact, there is a withdrawal of service?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is a matter of great concern.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Premier not only as a matter of concern, but a matter of policy, over which of course he has direction.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has the floor momentarily.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is quite right -- it is a matter of policy.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the Premier --

Mr. Stokes: My, the Premier is short this morning.

Mr. Lewis: Well, maybe he will be short again. Does the Premier not recognize that he might be able today, this morning, to turn the whole confrontation around into a conciliatory atmosphere simply by indicating to the House in general terms what he intends to alter in the CECBA legislation? The Civil Service Association of Ontario at this very moment is meeting in convention, and if they had some indication of good faith from the government today, the Premier might be able to dilute the antagonism for the next several weeks.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we would be most anxious to see there is no confrontation or controversy; I guess one can’t avoid controversy, but I’m very hopeful there won’t be confrontation.

There were certain representations made by the CSAO to the government. These matters are and have been considered by the government. This relates to the legislation. I believe the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler) has communicated with the CSAO, and I think it is only appropriate that they be discussed with them. As I understand it from the Chairman of Management Board, they are ready, like yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have any further questions?

An hon. member: They are.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: To discuss changes in the legislation as well as --

Mr. Speaker: There will be no further supplementaries.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a further question of the Premier. I must admit that it could have been directed to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld), but I put it to the Premier since he has a great interest in this matter and it must surely have been a part of the policy as stated.

Is there any consideration being given to accepting the suggestion of Dr. Macdonald, the president of York, the former chief economist for the government, that in view of the problems the provincially-assisted universities are going to face with the announcement by the government of what they consider to be inadequate funding during the coming year, that some sort of a loan fund should be implemented -- I think he referred to it as a university bank -- which would have credit on a rotating basis to assist the universities with the problems they are going to face in the next few months, if they must come under the economic pressures inherent in the statement from the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s perhaps a shade premature to determine exactly what pressures each individual institution will have. There is no question that with the constraints, both in this field and others, it is going to be difficult for the university community, as well as for the other post-secondary institutions. At the same time, I think they represent substantial increases in the BIU or whatever combination of formulas is developed. In terms of support to the post-secondary institutions, I think it represents a figure that probably is in excess of, if one can define it, the inflationary amount.

At the same time, I am not questioning that some institutions will have some difficulties. Now whether or not they can meet them, as they go through the figures, quite frankly I don’t know, Mr. Speaker. The government has always attempted to resolve the problem, both of the universities and other institutions, and we are not averse to sitting down with them if in fact a very genuine problem emerges.

I was a little concerned, Mr. Speaker, if I can just add this, when I read a headline that the universities might have to restrict enrolment. As I recall the formula and the way it works, I don’t see this as being a solution to the problem and I for one -- and I am speaking now here without consultation with the minister responsible -- would be more than a little concerned if the possibility of curtailing enrolment became a policy by some of the institutions. I would express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that that will not in fact emerge, and I for one would be most concerned if it were considered.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the agreement between the provincially-assisted universities and the ministry does not permit any change in tuition, and the various universities have indicated publicly what their level of deficit would be under the arrangements announced a few days ago -- for example McMaster said they will have a deficit of $4 million -- what is the alternative? Is it, let’s say, to reduce the quality of the education offered? Or is there that much, sort of fat in the system, that it can be squeezed out to meet the financial pressures that are being brought to bear?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think one can say, in a comprehensive sense, what efficiencies can be further developed within the universities. I think, in fairness, they have made very genuine efforts in the past three or four years to do so. I can’t comment on each individual institution. At the same time, as I said, we are operating -- this government at least -- with constraint. As I listen to the Leader of the Opposition and his observations about government expenditures, I know that he supports this in principle, although of course he objects to it as it affects individual constituencies where there is perhaps some political motivation involved --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is the government’s motivation?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Our motivation is very simple --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is it not to retain power?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- to retain the financial integrity of this province, not to go around promising a lot of people things we can’t deliver, but to deal with it responsibly, which is more than the position of the Liberal Party.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is it not to retain power at any cost?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why does the Premier’s answer have to come down to that level? Why does he have to be so insulting and to allow his answer to come down to a level which is surely inappropriate?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is a matter of survival.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A supplementary by the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: This policy is the only thing the Premier has in common with Beland Honderich; cherish it.

May I ask the Premier, by way of supplementary: Since Ian Macdonald, presumably in a position to know, has given his service to this province, and the university presidents, have indicated that in fact the figure of 16 plus per cent is an artificial one and that the real figure for the universities is slightly over seven per cent, which is comfortably under the rate of inflation, what alternatives do the universities have other than the clearly undesirable one, I agree with the Premier entirely, of changing the admission standards? What is the government going to give them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is sufficiently knowledgeable in the functioning of our post-secondary institutions to realize that he is dealing with total numbers or enrolments. The enrolments this year are up, for instance, which means the incomes of the institutions are somewhat up. Faculty has remained constant during this particular year, I don’t know what the ultimate figures would be but I think we are really talking about further possible administrative alterations.

No one is talking about reduction in quality. I reject that categorically. I think we all have to be satisfied that there are ways and means within the constraints of achieving the same objective. I think in fairness the universities have made substantial progress. Perhaps there are some further things that they might do internally. I don’t know.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier has no suggestions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, we have never dictated to the universities. The hon. member knows this. We try to provide a little guidance.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, the government just puts a noose around their necks and lets them pull it tight themselves.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would just say to the Leader of the Opposition he can talk about a noose around their necks, but the postsecondary institutions in this jurisdiction have been well served. They have been financed by this province, I think, in a relatively credible manner.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is right. They had, in effect, a period when there was absolutely no limit to the money they could spend when the Premier was the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are going to continue to do it but we are going to do it responsibly. We are not going to go around this province promising individual groups more money in hope of political support.

Mr. Lewis: Say, that sounds like an approach.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is right.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Well it worked in 1971. Will it work in 1975? That is the big question, isn’t it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well one never knows.

Mr. MacDonald: Ask Wacky Bennett. He can tell the Premier how it works.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

EXPORT GROWTH

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Did he see the report in the Financial Post recently, which was a survey of the expansion of export growth, province by province and across the nation? It predicted a 25 per cent increase in growth for the nation, but it indicated that Ontario, at a level of three per cent, would have the lowest growth of any province as far as its exports are concerned. How can we square that with the very expensive trips and procedures the minister has undertaken over the last year and longer since he became minister? In fact are his efforts counter-productive?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, yes I had a chance to read the report in the Financial Post. Very obviously, one of the problems we are faced with in this country at the moment involves exports of the automotive industry. One reason Ontario is suffering somewhat in its export position in the current year, and likely to be projected into 1975, is the soft market we are experiencing in automotive original parts shipments to the United States. That is the explanation for the low growth position we are experiencing in export trade.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since we have many industries and the minister has been very proud of the fact that he has taken leaders of these industries to many places in the world, even with the problems in the automotive industry, why would our growth be cut down to three per cent compared with the much more respectable growth figures for the other provinces? Surely it can’t be a product of one area.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first of all the automotive industry is likely responsible for the greatest percentage of dollar shipments out of this country. Ninety per cent of them come from the Province of Ontario. When a soft market is experienced there it will reflect to a greater extent in the export position of Ontario than in any other province. While our markets in various other parts of the country and the world have improved and we have shipped new commodities to the foreign markets, it is not sufficient by any stretch of the imagination to offset the softness we are experiencing in the automotive original parts manufacturing business.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: So renegotiate the pact.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is a federal responsibility and we are involved in it now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West with his questions.

STUDIES ON DEATHS IN URANIUM MINES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Natural Resources if he has by chance found the internal interdepartmental committee on occupational health he indicated he would look for and give us the names on if he could find it?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): No, Mr. Speaker. I think I said at that time that I would consider tabling it, and I am still considering it.

Mr. Lewis: He is still considering it. Is this a secret matter?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am aware the hon. member has a list of all those names.

Mr. Lewis: Then the minister concedes, finally, that it is a standing committee of the Ontario Mining Association and has nothing to do with the ministries of government?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is correct.

Mr. Lewis: Exactly. Okay, I just wanted to get it on the record.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS IN ONTARIO MINES

Mr. Lewis: Now may I also ask the minister why, on the royal commission on the health and safety of workers in mines, he has two major industry representatives and only one representative of the workers involved?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this is not entirely correct. I think the member is referring to the appointment of Mr. Ted Perry, a former member of the Ontario Mining Association. We contacted the industry, we wanted somebody with a technical background and he was selected or recommended by the industry itself.

Mr. Lewis: Well may I, by way of supplementary, ask the minister if he recalls that when we were debating the bill to amend the Mining Act in the Legislature, Mr. Perry was perhaps the most vociferous, not to say objectionable, defender of the mining industry? Doesn’t the minister think that when he is setting up a commission looking into safety hazards of this kind there is some equity, some importance, in having an equal number of worker representatives rather than stacking a royal commission? Surely that doesn’t make sense?

Mr. Stokes: Just for objectivity.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, there was no stacking of that royal commission. Mr. Perry is only a consultant to the royal commission. Prof. Ham is the commissioner and he will make the decisions. His consultants are there to advise the commissioner himself and there is definitely no stacking. In fact, Mr. Perry has contributed tremendously to the mining industry of this province in his capacity through the years, and I think he can add a lot of valuable assistance to that commission.

Mr. Lewis: What does the minister mean by saying he is a consultant? He is one of several people on the commission.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He is not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is he or is he not?

Mr. Lewis: May I ask another question? The commission consists of Ham, Grey, Beaudry, Righam, Perry, Hume and Gladstone. Am I not right in saying that Ham is the commissioner and that the people who have been hired or appointed to work with him include Perry?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s right, but Prof. Ham is the commissioner. It will be his report and his report alone.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, I see.

