Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. B. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I’d like to ask the House leader, Mr. Speaker, if he can give us any clarification on the report in the Globe and Mail this morning that was attributed to an interview with the Premier (Mr. Davis) and that indicated we would be returning to complete the business of the House in January. Has he some comments or a statement to make about that?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I have no statement in that regard. But I will reiterate what I have said on a number of occasions: I do not intend to sit late hours or in any way be accused of inhibiting debate on legislation. It would be my view that if there are important pieces of legislation left on the order paper on whatever day we recess for Christmas, if that be the case, we will certainly take a few days thereafter and come back and complete the business.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Does that mean that the list of legislation that is currently on the order paper, combined with whatever is left off that is on the revised list that the House leader gave to us, is the government’s programme of legislation for this session, and that there will be no further legislation introduced in this session in the new year?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my ability I have supplied the opposition parties with that list this morning, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that there won’t be two or three or four more pieces of legislation brought in. I can’t say that there won’t be; as a matter of fact, I believe there will be.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Premier along the same lines, now that he has joined us. Perhaps he could clarify the matter that was reported in the Globe and Mail this morning, ostensibly associated with his statement that he was not going on his trip to Israel because of the pressure of business. Can he give a further statement to the House as to the statement in the newspaper, not attributed to the Premier but in the same report, that we would be having a session in January to complete the emerging business of the province?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I did observe last night that I had planned to visit Israel during the latter part of January. In that there were a number of matters that were of importance to the government, in fairness to those who were planning the trip and to the people in Israel, if by some chance the pressures were such that I had to cancel at the last minute, I thought it was wise to postpone it somewhat in advance. Mr. Speaker, I did inform the group last night I was postponing the visit. It wasn’t a cancellation.

I think it is fair to state that those who reported it last night, in observing the activities here, as they do so objectively and carefully, took a look at the order paper, knowing that there is a possibility of two or three other bills in which I know the members opposite are interested -- such as the election financing legislation, which is a matter we are all interested in, but it is complicated and will take a period of time, and I can’t guarantee to the House that it would be ready in time for passage before Christmas. There is the pending report of the redistribution commission, which I am sure all members will want to have a look at before we immediately accept it in toto. I haven’t seen it; it may be that it is totally acceptable to everybody, but I think that some at least will want to have the occasion to study that at least for a day or two. Once again, the drafting of that and its passage could require some time.

I think the House leader has made it very clear that we are all anxious to avoid sitting until 1, 2, 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): That would be a change, and a pleasure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are very accommodating. All that those who wrote the story last night observed was that it’s possible -- and assuming that most of us do want to be home with our families at least by midnight on Dec. 24 -- that there is some possibility, I think --

Mr. Lewis: A most extraordinary reply. How did we get on to this?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was asked. I was asked.

Mr. Lewis: What are we doing?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Never use one word where a thousand will do.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): We just shouldn’t sit on Friday mornings.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not thinking for the reporter, I think that he made a fairly objective evaluation that could turn out --

Mr. Lewis: The member for Riverdale got up this morning to listen to this? Now finish.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- to have some substance.

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

NEGOTIATIONS WITH TEACHERS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Education having to do with the negotiations that were completed successfully yesterday with the teachers -- do they call them special schools of the province? -- and with the general negotiations that are continuing across the province. Does he recall, associated with his comment yesterday that these negotiations were completed without acrimony, that one of his assistant deputy ministers who was in charge of these negotiations referred to the procedures undertaken by the teachers in the special schools as “despicable”? Has he raised that matter with his official and is he going to discipline him for making a public statement of that type?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): How about using one word for the question?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I think my friend is drawing all his information from a newspaper story that he read the other day --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister doesn’t tell us about these things.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If you sit through the whole eight days and as you negotiate in good faith sometimes your anger rises a little and you call each other a few names, but it certainly doesn’t indicate any evidence of negotiating in bad faith. I think if the Leader of the Opposition asked both sides, they would substantiate what I said in my statement.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Then the minister has inquired into this and the gentleman has told the minster his reasons for saying publicly that the procedures used by the teachers were despicable?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I haven’t spoken to him about it. All I know is that after that particular time, more meetings were held and an amicable settlement was reached.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, it was settled the next day. What was the matter with him?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am telling my friend that he’s basing his impressions on a newspaper story, which of course has not captured the flavour of all the negotiations.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a further supplementary having to do with the continuing negotiations elsewhere in the province. Is the minister making any effort to communicate once more to the boards that as a matter of policy from the Ministry of Education, supported by all sides in the House here, conditions of work are, in fact, within the negotiable category, and that the boards who are insisting on dealing only with the dollar figures with their teachers are simply going to have the protracted problems that were experienced previously?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’m doing that in every possible way that I can.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a supplementary to that --

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you may.