LOGGING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the minister, in light of the fact that in all of the studies in Ontario of the pulp and paper industry -- the Kennedy report, the Brodie report, the Ontario Economic Council report, the Hedlin-Menzies report -- and all the estimates debates for the last several years, the word “available cut” as distinct from “allowable cut” has never once been used, how is it that it has suddenly entered the vocabulary of the woods industry in this special document written to defend the government’s policies by Mr. Pierpoint, and which therefore raises a matter which is clearly specious and irrelevant and no longer justifies ministry policy?

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): What comes after “available”?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I can’t speak for the professionals in the forest industry, but I only say to the member that Mr. Pierpoint was given the responsibility of looking at the whole thing objectively to point out, maybe in laymen’s language, what the problem is and how it could be interpreted.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

FOOD COMPANY PROFITABILITY

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Is the minister aware that the percentage increase in profit for Dominion Stores in his second food profitability study was 36.4 per cent from 1973 to 1974, and in the first 26 weeks of the new fiscal year it has jumped to 51.5 per cent, therefore exceeding the acceptable level of profitability which he himself conceded when he tabled the report? What does he now intend to do about it?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Yes Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that. As with the other industries which have been touched on by the leader of the New Democratic Party, I am writing to Dominion Stores to ascertain if I can get a breakdown as to how the increased profits in the 26-week period referred to were reached.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, what is the use of having a food profitability study on which the minister makes a specific pronouncement in his official capacity and then see all of these companies systematically exceed the allowable profits -- not the allowable but what the minister deemed appropriate?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Not allowable, available.

Mr. Lewis: Available! Then no one, again, protects the consumers of Ontario. The minister makes the pronouncement, they thumb their nose at him and nothing happens.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I think it is always a good idea to not only talk about percentage increase but to find out how that increase occurred.

Mr. Lewis: Well, the ministry did that in its food study.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, but we are talking about a period now, or part of a fiscal period, that wasn’t referred to in the food study. We are now talking about 26 weeks in the 1974 period, and I think it is only fair to anyone that we find out not only what the percentage increase is -- I mean, one could have $1 profit increased to $2 and say there is 100 per cent profit for the second period. We have to see for what reason those profits arose.

Mr. MacDonald: They’re going to con the government.

Hon. Mr. Clement: They may be perfectly valid. We had a discussion the other day, Mr. Speaker, about Maple Leaf Mills.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) said it relates to prices.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Maple Leaf Mills, as I understand it, received some $8 million for the sale of capital assets in that fiscal period. That, I suggest, is not reflective of increased food prices insofar as that particular organization is concerned.

Mr. MacDonald: They will always dream up an excuse if the government is willing to accept it.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

AID FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES

Mr. Lewis: I have a last question of the Minister of Tourism and Industry. Is there something that might be done to help the beleaguered communities of Alfred, Plantagenet and L’Orignal, now that Highway 417 has run through and there are inadequate signs pointing to the small communities off Highway 417? The restaurant business has dropped very severely; many small shopkeepers have lost business. In light of this, is there something that can be done to balance the economy for some of these small towns?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, anticipating there could be a loss of trade to some of the small businesses along the old highway system, we undertook a study with a consulting firm to ascertain how we might put old Highway 17 into a parkway system so that we could divert the tourist traffic along that system and take it off the commercial route.

We now have the first phase of the report. I’ve indicated clearly to the members of the municipal councils along that particular route that we are prepared to sit down and discuss it with them. There will be further requirements for some input as to exactly what type of operations, as recommended by the consultant, we could really put into play that would have significant benefit to the economic structure of some of the communities that have been weakened as a result of diversion of the traffic.

Mr. Stokes: Why doesn’t the minister put a series of bump signs on the new highway?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Along which?

Mr. Stokes: Put a series of bump signs along the new highway.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing has an answer to a question previously asked.

CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Yes, Mr. Speaker: On Oct. 28, the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question related to condominium conversions. I would like to report to the House that since the spring of this year, when the applications for the conversion of existing rental units into condominiums began to increase, we have given final approval to 1,285 units. Of these, 654 were in Metro Toronto.

To put these figures in some perspective, these conversions represent less than one per cent of the total apartment stock in Metro. Although the number of conversions have been relatively small to date, there have been an increasing number of applications in the past few months; and especially in the Metro Toronto area. I will give details of the number of applications which we have.

We have reviewed our policy in this area of conversions. I received input from the public. I have met with representatives of a number of municipalities, with organizations which represent landowners, the builders, the developers and people in general who are concerned about condominium conversions. We have fully assessed the views of all these groups.

We have concluded that local municipalities are in the best position to properly assess the factors which must be weighed to determine whether or not a particular project should be converted. With this in mind, we have decided to continue our policy of accepting recommendations from municipalities in which the projects are located.

However, considering the economic and social impact that extensive conversions can have on people in the community, we are urging the municipalities to consider several factors before they arrive at a decision. These include the rental vacancy rate in the community and the effect that a conversion might have on those living in the units, particularly where low and moderate income families are involved. We are following the guidelines that are applied pursuant to section 33 of the Planning Act.

As to the number of actual applications for conversions in Metro Toronto, they are: City of Toronto, 167; East York, 12; Etobicoke, 55; North York, 907; Scarborough, 1,280; York, zero. The total in Metro is 2,421.

For the rest of the province we have Burlington, 55; Hamilton, 13; Halton Hills, 12; London, 483; Mississauga, 580; Oakville, 116; Ottawa, 164; Nepean, 27; North Bay, 37; St. Catharines, 215; Thunder Bay, 136. The total for the rest of the province is 1,838. This gives a grand total of 4,259.

By the month, we have given final approval of conversions for all of Ontario, as follows: in April, 164; May, 66; June, 83; July, 163; August, 106; September, 348; October, 355; November, zero; for a total of 1,285.

Conversions to adult only or reduced density: North York, 1,810 units.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered the question as fully as I can at this time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I appreciate that information, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to know if the ministry is entertaining any further applications for conversion at this time.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, I am.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: For conversion to condominium and conversion to adult only.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: On the recommendation of the municipality is what I said.

Mr. Speaker: I will allow one more supplementary.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): In light of the minister’s statement, I wonder if he will accept and support the bill that my leader has introduced into the House.

Mr. Speaker: That doesn’t seem to be very supplementary. The member for Welland South.

GAS COMPANY RENTAL CHARGES

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

What steps, if any, has his ministry taken to protect the many consumers in Ontario who have had contracts with Consumers’ Gas, Provincial Gas, Grimsby Gas and Brockville Gas, who now are faced with substantial increases in rental rates for hot water tanks and conversion burners? Is his ministry now prepared to initiate an inquiry into breach of contract or monopoly by the industry, and are there any violations that may be enforced under the federal Combines Investigation Act?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question is somewhat similar to one submitted by the member for Yorkview some days ago. We have written to Consumers’ Gas in connection with the matter drawn to my attention. We have received an explanation from Consumers’ Gas. As of today I don’t recollect sending that on to the member for Yorkview in response to his inquiry.

Consumers’ Gas, from whom we received the response, advised that the $1 charge on the purchase of a water heater at the end of the usual 10-year period was never part of the contract. I must add I have not looked at any of the contracts, so I am only passing on what I was told.

We were further advised that it was company policy only that in view of the escalating costs which have touched that company, it is now necessary to take a realistic view on the replacement of that heater insofar as price is concerned, and that the realistic price is $50.

I want to make it clear to the members of the House, Mr. Speaker, that I have not read the contracts and I haven’t looked at them. I am only passing on what was told to me. In any event, I intend to look at the contracts with my law officers to see if in fact that allegation is correct. I assume it is, but I want to verify that.

I cannot pass any legislation retroactively voiding those contracts that people have entered into across the province. I will not make any further comment as to what I might do in the future. Perhaps matters like this should be included in the contract, if they are not, on the basis of disclosure; but I am keeping an open mind on that and will consider it in due course.

Mr. Young: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not clearly understand in this situation that while the $1 payment at the end of 10 years may not have been written into the contract, this was understood as a matter of fact and the salesmen made it explicit to the people who purchased? Also, at that time the rental price was based upon the paying off of that cost over the 10-year period. Therefore, before the 10-year period is up, the price is fully paid?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me the member is debating the issue. Would you place your question, please?

Mr. Young: The question is, does the minister not understand that the price of the burner, rather than the price of the heater was completely written off in the original rental charged by the company?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, that was my understanding, Mr. Speaker; of course it was.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

SEAFARERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION

Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker: In view of the statement by Labour Minister John Munro that it is up to Ontario to hold the commission, if one is to be held, what is the Attorney General going to do?

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that yesterday there was a question directed to my cabinet colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr), on this particular subject matter. He reported with respect to police investigations currently under way in that particular area.

I would want to give the federal Minister of Labour the benefit of the doubt at this stage. Perhaps he hasn’t fully appreciated the point made by the Solicitor General yesterday. In the absence of the Solicitor General, perhaps we could leave it today at this, that I will get in touch with him.

The point I am really trying to make is that I have not personally talked to the federal Minister of Labour. I would remind the hon. member that the federal Minister of Labour, twice on a newscast that I’ve listened to, has asked the member for High Park to provide him with the information which he has, and the member for High Park may want to comply with that request. After I have consulted with the Solicitor General, I would be in a better position to comment as to what our next step might be.

I would remind the federal Minister of Labour in this way that I know what my responsibilities are. I assume that I understand the concern of the hon. member, that there are matters that go beyond just strictly laying charges with respect to particular violations under the Criminal Code, that are rather in the nature of behaviour which perhaps might be the subject of an investigation by a department which really has jurisdiction over the union because it’s a federal union. I understand that point. But I must say, in fairness to the federal minister, I have not spoken to him, personally, on that matter.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Inasmuch as I have given all the information to the Attorney General, has he not passed it on to the federal minister? I thought I should take it to my Attorney General. Second, if the federal minister remains adamant and will not hold an inquiry, is the Attorney General prepared to do something?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, any information or any evidence which the hon. member has passed on to me was given to the Solicitor General. I will be in a much better position to comment as to what I might do after I have formally spoken to the federal Minister of Labour myself.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. Lewis: What was that cryptic reference that the federal Minister of Labour doesn’t understand?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am just giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Lewis: The benefit of the doubt to John Munro!

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

SUPPORT OF POLLUTION SUITS

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment: a Newman-to-Newman question. Is the minister aware that a group of citizens in Sandwich West and LaSalle have started suit against the polluters in the Detroit area for polluting the Canadian environment? And is the minister aware that the Michigan State Supreme Court has ruled that the hearing can be held in the lower courts? Will the minister provide the technical data and expertise from his ministry and also financial assistance to enable those residents in Sandwich West and LaSalle to continue with that suit?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the trans-boundary problems we have had. I would like to say this, that we do not have any financial assistance available, but certainly we have technical people who are glad to advise anyone in the Province of Ontario on any matters. We would be glad to have the member’s people talk to our people about the technical ramifications.

We also have a trans-boundary air pollution control accord, basically with Michigan, ourselves. This has to be ratified. The Premier has sent a letter off to our counterparts in Ottawa asking them to negotiate this matter with the federal agency in the US on work to be done by the IJC on trans-boundary air pollution. We have basically reached agreement with Governor Milliken and we are very pleased that we have had such great co-operation from him on these particular areas where trans-boundary air pollution is a problem.

Certainly, as far as the member’s people are concerned, we will give them any technical assistance we can give them. We don’t send our people everywhere. If they do go to court, there might be some international legal ramifications which I wouldn’t be prepared to expound on just now. For any technical assistance they would want, if they would contact our people we would be glad to give it to them.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Thunder Bay.

TOURIST LOAN ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Can we assume that his ministry, and he as the Minister of Industry and Tourism, have undertaken a new policy when, jointly with the sitting member in a particular riding, he announces tourist loans such as the recent one that was announced jointly by the minister and the sitting member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot).

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Did I understand the member’s question correctly in that he wanted to know if the policy of ODC, NODC and EODC is to announce jointly with the minister and the sitting member a loan going into their constituency?

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That has been the policy, and it will continue as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Stokes: How does the minister rationalize his answer with a bulletin that came in the mail this morning indicating that the Minister of Industry and Tourism and the member for Timiskaming had jointly announced the granting of a $140,000 tourist loan to a firm in Cobalt? Can I assume from the minister’s answer that the next time there is a tourist loan, or any loan under the aegis of NODC, ODC and EODC, the announcement will be made jointly with the sitting member and the minister?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us correct the remark. It was not a tourist loan that was made to the community of Cobalt. It was a grant from the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs under the northeastern Ontario development programme, which was allocated to my ministry for assignment. It is to assist Cobalt in implementing to completion the first phase of their tourist and development programme that we have started and the community has started in that area. It was announced by the member for Timiskaming and myself at the cabinet meeting in Kirkland Lake. The member for Timiskaming made it on behalf of the ministry.

As far as the individual members are concerned, when EODC or NODC or ODC loans are made, the members are advised. The press release goes from the development corporation on behalf of the minister and the member.

Mr. Stokes: How then is it possible that when I receive notification of a loan in my riding, the media invariably gets it before I do?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I just said, Mr. Speaker, that the press release is on behalf of the minister and released by ODC at the time the order in council is given authority and approval.

Mr. MacDonald: This also excludes the local member. They are playing games.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Huron-Bruce.

SUGAR SUPPLIES

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Has the minister, in concert with the federal authorities, asked for any figures with respect to the stored supplies held by sugar companies in this province?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I have not asked for any such figures in concert with anyone, Mr. Speaker. Some months ago I did have a discussion, an informal discussion, with two or three people from the sugar industry, who indicated to me at that time their concern about what they saw happening and what they forecast happening insofar as the sugar market is concerned over the next six or eight months. I must add my observation that their forecasts, unfortunately, have come true. But I have had no discussions with my counterpart in Ottawa in connection with this particular commodity.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. B. Newman: Is the minister monitoring the price rise of sugar in municipalities throughout the Province of Ontario? Sugar has gone up to 76 cents a pound.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Newman: Certainly that deserves some type of review and study?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s not only gone up at what undoubtedly is a most prohibitive rate in this province, but also across the world. The Russians announced the other day an international order of 500,000 tons for its purposes, and that too is going to create problems. I have under way at the present time, having started it in May, a study into certain commodities in this province insofar as the sale of commodities and futures are concerned. But I have not initiated any investigation into the alleged sugar shortage. It is international in scope.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the prediction that sugar prices will go to $1 a pound, beyond the commodity study which the minister is going to undertake what is he going to do to satisfy himself that there is no price gouging in this particular industry?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I can’t satisfy myself there is no price gouging. Just as a member of the community reading the articles pertaining to sugar in the various publications, I cannot stand in this House and say there is no price gouging. I am convinced there is price gouging at some point. Where that point is, I don’t know.

Mr. Stokes: So is John Diefenbaker.

Mr. Lewis: Well, find out.

Hon. Mr. Clement: But I read an article the other day, and perhaps the hon. member read it, which indicated that certain Middle East countries had invested enormous sums of money in sugar as a speculative commodity.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are going to mix it with oil.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

USE OF WOOD FOUNDATIONS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing:

In view of the numerous complaints about leaky basements, with walls of poured concrete and cement blocks, and in view of the energy crisis, is OHC considering in future projects the installation of preserved wood foundations, which are claimed to be leak-proof and more economical for heating?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, they may be considering this. I am not sure. I’ll find out for the member.

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

LAND ASSEMBLY IN HALDIMAND-NORFOLK

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Housing as well.

Has he any knowledge of a land assembly programme which is rumoured to be under the auspices of the government of Ontario in the former Haldimand area of Haldimand-Norfolk, near Cayuga, where approximately 12,000 acres have been optioned, and it is indicated this was at the behest of the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be directed to the Treasurer (Mr. White) when he comes back.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

HCM GRAPHICS CORP.

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Minister of Labour:

What is he going to do about the case of HCM Graphics Corp., which went into receivership more than a year ago and by which the back wages, and even the vacation pay owing to the workers has not yet been paid?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, HCM Graphics is a new matter to me, and I suppose the fact that it has been in receivership, for over a year explains it. I have no report on it, Mr. Speaker, but I will get one. I assume we have one available.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, I have a letter here, dated Oct. 29, 1974, to the minister -- and I know there were previous ones -- from the typographical union involved. When he looks into it, since vacation pay is supposed to be held in trust by a company, and since the Mercantile Bank took the company over and took money out, could he answer and explain why, again, these workers have been sacrificed, to the banks in this instance, when some of the money should have been held in trust?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that it is trust money, and unless there is a shortage of the trust accounts I don’t think they would be sacrificed.

Mr. Lewis: Then why don’t they have it?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t know that, Mr. Speaker. I will get that information for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

LABOUR DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if he could give any further information to the House on a report that appeared in the Toronto Sun Thurs., Nov. 21, in which he is reported as predicting a special tribunal with sweeping powers to control strikes, which may in fact become the policy of the government and be introduced by way of legislation?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, that article was brought to my attention this morning. Apart from the headline, which I don’t agree with, the rest of the article is relatively correct.

I discussed this matter with the writer, Mr. MacDonald. He wanted to know what we might be proposing or what we might have in the back of our minds. I said that this was very much in a formative stage in my ministry, that this was an alternative which is not new, but one that we were considering as a possibility, with the hopes that some changes to the Labour Relations Act might be brought in in the spring session.

It refers to a complete revision of the Ontario Labour Relations Act in the article. I don’t foresee any sweeping changes to that extent, but we are investigating whether or not we can set up some tribunal which may have disputes in the public sector referred to it as a way of perhaps bringing the facts to public attention and as a further buffer between the time they actually break off their negotiations and when the strike itself might start.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: In preparation for the possibility of such legislation, is the minister meeting with representatives from those groups that would be directly affected, such as the teachers, the civil servants and others? And is he aware that, under the leadership of OSSTF, I think, a similar work group, on behalf of the people directly affected, is working toward some sort of model legislation or proposal that might be available? Is this being done by the government alone or in conjunction with the groups to be affected?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I would hope that we would do that, Mr. Speaker, but it hasn’t been done in any formal way to this date. Before that happens, I would hope that such a body could get general acceptance, and I realize that if it is going to get general acceptance and if we do go ahead with it, we will have to have consultation with those groups. I am glad to know, from what the member says, that the teachers proceeded on something along similar lines.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

The member for Thunder Bay.

TRANSCAN CUSTOM HOMES RECEIVERSHIP

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. While the minister is looking into the problem raised by my leader, will the minister also look into the problem confronting former employees of Transcan Custom Homes, which went into receivership in Kenora, where the employees were not paid in the amount of $30,000 in lost wages? Will the minister also investigate with his colleagues to see whether there was a loss of OHC money associated with that, inasmuch as they were under contract to the Ontario Housing Corp. for some double-wide dwellings? Will he look into it to see whether any or all of that $30,000 in lost wages may be recovered in some fashion on behalf of the employees?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I will be pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker. Can the hon. member give me the date of the Transcan Custom Homes receivership?

Mr. Stokes: I will try to.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

WASAGA BEACH ZOOLOGICAL PARK

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

I am wondering if the minister has anything further to report to the House with respect to the matters of the Wasaga zoo; and whether there has been any reconsideration made with respect to funding in light of the earlier meetings that were held and the involvement which the minister had at the cabinet meeting when it was held at Hanover?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. J. A. Taylor, from the standing administration of justice committee, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 82, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

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

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Before the orders of the day, perhaps I might be allowed to introduce a group of young people from Castelton Public School in the great county of Northumberland who joined us in the last few minutes under the leadership of Mr. William Patt, their principal. I know the House would be anxious to welcome them to our Legislature.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, if I may, before the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker: I take it that you have amicably allowed the Union of Injured Workers group to demonstrate peaceably inside the foyer for a short period each day that they should arrive, rather than putting limits on them. Am I right in that; because there was some confusion with, I think, Insp. Pierce of the security service yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: I have cleared that up. I had a very peaceful and pleasant discussion with four representatives of the group yesterday, and in view of their condition and the fact they are respecting the place they are parading in, we gave them permission. This is always a problem, of course -- not that this is a problem, but I can see that a problem could arise because of the relaxation of any rule.