Mr. Lewis: -- on the assumption that discussing other negotiations will permit it? In the situation of the Lakehead Board of Education, now that the ministry has established knowledgeably and well that even the maximum amount which the teachers are requesting would fall within the ceilings which the board of education in the Lakehead has at its disposal, would the minister not intervene and indicate to the board, the elections being over, that it is bargaining in bad faith to continue to persist at the level of the offer it has made, when his ministry has corrected its figures and indicated that there is room for negotiation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Another one-word question.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps there needs to be a bit of an explanation about the report our ministry dd. I think that it can be said that it did substantially say what the hon. member has said. But as I like to say it, in simplistic terms, the study that we did proved that really both sides were right.

Mr. Lewis: Not from what I read.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The teachers contention was that the proposals they have made could be met within the ceilings. Indeed they could if the percentage of the budget spent on salaries were as they think it should be. The board has other feelings about what percentage of the total budget should be spent on salaries, If they feel they should spend only 65 per cent of their budget on salaries there’s no way they can accommodate the offer of the teachers. The teachers maintain that 65 per cent of the budget is not the proper proportion that should be spent on teachers salaries. I don’t know how you ever decide what is the proper proportion, Mr. Speaker, except that the board has a certain amount of money and has to set its priorities within its total budget.

As I say, one could say that neither side was wrong in the position it was putting forward but both were arguing for a different total percentage of the budget to be spent on salaries. We’re doing everything possible to urge both sides to get together in the Lakehead. They’re only going to solve the dispute up there if they get down together at the bargaining table and come up with an agreement, and that’s what we’ve said.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: Would the minister not consider it a prime example of bad faith on the part of the board in that they are currently spending a good deal of money between November and December that had not otherwise been projected on supplies and equipment that weren’t initially part of their purchasing programme, in order to reduce the amount that they can offer to the teachers for the part of the contract between September and December? Wouldn’t the minister consider that a prime example of bad faith bargaining?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t have any proof or knowledge that they are spending extra money on supplies at this particular time.

Mr. Foulds: Supplies and equipment.

Hon. Mr. Wells: And equipment. Someone would have to present that to me. I don’t have any knowledge of that.

HOPE TOWNSHIP GARBAGE SITE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to put a question to the Minister of the Environment. Now that the residents of Hope township have voted 869 to 105 against the programme whereby CP Rail would truck Toronto’s garbage into their township for disposal, is he now prepared to make the final announcement that he is not going to give his approval for that programme?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I’m well aware of the vote and the feelings of the people in the area. I’ve met on many occasions with the people. I could have almost predicted the outcome of the vote. We’re getting close to a decision on that particular site down there right now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: What’s delaying it? We were asking these questions this time last year.

Hon. W. Newman: No, I’m sure the member is misinformed because I wasn’t the Minister of the Environment a year ago.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, it was somebody responsible.

Hon. W. Newman: I think since I’ve been discussing this situation --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And we will ask somebody after him.

Hon. W. Newman: -- in the case of any site we deal with as far as the Ministry of the Environment is concerned, we want to make absolutely positively sure that the site is environmentally sound and will not create a leaching problem in the future. We have pretty well completed our assessment on the Hope area and we will be coming forward with it very soon.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister knows it has been completed for six months and he’s just trying to get up his nerve.

Hon. W. Newman: That’s not true.

FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary for Social Development: Did the minister receive a telegram from the president of the Planned Parenthood Association of Ontario asking her to make public the report of the task force on family planning and to release the allocation of $300,000 that is presently in the budget for that purpose?

Did the minister receive the telegram, and can she give us some information on family planning and that sort of thing?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, through you to the Leader of the Opposition; yes, I did receive a telegram and I responded to the effect that it is under active consideration in the policy field.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: By way of supplementary -- which might really be that I didn’t hear what the minister said -- but what about the task force? Why hasn’t its report been made public?

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): It was finished in April.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, it is an internal report -- as the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) indicated yesterday.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wonder; could the minister not give some further reason other than to say that it is a secret document, or a cabinet document? Would it not be possible, since this task force is established by the government and paid for by public funds, that its findings and its working papers be made available to everyone in the province who is interested in this important subject?