I hope this is not taken as a precedent necessarily, but in view of the representation made by yourself and others, and the very co-operative words of their representatives, I thought I should accede to their requests and I am pleased to do so.

Orders of the day.

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

COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRES ACT

House in committee on Bill 137, the Community Recreation Centres Act, 1974.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any member who would like to speak on section 1?

On section 1?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Chairman, I must apologize for my absence last night at 8 o’clock. All the northern affairs officers from the north were in town and we were asked to meet with them, so I absented myself from the debates and I missed the remarks of the minster in answer to some of the things that I had raised. I don’t wish to be repetitive but I would like to ask if I could have some clarification on the sections of the Act that were a problem to me.

I am wondering if the minister can give me some assurance under the bill that there will be ample opportunity for the unorganized communities to form themselves into some legal entity in order to take advantage of the provisions of this Act, and if there is anything in the regulations that you might make available to us to assure us that the monetary provisions aren’t exclusively those that are referred to in the bill, which are 25 per cent, up to a maximum of $75,000. That is the main question I would like to have asked.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Chairman, in my reply last night I commended the hon. member for Thunder Bay because he made some very good points. In reference to unorganized areas and non-profit organizations, if there is a social club or service club like the Lions or Kinsmen, fine; if there isn’t, three citizens can form a non-profit corporation, and they would be eligible for a grant. So the mechanism is there in this legislation. All they have to do, as we say, is form a non-profit organization for educational, recreational or cultural purposes. So there is provision there.

As far as the funding in unorganized areas is concerned, first I would like to mention, Mr. Chairman, that the member raises a very good point. Many unorganized -- and many organized -- areas which have a low assessment base find it very difficult to raise the 75 per cent themselves. It is a very good point. As far as unorganized areas are concerned, in section 9(a) the minister has discretion to give increased grants to Indian bands, and section 9(b) applies again to an approved corporation in an unorganized area. So there is provision in 9(a) and (b).

For those organized areas which have difficulty, there are a couple of things that I mentioned last night. One is that there is provision now -- and this is being done -- that a group of citizens can donate its labour and funds, and credit is all given for all this in the calculation of the grant. Through regulations we will try to see if we cannot devise a system whereby it would be possible to give increased grants to those organized municipalities which, as I said earlier, need additional assistance.

There is provision in the regulations to do this. We may be able to do this by using population and maybe assessment. Those are the two that come to my mind. We need some sort of a system. I think the member will appreciate that, and we would appreciate any suggestions that the hon. members may have now or at some future date as to how a system could be devised whereby we could provide assistance through using some sort of a formula. The legislation is intended to be flexible and to be broad to try to cope with local situations.

Mr. Chairman: Maybe we should leave this so we can discuss the bill in an orderly manner. We can discuss it when we come to section 9 and hook it to 9(a) or 9(b). Any other member on section 1? Does section 1 carry?

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, last night I think a question was asked of the minister in regard to agricultural societies and community recreation groups building a centre. Is there any change in the grants under the new bill?

Mr. Chairman: Maybe we should leave this until that part of the bill.

Mr. Spence: Right.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Chairman, if I might, in section 2 there is an item under subsection 5 and that is the right to sell refreshments within the community centre on such terms and conditions as the council may prescribe. I know that this is the responsibility of the council but I think a strong recommendation should go from this minister that the prices be reasonable, so that it isn’t a financial hardship to the single-parent family or the parents with a large family when it comes to purchasing hot dogs and refreshments that are available. These prices should be very moderate. Also we want the places as clean as possible so that we don’t have some of the Highway 401 service centre problems.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That’s a very constructive comment, Mr. Chairman. We certainly will.

Mr. Stokes: I raised that last night when we were dealing with the bill on second reading. I asked if the minister would take into consideration tendering these things, rather than creating the impression that the person who was successful in getting the concession would be a friend of a friend or something like that. Did you respond to that?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: On the question of tendering, Mr. Chairman, there is tendering for capital and tendering for the catering. In many instances, the municipalities are paying 75 per cent on the capital costs; so we believe this should be left to the discretion of the local municipalities. I’m most reluctant that we should be dictating to the local municipality or the school board, whatever the case may be, that they should tender in every case. Generally speaking, I think it advisable in order to get the best price possible but I would prefer to leave it to their discretion.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: On joint use for community recreation centres, does this mean a council of a municipality could enter into an agreement with a neighbouring band council in unorganized communities and that it might be able to call on funds from the Indian band through the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? Does this provide for this kind of co-operation?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes, this legislation, Mr. Chairman, is very flexible. It provides for agreements between a municipality and a school board or between a municipality and another non-profit group in an unorganized area. There is an entire flexibility in order to look after local conditions.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I think this is the section that deals with agricultural societies entering into agreements which will now be with municipal councils. Before that, agricultural societies did give grants, as I understood it. Is there any change in this bill from the former bill?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. The only change which we made is with school boards in organized municipalities. We said that in the future those school boards in organized municipalities who wish to put on an addition and so forth, will still be able to do so. We are dealing mainly with municipalities in organized areas. The municipality under the present Act could make an agreement with the agricultural society -- this is permitted -- but grants are given to the municipalities; they are the responsible bodies.

Mr. Chairman: Section 4 carried?

Mr. Stokes: In the event that we had a small group that was able to comply with the provisions of this Act, in unorganized areas, and there was a building, say a school that had been closed out by the board of education in that area, would it be possible for them to come to you under the provisions of this Act and say: “Will you assist us in the acquisition of this facility and assist us, not only in the capital cost, but enter into some agreement for the maintenance and the upkeep of that facility?”

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, we certainly are entirely in agreement as far as utilizing existing buildings, schools, and so forth is concerned. There is provision under this Act for capital assistance, but when it comes to maintenance operations, this would come under another Act; the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act.

Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chairman, I would like some clarification with respect to section 6. In order to qualify for the $75,000 maximum ceiling grant, a municipality would have to spend $300,000. Let us take the instance of three municipalities joining together and building a complex of $900,000, each contributing $300,000. Is each municipality eligible for the $75,000 grant under those circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes, if I understand correctly in that situation. If there are three of them contributing $300,000 each for a $900,000 facility, each municipality would be eligible for either 25 per cent or $75,000, whichever is the lesser.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): A question on that section also, Mr. Chairman: There are a lot of communities that now have a community centre. What is the regular view of the branch when the community asks for a second centre? A good many of them, particularly for hockey facilities, are planning a second and third one. What is the general reaction to that?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Again, Mr. Chairman, we try to respond to the wishes of the local municipality. But if it is felt that they have sufficient recreational facilities -- and we have to operate under a limited budget -- it may well be that we may say: “Well, sorry, but not this year.” But generally speaking, we do provide grants for more than one facility in the community.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Along that line of limited budget, there was announcement made last week of a substantial grant, I think for a swimming pool centre in Brantford it was $225,000 to $275,000, and that came from the sum that Ontario shared in the Olympic lottery. Who distributes that money?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that most of the Olympic lottery funds are given to Sports Ontario. This is a body composed of about 57 sports groups in Ontario -- tennis, swimming, what have you -- and they are the ones who have the discretion to allocate.

Mr. Stokes: Directly to the sports governing bodies?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I could be corrected on the allocation of the grant. I am advised that this grant went to the city because it was for sort of an international facility -- a 50-metre swimming pool -- and for international facilities often there is assistance from the federal government and also the provincial government on a regional “international” basis.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about that thing in Bronte? How are you going to pay for that? That’s the Jim Snow Swimming Pool, or whatever you call it there?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The Bronte sports complex, phase one, is an Olympic-size swimming pool with special facilities for the handicapped --

Mr. Stokes: But that’s not under this budget?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No.

Mr. Chairman: I think the member for Brant is a little out of order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are talking about limitations of budget in this section.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Through the regulations, Mr. Chairman -- I think I can interpret it -- that is regulation 12(b), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing classes of grants and the manner of computing the amounts of such grants or any class thereof payable under this grant. If an international facility to present national and international events is to be built, say an Olympic-size swimming pool, it is possible under the regulations to provide special assistance, such as increased grants, larger than the maximum of $75,000.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 6 carry?

Mr. B. Newman: On section 6, if a university asked for such a facility as you just made mention of, Mr. Minister, would that come through your department, because it is going to be used by the community, and likewise it is going to be used for international purposes, especially associated with the Pan-American Games, World Games, Olympic Games and also Canada Games?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Not under this legislation, Mr. Chairman. But as I indicated earlier, a part of the Olympic lottery funds is used for the funding of international facilities. Also, the federal government works closely with the provincial government. For instance, I believe it was Laurentian University to whom the federal government gave a substantial grant for an international facility.

Section 6 agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to talk on section 7 and bring to the attention of the minister the comments I made on second reading of the bill. That is, when the plans are submitted to your ministry I would like the assurance, Mr. Minister, that those plans will not be approved until the facilities are such that the handicapped would have no difficulty getting in or getting out, and likewise the washrooms would be provided so that the handicapped wouldn’t be further handicapped.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would like to commend the hon. member for his very constructive comments. It is quite true that all facilities in the future should be built to accommodate physically handicapped people.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

On section 9:

Mr. Chairman: Did the member for Thunder Bay get all the information he wanted?

Mr. Stokes: I think he has covered most of the apprehensions I had about it. I would just like to get an assurance from the minister that in the application of the provisions of section 9, and in keeping with the regulations, that he will be as generous as possible in order to make the provisions of this Act more relevant to small communities that are isolated, can’t co-operate, and can’t take advantage of facilities nearby, in many instances -- those that are really isolated. You get a place like Pickle Lake, 347 miles from the nearest arena, and there is just no way that they can take advantage in a cost-sharing way, or in a co-operative way, of those facilities. It may be possible under this Act, I hope, for you to be a little bit more generous in those instances than you might otherwise be. If that is the kind of leeway that you are going to get, fine and dandy.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am entirely in agreement with the views of the hon. member. As he knows, I am a northern member like himself and familiar with remote communities where they need as much assistance as possible. I can tell you we certainly will carry out those recommendations.

Sections 9 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 137 reported.

Hon. Mr. Grossman moves that the committee rise and report progress and ask for leave to sit again.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

LOAN AND TRUST CORPORATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves second reading of Bill 152, An Act to amend the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Has the minister a statement to make about this? It looks like a collection of a number of things, fairly detailed and specific, having to do with the operation of the loan and trust companies. We’ve been looking for legislation -- my God, aren’t there any NDP members here? -- on certain areas, brought to our attention, but there has been no communication from the loan and trust companies about this.

Is this generally a housekeeping bill or would the minister feel that he is embarking on new principles in this?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): No. I don’t think I could say, Mr. Speaker, that I am really embarking on new principles. The loan and trust industry in this province is at somewhat of a disadvantage. Those are the provincially incorporated companies. As the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, trust companies operate in this province on one of two bases. They are incorporated here and, of course, licensed to do business here; or they are incorporated federally and licensed to do business here, or incorporated in another jurisdiction -- there are really three bases -- but licensed to do business here.

The federal government introduced last year -- and I believed it died on the order paper, but it was stated it would be reintroduced this year -- a bill which allowed its trust companies, if I may use that expression, to increase their borrowing capacities. This legislation that I am proposing today is to give Ontario trust companies generally the same type of powers.

The trust companies are restricted right now to borrowing up to a maximum of 20 times the shareholders’ net equity. They are running into the situation where the net equity now is X dollars, and the moneys on deposit cannot be put out because the 20 times the net equity has been reached.

It’s proposed by this legislation that the trust companies be allowed to attract additional equity funds by subordinate notes, and that in determining the shareholders’ net equity the amounts put forward by way of the subordinate notes be considered part of that net equity. This, then, will release additional dollars and make them available for investment by the trust company concerned.

Certain considerations came to our minds as to what we could do. We could do nothing; just sit back and do nothing. And there is no doubt about it that if this happened, it would endanger the financial stability of certain trust companies and place those Ontario-incorporated trust companies at a disadvantage insofar as their competition with their federal brothers is concerned.

We could delay action until the select committee on company law -- which is studying trust companies right now -- made its recommendations. I can’t speak for that committee, but I would expect it would be several months yet before a recommendation came forward. Or we could amend right now. Hence, our election to proceed by amending right now. Certain other amendments, I should point out, are of a housekeeping nature; a couple of printing errors, in fact.

There are other objectives. Right now trust companies can act through their directors in doing certain things. The amendment that we put before the House today would allow the delegation of certain powers from the board of directors to the chief executive officer -- things of this nature -- which, in effect, are going on right now. But the trust company would remain liable. I am thinking of those matters where they are carrying out their role as a fiduciary in connection with a will and those types of matters.

I have been advised that the federal bill has, in fact, been reintroduced and has gone through the Senate and is now awaiting royal assent in Ottawa.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I speak to the minister’s statement in this regard. The bill has not been before us very long, although it has been here long enough for moving forward into second reading -- and we really can’t complain about that.

I regret, however, that my colleague, the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer), who has been a member of the corporation law committee now for how many years -- three, four, seven years, perhaps -- together with the other members of the committee, has not had the opportunity to delve into all of the background. Some of it is pretty subtle as far as business practice is concerned, not only in this jurisdiction but in many other jurisdictions. They have returned just recently from the United Kingdom where they had an opportunity to consult with world experts in trade and business procedures. I really wish that he and others on that committee would be here to discuss this matter that is brought forward.

I know that an objection was raised when the bill was introduced. As a matter of fact, I think the member for Downsview made an interjection in this regard, that the ministry was moving by legislation in an area which was under consideration by the select committee.

In my view, the justification for the move that the minister has put forward is one that we have got to consider. Certainly we don’t want the corporations doing business in this province and under provincial charter to be at a disadvantage. It seems to me that the federal and provincial jurisdictions might well have consulted a little more fully before the legislation at either level came in.

Perhaps the pressure to go forward with this is a little bit less since we realize that the federal legislation has not yet been passed and probably is at about the same status as Bill 152 -- perhaps it is a bit further along, awaiting royal assent, but it is not law. So the justification for having the changes on the same date, I suppose, or as close to it as possible, is one that makes some sense as far as I am concerned.

I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker: I am not in any position to offer even an opinion as to the ability to borrow or lend money related to the assets of a loan and trust corporation.

As far as that figure is concerned, I don’t have an opinion whatsoever. We do believe, however, that the trust companies operating in this province should be on the same basis as those operating nationally, and for that reason we are not prepared to oppose this principle at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): There are several points under the legislation, and I don’t think it will take long to deal with them.

The point made by the Leader of the Opposition is fairly well taken on the whole. As the minister did last year, he is again this year introducing legislation fairly searching and fairly pervasive of the trust and loan industry, of which the corporate law committee of this Legislature is giving a very thorough review. The matters, both last year and in this legislation, serious matters we are attending to, and in a sense they are being pre-empted by the passage of legislation.

Can’t the minister abide the issue? Our report is certain to be finished in January and to be out early next year. I know the minister is an eager beaver, but there’s no necessity for usurping the functions of the committee and launching somewhat blindly into areas of which this committee has cognizance and which it has seized. I ask him to cease and desist. He knows what those kinds of orders are. He is the gentleman who is issuing them left, right and centre in Ontario, and to have one visited upon himself might do his heart good.

I am interested in the MICs. I don’t quite understand the legislation in this way: It seems to me that certain MICs are covered within the ambit of this legislation, while there are other MICs and other types of mortgage-lending institutions that are exempted from the legislation. Could the minister straighten me out on that and give me the precise delineations of what is included and what isn’t?

As the minister points out, there are certain types of mortgage investment companies. These companies are not permitted to borrow but may obtain loans from banks or issue debentures up to a certain set figure, namely $100,000. I suppose the minister takes them outside the Act and lets them work under the Business Corporations Act because of the fairly onerous restrictions that are imposed upon lending corporations if they are encompassed within the Act, both with respect to the share ratios, with respect to their borrowing powers and with great specificity with respect to their investment powers. All that is very constricting, as it should be within the basic trust concept as it operates within this Act, although admittedly the loan corporations are not as tied down within the trust idea as are the trust companies proper.

One of the moves made here is to reduce the number of incorporators to five. That’s in line with practice. Having set up this single-man corporation, to reduce to five the incorporators of a trust or loan corporation has obvious merit over against the previous 25 that were necessary, which was all done through law offices anyhow and was extremely time-consuming and certainly inexpedient.

What he has done with respect to the delegation of powers is interesting, because -- and the committee spent some time on this last spring, as I recall -- there have been certain court cases of fairly recent date whereby trust companies, at their top echelon levels, have simply taken the agency law in the matter and said that certain things done by subordinate officials, employees on the staff, did not bind the corporation.

At least it is a moot point as things presently stand. I take it that the minister’s amendment here is a deliberate attempt to fix responsibility and not permit the theory of the master-servant relationship; namely, that a servant must act within the ambit of his authority, that the vicarious liability is visited upon the master only in certain circumstances, and that if a servant is off on a joyride of his own it doesn’t redound upon or bind the master for his actions.

I take it that this is the purpose of the new section 7, to catch that situation and to try to give it some definition in law which it presently does not have.

We are interested in subordinate notes and the range of the subordinate notes, and what the minister thinks the impact of subordination would be. He grants them the power of this extended borrowing capacity by way of subordination, but then he places so many restrictions upon it that I just wonder how efficacious it is really going to be. It must be evidenced by unencumbered investments and the whole situation as set out, so far as loan corporations are concerned at least, in section 12, subsection 7, touching their position.

Then the same thing is reduplicated -- well, not quite the same, but substantially reduplicated -- in terms of the trust corporations further on in the legislation. In other words, just precisely what does the minister think he is going to achieve by the subordinate note situation? I trust that it would mean a fairly radical expansion in the powers of this corporation to lend moneys, expanding its capacity to lend, because of the weight that this province, over against the British jurisdiction, places upon trust and loan corporations and insurance companies in the mortgage lending field; by which we felt the severe pinch recently, although I think the situation is somewhat alleviated now -- well, considering the 12 or 13 per cent interest rates on first mortgages that exist -- and the money is a little looser in this regard than it was previously. It has flowed into that market.

I am interested then in his alteration of the ratios. In the case of loan corporations -- and this applies to the trust companies too -- they used to be able to borrow on a certain ratio of their unimpaired capital. That has been altered and it was going to be, I suspect -- I can’t go too far on this as a committee decision, but for myself alone at least -- the alteration was incipient in the new recommendations we have made to the revision of this Act, to turn it over into matters of excess of assets over liabilities as a far better measure, actuarially speaking, than presently stands, but the minister retained the business of four times as a basic perimeter, then, later on, the business of borrowing 20 times as a top limit, a ceiling limit. Now he is saying that under certain very exceptional circumstances, I trust, the borrowing powers will be further enhanced through the Lieutenant Governor’s warrant, and that they may go to some other higher ratio.