Mr. Martel: The ministry is crazy.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is well aware that there are many internal papers which are put in front of the ministers in the policy field in order for them to make a decision. It just is not in the public interest to release these papers.

Mr. Foulds: A secret document.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West; a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Why is it that only since the minister has taken over the Social Development secretariat is this the first time now for several years that the major public studies in the field of social service, from day care to family planning, have been seen as secret documents? What is this obsession of the ministers for secrecy? Why can the minister not put it before the Legislature?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any secrecy that has been associated with these papers at all.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Give us the report, then.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Lewis: First I want to ask the Premier a question. In view of what appears to be a developing confrontation, certainly a deterioration in relationship between the government and our civil service, and in order to avoid the brinksmanship of late December, could the Premier now personally intervene in an effort to get at least the financial aspects of the negotiations resolved or dealt with in a way which isn’t quite as confronting and adversary as is now the case? Otherwise I don’t know how we are going to avoid the events all of us want to avoid.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only say from the government’s part -- and I emphasize this -- that we have enjoyed over the years, and I think all of us recognize this, I believe a good relationship with the public servants of this province. I have said, in spite of a certain public relations campaign that has been somewhat personal in character --

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): The Premier noticed that, did he?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- developed, of course, by an agency that is well known to the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): He is responsible for it.

Mr. Lewis: Like all the minister’s reports, they are internal.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In spite of that, and I said it publicly, in my view we have the most able and committed public service in any jurisdiction in this country. Certainly, as far as this government is concerned, we are not anxious to have a confrontation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We don’t want to go back to that again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We believe that we have negotiated in good faith; we have endeavoured to do it with a minimum amount of publicity, and have been criticized for this.

Mr. Deans: That is not so.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that we shall continue to negotiate in good faith and attempt to avoid confrontation. No one wants it -- on our part, at least. No one likes it. There is a further meeting on Monday after which we will have a report. But I want to make it abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, that this government does not like confrontation; it has not negotiated in order to get confrontation.

I will not assess blame in this regard in any way whatsoever, certainly at this moment; but I just don’t like people suggesting, as some have, that this government is seeking a confrontation with its own public servants, because that is categorically untrue.

Mr. Renwick: Change the negotiating team.

Mr. Lewis: It may be untrue; it is in fact not obvious. But that aside, since the civil servants clearly feel that the Chairman of the Management Board and those associated with him are deliberately provocative, are not bargaining in good faith, and that we cannot get a settlement so long --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Who said that?

Mr. Lewis: -- as that minister is the chief negotiator, I’m suggesting to the Premier that he do intervene and demonstrate his good faith.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. A question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe they have said that. I don’t believe they feel that the Chairman of the Management Board has done anything but negotiate in good faith.

Mr. Lewis: He has negotiated publicly in violation of good faith.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What does the member mean, he has negotiated publicly? What in heaven’s name does he think Mr. Norman has done?

Mr. Lewis: Sure, in this Legislature look at what he has done.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What does the member think Mr. Norman has done in terms of negotiation?

Mr. Lewis: After the event.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know there is great communication between the member and him, or at least between his brother and some of those negotiating. The member knows it and I know it.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, he tried to get them organized in Stormont and he knows it.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: I mean dynasties expand upward, not sideways.

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

Hon. Mr. Davis: Michael had his finger in the pie.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, he will probably enjoy the notoriety.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: Are there any other members of the family the Premier would like to involve?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough West will please take his seat.

Mr. Lewis: My son is in the gallery. What does the Premier think? Does he think he has entered this affair as well?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The leader of the New Democratic Party’s son is not involved.

Mr. Lewis: Thanks very much; not until the Premier’s next --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Only because he’s too young.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will allow the Leader of the Opposition one final supplementary on this before it gets into a debate.

An hon. member: Only one.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier if there is any way, as a matter of policy, that there might be reconsideration given to the statement made by the bargainer for the government that there would be no possibility of removing the compulsory arbitration requirement from all of the members of the civil service? Why would it not be possible to remove that compulsion from those whose jobs, although they are undoubtedly important are not essential to the health and safety of the community?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course, Mr. Speaker, you then get into a very complex determination as to what some people would regard as being essential or the degrees of essentiality. If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that a substantial portion of the public servants of this province should strike, that of course is his determination,

Mr. Deans: That is not true.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, just in case you misunderstood him, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that unlike the Premier, I do not want a strike of a substantial portion of the civil servants,

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is what the member said. That is exactly what he said. He wants them to have the right, and he knows it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier kept hoping for it to save his political figure, and he knows it. Of all the irresponsible comments to make in this House, that is totally irresponsible.