One of my first lessons in economics, by the way, was through the “Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism,” which I recommend to every intelligent woman -- and to a few intelligent men too -- where Bernard Shaw spends a good deal of time talking about how the banking institutions of this world have it really made. I mean, they take in $1 of my money and are able on that basis to lend out $20 of mythical money by a bookkeeping entry. As for this enormous expansion, he goes on for several pages, howling and hooting over this and pointing out that Rothschild couldn’t have done better if he had dreamed it up himself, which he did. If I could scrape up 20 times the money I haven’t got, I’m somewhat further ahead than when I started, I would think. The same thing applies here.

What ratio has the minister got in mind? Just how far would he push that because he’s stretching it out, as he well knows, on the basis of security. The problem always is the concentrated demand at any point in time upon those resources, for obviously the one dollar isn’t going to cover all 20 who appear on the doorstep asking for their dough. While I’m not going to take exception to it, nor is this party, I think the minister will agree it must be used with a good deal of scrupulosity.

The stretching out in this way, on one side of the fence, again expands the loaning potential of these companies. They have then more money at their disposal to lend into the mortgage field and the mortgage business is basically what these companies are concerned with. That’s all to the good because it then makes the market competitive and has the effect of reducing, I trust, the interest rates, although there seems to be a good deal of cahoots around about that particular problem. Try to get a low interest rate anywhere. They all have a fixed rate, like a gasoline company. You might be able to go to a corner one on a cutrate basis but they’re very difficult to locate. There is this kind of agreement on the market. It may be done voluntarily but I suspect there are other agencies operating there. Both in the case of loan corporations under section 12 and trust corporations, I think under 15, the bill expands this ratio.

The only question I have arising out of that particular thing is in the trust situation the minister goes to 12.5 per cent as a multiple figure rising from four, then on to the 20, and then opens up that. In other words, we have a series of guidelines, if you will, laid down as to what would be feasible and then the guidelines are obviated by the final appeal to the registrar and through the minister to cabinet and Lieutenant Governor’s warrant in this particular instance.

Sometimes I wonder what it’s all about. Why bother? Just give the minister the ultimate determination on this and issue a circular saying what he’s likely to go for in any particular circumstances. With respect to the minimum capital requirements, which are presently in excess of $1 million, the corporation’s branch is quite on its own hook, but without any particular legislative authority the minister can impose an additional burden over the basic $1 million mentioned in the statute. In order to give them their basic capital fed into the corporation as seed capital to keep them going, the minister is saying that any federal corporation in this field or extra-provincial corporation to come into this province must abide by the minister’s rules and regulations with respect to this matter and with respect to the requirements on foreign ownership. This is all to the good. One could take no exception to that.

Those are the basic highlights of the thing. There are some nice points still to be made within the interstices of the legislation itself which we will come to, I trust, in committee. We certainly aren’t going to oppose the legislation but I wish that the minister’s inclement persistence or inability to abide the event wouldn’t override other considerations.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York North.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As chairman of the select committee on company law I agree with the Leader of the Opposition and also the member for Lakeshore that we have studied most of the contents of this bill very thoroughly. We are about to issue a report prepared by people on the minister’s staff who have been very generous of their time in helping to prepare our report and discussing what should be in the report and what should not be in the report.

At this time, right after the closing of this session at the end of the year, we’re getting a submission from the trust and loan companies. We also are expecting more help from the staff. I would like to know the reason for the urgency for this bill at this time. Our committee can stop work now, but then we report when the minister has the bill, and I am sure we have given it a very extensive study.

As far as the trust and loan companies in this province are concerned, we intend to continue through to January, and we will be reporting early next spring. I think this report will be a great guidance to any legislation; it will not only benefit the trust and loan companies but also any investor in this province or to anybody who has to borrow money. We are going to make certain recommendations.

Maybe the minister has a good reason for the urgency at this time, but I would like to hear that reason. If it is possible to give it second reading today and leave it over, rather than amending the bill after we bring it in -- in which case we would have to amend it again next June, or July, maybe -- I wish he would give it consideration if there is not all that much urgency at this present time.

Mr. Lawlor: He has one point -- the MICs have to be looked after.

Mr. Speaker: Does anyone wish to speak on this bill? The minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Lakeshore, and the member for York North. Believe me, I recognize the contribution that the select committee on company law has made to the corporate life of this province. Certain recommendations were brought forward by that committee, I believe about last November, and in fact have been reflected in legislation already at this particular time.

The intent of bringing forward these amendments today -- and I want to make this perfectly clear -- is not to in any way prejudge or anticipate what my ministry officials believe the select committee might do, and therefore take the position that we are working ahead of that committee. We have no intention of creating that impression in the minds of anyone, because it is factually not true. We are moving ahead by way of these proposed amendments to the Act, because there is a particular urgency in our opinion to the situation at the present time.

The current financial state of the economy would in certain areas appear to be somewhat unsettled, and if we don’t move ahead at this time, we will find ourselves in a position of having trust companies incorporated in this province unable to accept any more deposits from depositors, because they cannot pay the rate of return to the proposed depositor because they won’t be able to put that money out to work in mortgage investments, already having touched the 20 times limit I suggest to the members of this House, through you, Mr. Speaker, that this could well create a feeling of no confidence in these financial institutions, and in anticipation of the federal bill having royal assent very shortly, could create a terrible situation in the mind of the depositor whereby company A, which is a federal company incorporated in Ottawa and licensed to do business here, can accept and in fact is attracting deposits, while our own provincially incorporated companies are for very practical reasons unable and unwilling to accept deposits. Irreparable damage might well be done to our own Ontario companies if this situation should occur.

This is not a matter of a competitive thing between Ontario and federally incorporated companies. It’s a matter of close liaison between my officials and the officials at Ottawa who recognize the same financial situation with their companies which have already touched the 20 times limit. Accordingly I submit that that demonstrates some urgency to this situation.

I am not going to be presumptuous enough to anticipate when we might receive the observations and recommendations of the select committee.

The chairman, I think, mentioned in his comments this morning that we might have them perhaps in January.

Mr. W. Hodgson: No, no, next spring.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Next spring, and by the time we receive those recommendations, Mr. Speaker, and implement them, the House may well have risen and we could actually be projected into a situation some 10 or 11 months in the future. Hence our bringing this legislation to the attention of the House today.

I should point out by the way that it is our information, verified by financial statements, that most of these trust companies today invest about 75 or 85 per cent of their assets in mortgages. If we didn’t go ahead with this legislation, and those trust companies weren’t able to accept any more deposits and accordingly were unable to put out any more money, the mortgage market that they have been servicing would be affected very adversely.

The member for Lakeshore made reference to the MICs, the mortgage investment corporations; they of course are a special type of corporation. I believe we dealt that with legislation within the last 12 months --

Mr. Lawlor: May I stop the minister for a moment? What does he mean, cannot accept deposits? I mean the ratio is based upon the deposits accepted, that is at least part of it. Does the minister mean that the ceiling has been reached with respect to the 20 per cent on lending by way of mortgages.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, on lending. Oh yes, on the lending.

Mr. Lawlor: Nothing else?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No. But if the situation is such that they have touched their limit --

Mr. Lawlor: On lending.

Hon. Mr. Clement: On lending, not on borrowing or attracting deposits; they can take in as much as they want.

Mr. Lawlor: Every time they take in one they expand. That is fine.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They can lend another $20.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Not quite, because they have a maximum limitation on the amount that they can borrow or accept as deposits being 20 times the unimpaired shareholders’ equity, and we must remember we have got to distinguish between shareholders equity and moneys on deposit. I see the member for Lakeshore smiling somewhat benignly, and I am just anticipating and presuming, although I may be in error, that he does understand this, having had some exposure to company law at some time in the past.

Mr. Lawlor: It is assets over liabilities now then?

Hon. Mr. Clement: By obtaining additional funding with the subordinated notes, the subordinated notes, of course will be considered for purposes of the 20 times principle, as unimpaired shareholders’ equity.

I was mentioning a moment ago the mortgage investment corporations. They are excluded from registration under the Act, and all that section 5 does is to adjust our legislation to be compatible with the federal legislation.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister seems wrong to me. It is not 20 times shareholders’ unimpaired equity, it is 20 times the excess of assets over liabilities.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Then what do you resolve it to, Mr. Speaker? What does it boil down to -- 20 times assets over liabilities?

Mr. Lawlor: That would be partially shareholders’ equity, but it would be other things, too.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Sure there would be other things, but the amounts on deposit are of course liabilities of the company in terms of their obligations which the company must discharge. I don’t think the member is quibbling on that.

Mr. Lawlor: No. Well, we will get to it in committee.

Hon. Mr. Clement: All right.

The member for Lakeshore asked in essence, “What are you going to do with the subordinated ones?” I think I have already touched on that by saying that in computing the amounts the subordinated notes would be considered as unimpaired shareholders’ equity. The subordinated notes will not rank in competition with moneys on deposit, GICs and this sort of thing. They have a fixed rate of return, and they lack any preferred creditor’s position and they cannot, of course, be equity in the sense that they will participate in the capital appreciation of the company, such as common shares might do.

The member for Lakeshore again touched on section 7. This is the section, I believe, with the delegation of certain powers. The purpose of this is to free the board of directors, per se, from routine matters so that they can be carried on by an executive officer of the company, but it does not in any way release the trust company or the directors of their respective liabilities insofar as the discharge of their role as a fiduciary is concerned.

I think those are the only comments that I have to make in response to the matters touched on by the members this morning. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear to you in your role, not only as Deputy Speaker, but hopefully more so, sir, in your role as chairman of that select committee -- a committee of this Legislature which has had unparalleled leadership under very outstanding chairmen over the past several years.