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

Mr. Lewis: No wonder the Premier is going to come back here in January. Now we know why the government wants to come back in January, for its compulsory arbitration legislation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, the member has no idea.

STUDY OF VINYL CHLORIDE

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Health a question -- I’m not sure whether he is wearing a neck brace or a decoration.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Another tryout for Bozo the clown.

Mr. Lewis: Try a cough drop, it’s more effective for what ails him.

May I ask him, now that it is known that we were, in fact, talking about the same substance -- vinyl chloride in the workplace and outside -- how does he possibly justify the workers in the plants being exposed to a level 100 times greater than that which has now been determined by the Ministry of the Environment as tolerable for the community?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure either, this morning, what this thing is for, but the party last night was very enjoyable.

Mr. Deans: It is holding his head on.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Somebody said this morning that at least it was in keeping with my character.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The minister shouldn’t move too much or he’ll take off.

Hon. Mr. Miller: If it starts going this way I’m in trouble.

An hon. member: Turn the lights off.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It’s another gift of my wife’s.

Mr. Breithaupt: I haven’t seen anything like that since Clarabelle.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I know the leader of the New Democratic Party has, like myself, been talking to my staff, certainly with my willingness and consent, to find out whether these standards were meaningful. The basic reason, they claim, for the large difference between the two standards within the workplace and in the community is related to: (a) the total exposure in the community; (b) the fact that people may be unaware of the fact that they are in contact in the community, whereas in the workplace they are; (c) the varying ages and health of the people in the community as compared to those within the workplace.

Having listened to all those reasons, and hoping they are valid, I still have in the back of my mind enough doubt to be questioning the great difference between those two standards.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since in the United States the level is being dropped to one part per million on Jan. 1, 1975, might the minister between now and then consider the really horrendous possibilities if these optimistic hopes of his staff prove wrong, and the fact that the men in the workplace should not be subject to 100 times the level of contamination that the community is subject to?

When one errs in this instance, one errs on the side of caution and brings the level down. Would the minister do that? Thank you.

FOOD COMPANY PROFITABILITY

Mr. Lewis: May I ask one question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations? As the minister goes through his litany of supermarket companies, could he ask for an explanation from General Mills (Canada), whose increase for the year ending April 30, 1974, is 114.3 per cent higher than it was in the previous year? In light of the minister’s earlier remarks, could he ask of them, as well, an explanation?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: No further questions.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation and Communications has an answer to a question.

OBSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY 401

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) yesterday asked me the question:

Is the minister aware that the construction opposite the international airport on Highway 401, when it reduces the traffic to one lane as it did this morning, ties up the traffic for at least 10 miles along the 401, so that it takes about 40 minutes to get through? Would the minister instruct the construction company to post signs at the Highway 10 and Dixie intersections warning that there is construction ahead?

Mr. Speaker, traffic on the 401 eastbound was reduced to one lane yesterday morning. The contractor was in the process of constructing the detour which will connect to Highway 401, and there was this specific operation which required the closing of one lane. Normally such an operation would be cleared for approval through my ministry’s district office. However, in this case the contractor proceeded without prior approval.

The hon. member may be assured that the matter has been taken up with the contractor, as it is a condition of the contract that two lanes will be kept open whenever possible. My ministry will ensure that a sign is posted to the west of Highway 10 to warn eastbound motorists of the construction ahead. In addition, we will post a sign advising that traffic is restricted to one lane whenever a planned activity is under way which so restricts the traffic. I will undertake to ensure that planned activities which so restrict traffic will in the future be undertaken during non-rush-hour periods.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

HAMILTON CAVE-IN

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Has he now had the report from his officials in the industrial safety branch in regard to the cave-in in Hamilton this summer, and also the report of the inquest? What steps has he taken to ensure that the inspections of these types of things are carried out more consistently and more with a view to the safety of the men involved?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I thought I could put my hand on the newspaper clipping in connection with it. The inquest was held, as the member knows, and it found certain facts arising out bf that Hamilton cave-in. I know that it didn’t put any responsibility on our inspection people. In other words, it referred to their inspections and found that their inspections had been carried out in a satisfactory manner. I have not seen a report of any inquest in connection with it. I can ask for that and see if I can obtain it.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that our procedure will be to carry on as best we can with the people who have and continue making the type of inspections that we were making. We’ll make them more frequent if we can do so. I don’t think there was any fault found with the inspection that we had carried out there.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that one of the criticisms was that his inspector merely looked at the certificate that was issued without really making sure that the certificate and the information thereon were being complied with?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, I am not aware of that. Was that in the inquest?