Mr. Lawlor: There can be some self-serving statements sometimes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: A committee which has had the advantage of travelling to western Europe twice, once led --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- led by a now present minister of the Crown and twice attended by the present chairman. But we are looking forward -- and I say this seriously -- to the recommendations that will emanate from the committee’s report later on next spring. Many of the matters that cause us concern on this side of the water have been resolved in other jurisdictions; particularly in the United Kingdom, in view of their ancient and long-standing experience in the marketplace in this sort of commercial activity. And I think that we can benefit substantially by the information that we obtain from such other jurisdictions.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to hear a government member comment on this bill.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I beg your pardon?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did the chairman comment on this bill?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, he commented on it. I cannot paraphrase for the chairman, but he wondered why there was any urgency and directed his remarks to that end. And by the demonstration of just logical procedures, I am sure he is convinced now, after having heard my comments in this regard.

In any event, I do say that there is some urgency in the situation now, for the reasons I mentioned. But I don’t want anyone to feel that we are trying to anticipate anything the select committee is about to do. We look forward to receiving its observations and we will react accordingly.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Does that committee go on forever?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think so. I can only hope that the complexion of the committee insofar as the representation of different political parties is concerned remains the same forever.

Mr. Lawlor: We have got to do insurance companies next.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like that to go to committee to have some of our experts look at it.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think it probably would be in the best interests of everyone if it did go to the committee of the whole House. But not today, in view of the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and the feelings of other members here. There are people, I am sure, who are not present today who can make a contribution at that time.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves second reading of Bill 134, the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): I’d just like to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker, before I hear the opposition.

There is little new in this bill. For the most part, it is consolidation. There is a little new policy -- well, it’s more an extension of policy than any new policy -- and there are a few new measures, but they have already been announced. What I am saying is that most of what is here is consolidation, an extension of policy or some changes that have already been announced in the House.

Certain provisions now are made applicable to the Crown. We are reducing the hours after which overtime should be paid from 48 hours to 44 hours --

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): It’s already done.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- and certain provisions for substitution of holidays in connection with people working in the hotel and hospital fields.

There are provisions for equal benefits for pension and life insurance schemes. They, of course, will have to be subject to regulations because it is a very complicated matter. Provisions for pregnancy leave, of course, have been announced.

When we reach committee, I will be bringing in two further amendments, one in regard to section 36 and the other in regard to section 65. I’ll supply the members of the opposition with copies of those amendments, but my proposal is that it should be referred to standing committee eventually, Mr. Speaker, because I think there are some things in here that we’ll probably want to examine at that time and in those circumstances. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on behalf of the official opposition to make a few comments relating to Bill 134, the Employment Standards Act, is that we will support the principle of the amendments to the bill, but with some reservations. I was delighted to hear the minister say that he was going to refer it to the standing committee of the Legislature. I think that is where the bill should be referred before final reading.

Generally, the Act limits the working hours of an employee to 48 hours in a week. I believe that 48 hours a week still is the intent of the bill. It may be hidden in there, but the minister has indicated that it is 44 hours; and by certain interpretations of the bill I find that the director of the employment standards branch can set the hours of work beyond 44 hours a week.

When one looks at the title of the bill and the explanatory notes, one sees that the bill updates, revises and consolidates the present laws governing the standards of employment. And that’s important: the standards of employment. And the bill, as far as I can see it, Mr. Speaker, does not go quite far enough to set the standards of the hours of work in the Province of Ontario.

The bill does not include the type of work that is carried on in the construction field in Ontario, particularly highway construction. It does not cover the hours of employment in the sewer construction field in the Province of Ontario. It does not cover the hours of employment in the hotel and tourist industry in the Province of Ontario.

One can leave the policy set by the director of the employment standards branch, to extend the hours from anywhere from 44 to 60 hours a week, in some cases this does not include overtime. The minister has indicated the labour standards of the Province of Ontario should be revised, and I believe it should be in the direction of setting a standard of 40 hours a week across the Province of Ontario.

In other industries in Ontario, the standard is 40 hours a week. Here we can go up to 60 hours a week. I find that there is quite a discrepancy in the bill in this particular section of section 1.

The other matter I’d like to deal with is the matter of the hours a person has to be employed in Ontario. Often I find that persons working in industry are not aware that through some arrangement with the director of the employment standards branch, they are compelled to work 48 hours, 50 hours or 60 hours a week. I believe that when there is an agreement made with an employer of Ontario, a posting on the bulletin board in the plant or the industry should notify the employees of his contract with the employer. I think it is essential that a notice of this type should be posted.

I was also interested in the comments about the employment standards branch in the minister’s estimates statement this year. He said:

“The Act also provides that, in the case of a mass termination of 50 or more employees by a firm in a four-week period, the employee notify the minister, who then initiates action to assist the affected employees. This type of legislation is the first of its kind in Canada.”

I hope it plugs the hole that is in the existing regulations. As I interpret this particular section here, it does not plug that hole.

I am sure the minister and his staff are fully aware of the infractions that are carried out now by employers in the Province of Ontario where, if they have 50 or more employees, they can gradually, over a period of three to four months, get down below 50 and then phase the plant right out. I think that there must be some strong legislation here to assure the employees, in this particular instance, that there is no loss of income on termination of employment.

I think it applies particularly where an industry has gone into bankruptcy, and there’s nothing in here that says the employees’ wages shall come first. I have been in a company that went under. At one time the employees’ wages were always first, but lately it is not a matter of employees’ wages coming first. That’s usually at the bottom of the totem pole and they are left with very little. I think the minister should be bringing in stronger recommendations that cover this particular loophole in the regulations.

The other matter I am concerned about is the monetary loss to employees in the Province of Ontario. I can think of one instance -- the matter has been raised in the Legislature here -- which I brought to the attention of Mr. Scott, of the employment standards branch, and that was the matter of FigurMagic. It went into bankruptcy and there were a number of employees who didn’t receive any money at all from that company. I understand that Today’s Woman has taken it over and has employed many of the previous employees, and today I find that they perhaps are having financial difficulties and have sold out to another company. Presently there is back payment of wages due to employees, and some in the Welland area have lost $668. I say to the minister that there is a hole in the Employment Standards Act which must be plugged here. The minister cannot allow persons to lose income while being employed in the Province of Ontario.

There are loopholes in this particular section of the Employment Standards Act that must be plugged. There are other things here, Mr. Speaker, that one could get into in more detail. I was just going through the minister’s comments. He says: “There is little new in the bill,” and I suppose one could stand up on the opposition side and say: “That is quite true. There is little new in the bill.”

I suggest that the minister has made the right approach by referring it to a standing committee of the Legislature so that we can get into the matters in more detail. I, perhaps, will be moving amendments myself, as well as the labour critic here in the Liberal Party, so that the minister can correct some of these loopholes and plug some of them up, so that we do have a standard of employment in the Province of Ontario. I hope the minister takes this word “standard” of employment in Ontario more seriously than it has been taken in the past.

I can see that he is regulating for other benefits, such as pensions and so forth. It is a matter of great concern to many of us here in the Province of Ontario that some of those persons employed in perhaps less fortunate industries -- they are not all employed in the automobile industry -- should be entitled to such fringe benefits. Again, if one looks at the particular section of that bill -- I believe it is section 34, on equal benefits -- the section prohibits distinctions, exclusions or preferences between employees because of age, sex or marital status under pensions, life insurance, sickness, medical or hospital plans available to employees. Then the big question arises. The section authorizes the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations providing for exceptions of this general principle. So on one hand the minister is giving it to them and on the other hand, he is taking it away from them. Why the particular power should be given to the Lieutenant Governor to remove that is questionable. As I said before, if we are going to have employment standards they must apply throughout the Province of Ontario so that all persons, regardless of what industry they are working in, are treated alike.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I’ll sit down. I hope we will move amendments later on when the bill gets into the committee stage.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the minister was right on when he said there is nothing new in this Act. There is very little new. It mainly reorganizes the old bill into a more rational administrative form. One would have thought if one was making a study, which we heard was going on throughout the spring and particularly in the summer, on exceptions to the Act and a complete review, that Ministry of Labour officials would be looking for some new thrusts, some new initiatives, and some new ground to be ploughed, and that they then would bring in an Act which is completely new, an Act which would deal with some of the problems which are crying out to be met, that the people of Ontario might expect in a new bill now that they hear that a new bill is before us. Unfortunately this is not the case. The review from the ministry and the introduction of this new Act are basically a reorganization. A mountain has laboured and indeed brought forth a mouse.

It is a tremendous disappointment and, I think, a true reflection, however, on the government’s attitude towards the two-thirds of the working people in this province who are unorganized, a vast majority of whom are dependent upon the minimum provisions which are laid out under this Act. Apart from pregnancy leave, there are really no new thrusts which will affect in any material way, people in the workplace in this province. Before going on and leaving the one point on pregnancy leave, this was a measure which we urged upon the former Minister of Labour in, I think, the fall of 1973, in which we said this should be extended beyond 12 weeks -- UIC pay 15 weeks -- and he should at least bring it up to that and loosen it up. This is what, in fact, has happened here. The minister has made it 17 weeks. He has allowed it to go as many as 11 weeks before. If there is a miscalculation upon the date of the expected birth and it comes a month after that predicted, for example, the person would still have the right to six weeks off thereafter. This is all a step forward, even though a minor step forward.

If one was really wanting to plough new ground here, one would have in this bill paternity leave, which has found its way into some union contracts already in this province, and which gives to a father a right to stay home for, let’s say, a six-week period after the birth of a child in order to assist around the house. I believe that Sweden, in melding its policy of pregnancies and births with its day-care, child-care and infant-care attitudes, has allowed one of the two parents to stay home with full pay for one year after the birth of a child because it’s cheaper to do it that way than to provide rather expensive infant care. If one is looking for new areas with which one could rationally approach the problems of birth and children, one certainly has the Swedish jurisdiction to look to and consider. It is a bit disappointing that the minister has not tackled the problem of paternity leave or leave for one or of the other parents to look after an infant, particularly in the months immediately following birth.

In the overall principle involved in this whole “new” Act, I think the minister as a new minister needs to question the attitude of some of the staff in his ministry. I’m not talking about the director of the employment standards branch. It is an attitude that I detected on the part of some other of the ministry officials in the discussion of the estimates. Statements occurred such as: “We must remember that the Employment Standards Act sets forth only the minimum.”

I detected this as an attitude of this Act not being all that important, because it deals only with the minimum. This is an attitude that completely ignores the fact that a large part of the unorganized workers in this province are employed directly at the minimums that are quoted in this Act; the minimums established in this Act. The Act, therefore, sets down the working conditions and benefits under which the government of Ontario is willing to see all those employees working. The minimums here reflect, in fact, what the minister is saying are the conditions appropriate for many workers in this province. If it’s his desire to see workers in this province not working at the minimums in this Act, looking at each one of them individually, then he should increase the minimums under this Act.

However, there is one section in this Act, Mr. Minister, which is disgraceful. In the notes under the hours of work it says: “There is no change except for housekeeping amendments.” Does the minister consider the dropping from this section the provision of transportation home for female employees between midnight and 6 a.m. as simply a housekeeping amendment? I would not have thought so. There are a lot of female employees in this province who would not have thought so.

Let me put the question to the minister this way. How many acts of molestation of women, who would have otherwise been provided with transportation home under the old provisions of this Act, will he tolerate before he reinstates it? One? One might even think that might be reasonable. Two? Twenty over a three-month period? Two hundred over a six-month period? Just what number and what period of time does he and his ministry consider to be the appropriate number and length of time over which incidents of this type might occur before he reinstates this provision in the Act?

Sure, this is protective legislation for women in this province. But according to some women’s groups this is discriminatory, and they have opposed this protective legislation for the fellow members of their sex because it is discriminatory. So, what’s the ministry’s reaction? It abolishes it. It goes ahead and abolishes it rather than extending it to all employees in this province, men or women, who feel they might need the protection under that section of this Act.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it shouldn’t be tied to any particular hour, such as midnight. There is nothing particularly sacrosanct or Cinderella-ish about midnight. The ministry should tie it to the availability of public transportation. In the city of Toronto, for example, it may well mean 2 o’clock in the morning for most areas. In the city of Ottawa it might mean 11:30 or midnight. In the city of Windsor, for all the outlying areas, it might mean 8 o’clock at night.

Mr. Stokes: In some areas they roll up the streets at 10.

Mr. Bounsall: In the member for Thunder Bay’s riding it might mean all day long.

The ministry may have to put in a darkness clause for those areas of the province where there is no public transportation. But this is the way this problem should have been attacked, not by abolition of the provision. There should be an extension of it to all employees, male or female, who feel they need this provision, and tie it to the availability of public transportation.

The minister has had other instances of discrimination on the basis of sex pointed out to him in labour Acts, such as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act. For example, widows receive death benefit payments in the event of a man killed in a workplace. When it was pointed out that this was discriminatory and should be applied to widowers where a woman was killed in a workplace, the minister’s reaction was not: “Oh, oh, discriminatory because we have only included widows; we will therefore abolish the section on widows.” No, we included widows and widowers. In virtually every situation where there has been a discriminatory instance that he has looked at and one something about, the minister has provided for all-inclusive coverage -- except here. There is no excuse whatsoever for doing that in this section.

The minister cannot hide behind the fact that the Ontario Federation of Labour, some four or five years ago, passed a clause saying it was discriminatory and therefore should be abolished. He cannot hide behind that fact as his main reason for taking it out, because if he did that would be the first time he would have accepted any clause suggested by the Ontario Federation of Labour in its full form. The minister cannot hide behind that, and he has not done proper thinking in this section. I would be interested in knowing the exact number of incidents over what period of time the ministry has decided will be an acceptable increase over what is taking place at the moment.

I assume under this section it is now completely okay with the minister to drop the protection for female employees, irrespective of their age, who work between 12 o’clock midnight and 6 a.m., be they 17, 16, 15 or 14 years old. This is now okay by the labour ministry in the Province of Ontario, because that section has been dropped from the Act as well in this section.

The hours of work, Mr. Speaker, are still retained at eight hours a day and 48 hours a week. There is no excuse for retaining it at that high figure of 48 hours in the week; it should be reduced to 40 hours in the week.

The equal benefits section appears to prohibit differences in pensions, life insurance, sickness, medical and hospital plans to employees on the basis of sex or marital status. However, as the minister already mentioned in his opening remarks, this situation will have to be carefully looked at by the regulations, and in those regulations he can certainly make exceptions. I would like the minister to assure the House that any exceptions made to equality here under life insurance, pensions, sickness and hospital plans, etc., will be made only on the basis of actuarial differences, and no other.

I would also hope those regulations, when they come forward, will in fact define the status for equality or for the receiving of pensions, life insurance, etc., for common-law situations in this province. It is not good enough to leave it to the devisers of pension plans or life insurance plans to define what is a common-law relationship. The minister has four instances of definitions of common-law relationships; he may well have to do it, not as an overall definition, but for a common-law relationship as it relates to pensions, as it relates to life insurance, as it relates to hospital and medical plans, as it relates to sickness insurance. It might not be appropriate to have one definition to cover all categories, but the minister must make that determination. He must set that forward; he cannot leave this to the private insurance companies to make those definitions.

With respect to equal pay for equal work, there has been a small step forward here, one which I hope -- perhaps the minister can be clearer on this -- will remove most of the contentious issues revolving around equal pay for equal work. The new principle is to pay equal pay, not for equal work but for work that is substantially the same, requiring not equal skill, effort and responsibility but substantially the same. This, I think, should resolve most if not all of the arguments one gets into vis-à-vis orderlies, nurses’ aides and costly grievances that have to be fought -- so on. In that sense, if that once and for all gets rid of that argument and gets rid of the costly grievances that have to be fought over this situation, that certainly is a step forward. I would like to hear the minister’s comments on that.

Again, Mr. Speaker, sections of this bill, damn themselves in the notes. When we get to the termination pay section of this Act it says: “There is no change in substance.” Well it is a disgrace that there is no change in substance.

There is no increase in the length of notice time to employees. There have been research studies done on this, and there is one other jurisdiction in Canada which is ahead of the Ontario section. Quebec gives four weeks or one month of notice after one year, as opposed to Ontario’s one week of notice for two years or less.

On mass layoffs as well, in both Quebec and Manitoba, 10 workers, not 50, is the requirement for termination notice over a four-week period. We have argued for at least three years, to my knowledge, about 50 being far too high a number to qualify for a mass layoff termination notice, and two other provinces in Canada have reduced that figure to 10.

In terms of non-mass layoffs, simply in terms of the amount of termination notice required, I think we could quite acceptably take the one month after one year provision from Quebec, with two months in the period from one to two years, three months in the period from two to five years, and six months thereafter.

Some of the research studies done by the minister’s own ministry have some thoughts on the length of termination notice or termination pay in lieu of notice. Those studies indicate that the justification for notice and the length of notice rests on the usefulness for personal adjustment and mitigation of the psychological shock, particularly for older, long-term workers, in finding themselves about to be terminated.

There is no particular correlation between finding a job and length of termination, but it is pointed out that the usefulness of a long period is to help accomplish the psychological adjustments that must occur, particularly for older employees who have more trouble anyway in being relocated, and particularly as they move from a high seniority situation where they had specialized skills and experience to a situation where those very specialized skills and experience become a disadvantage in relocating.

We owe it to our older employees in this province to ensure that more notice of termination be allowed to take place in order that they be able to adjust to new re-employment, as well as to find that employment.

There are other things that have not been done in this section, which cry out to be done and which are of great concern to me. Nothing has been done about termination at the time of a strike. A private member’s bill was introduced and debated in this House shortly after the Hall Lamp situation; and the minister knows the details of that. We had another one in Tillsonburg, just a short time ago, where employees were terminated while a strike was in progress. There is nothing in this section which says to the employer he must pay the termination pay provisions of the Act.

Another private member’s bill was introduced and debated in this House with respect to the section on termination relating to actions by the government, actions in which a plant is closed down because of governmental action, in which, when the Act was subsequently amended, termination pay is to be paid only when notice comes forward under the Environmental Protection Act.

This arose in the Act out of the thought that maybe Canada Metals and so on may be closed down under an Environmental Protection Act order. But what became clear at that time was that the Environmental Protection Act probably didn’t have the authority to so do, and what would have to be done, if the plant needed to be closed, would be a termination under the Health Act.

We argued at the time that that should be included. In fact this whole section, rather than paying just “the Environmental Protection Act,” it should reasonably read “by any statute of the Province of Ontario;” and “the employer shall pay the termination pay upon closure.” It should be made to cover any Act or statute of the Province of Ontario, not just the Environmental Protection Act.

The problem of bankruptcies has been mentioned quite recently in the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and has been thoroughly aired there. Again, it’s the Bankruptcy Act which places the workers’ benefits in third place I understand the minister is talking with the senior level of government on restoring workers’ wages, presumably vacation pay and the termination pay, to the number one position, except that when a bankruptcy occurs there may not be enough funds even to pay those provisions to the employees.

I suggested to the minister that there should be a termination pay insurance fund to which all employers would contribute a small amount -- because there are not that many bankruptcies in the province -- so that the workers, when they find themselves in that position, irrespective of whether the Bankruptcy Act is changed or not, would in fact receive their full wages, would in fact receive their vacation pay entitlements and would in fact receive the termination pay given to them under this section of the Act. There does not need to be a great big new bureaucracy either to collect that or disburse it. The disbursement could be immediate, and if anything can be collected under the Bankruptcy Act or receivership provisions it would be taken and given back into the fund.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have further remarks to make?

Mr. Bounsall: I do have further remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Would you move the adjournment of the debate, please?

Mr. Bounsall moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment, I would like to advise the members that on Monday we will continue with the debate on this bill, and proceed to debate Bill 136, the Land Transfer Tax; and Bill 155, the Algonquin Forestry Authority Act. The House leader (Mr. Winkler) will be back on Monday and he will announce the balance of the business when he gets here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 o’clock, p.m.