Mr. Reid: That was in the inquest.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, I’ll get a copy of that. I am not aware of that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I had a question of the Minister of the Environment, hiding behind the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow). When can the regional municipality expect to hear from the Minister of the Environment with regard to the possibility of funding or financial assistance for the SWARU project which is not yet really operative?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the last time I was there the plant was quite operative and was working.

Mr. Deans: There are still a lot of problems.

Hon. W. Newman: They have had some technical difficulties over the last year or two in getting going. I think the plant is operating very efficiently at this point in time, or it was when I saw it the day I was there.

Mr. Deans: It operates on a --

Hon. W. Newman: They do have some engineering problems there. We are aware of that. Through the good graces of the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. J. R. Smith) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. McNie), I did meet with them, I believe about a week ago, to discuss this SWARU plant in Hamilton. At that time I asked their engineering people to get together with my engineering people to see just exactly what could be done to make the plant more efficient.

Mr. Deans: That was not what I asked. If the minister has to meet with them to make it more efficient, then it obviously isn’t working properly. The question I’m asking is, is the government prepared to assist in what was essentially a pilot project, funded primarily by the municipality, by providing some funding to relieve the municipality in the same way that he is going to relieve a number of other municipalities of financial involvement in providing treatment plants for garbage?

Hon. W. Newman: Let me just say this, Mr. Speaker, that in the whole solid waste recovery programme we have announced for the Province of Ontario, we announced six areas which we felt were in a very critical situation at this point in time with the greatest need for these plants in these particular areas. Hamilton does have very good sanitary landfill sites and we want to get the programme going. I said I would discuss all those matters with them after we found out what has to be done to the SWARU plant to make it more efficient and what the total cost is going to be to do it. We don’t know that at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Community and Social Services has the answer to a question.

BELL DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE CHARGES

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Scarborough West asked a question concerning application forms for exemptions for directory assistance charges. I believe his concern was about the providing of confidential information to a corporate firm like Bell Canada. I can certainly appreciate the concern of the member or of any member about private information being conveyed to a corporation. I have looked over the directive that our family director sent and also the application form and I have sent copies, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member.

I believe in this particular case there is no confidential information given. It’s a very simple form. If a person is 65 years of age and over and wishes to avail himself of this service, all he needs to do is to get certification of his age from either his clergyman or minister or whatever the case may be. If he is under 65, all he needs to do is to get certification from his physician that he is disabled.

I should clarify that this is a service that applies to those who are disabled and over 65. This came about in November when there was a service charge of 25 cents introduced for directory assistance. For up to three calls per month, there is no charge. This would apply only to those who feel that they will be making several calls. I would also like to add that our own people will fill out these forms. They are there to assist these people.

I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is any confidential information conveyed.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: In two quick parts. First, surely the minister admits the possibility of violating confidentiality since on its own form Bell Canada has to put at the top, “All information on this application will be kept in strict confidence,” and the reason for exemption has to be given by the applicant, which immediately reveals the nature of the disability.

So, as a supplementary, first, why should a private company have access to this information? But, second, why does not this ministry simply give to Bell Canada a list of the phone numbers for all of those who are involved and simply say to them that those numbers are to be exempted? Why should they know the specifics of every single applicant?

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Foulds: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: First of all, as I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, this is entirely a service being offered by Bell Canada --

Mr. Lewis: A service?

Mr. Renwick: It is not being offered by Bell Canada.

Mr. Lewis: What service?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It is; it is a service to elderly persons and to those who are disabled. Now we will look into --

Mr. Renwick: The board in Ottawa would never have granted the privilege of this if they had not --

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

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: They had not what?

Mr. Lewis: They have to make exemptions.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. minister answer the original supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: With reference to the suggestion that we make the list available, we will look into that. If it’s not too large an administrative --

Mr. Renwick: It is not too much,

Mr. Lewis: It is less than filling out every bloody form.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Do not forget that we have more than 80,000 recipients receiving family benefits --

Mr. Lewis: They are going to have to fill

Out every form.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- and there are more than 600,000 persons in this province who are 65 years of age and over.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

PREMIUM NOTES

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with regard to premium notes on mutual insurance companies. Since the mutual companies now have set up a fund of $1 million in lieu of premium notes, does the minister intend to change the regulations or the Act that would allow them to stop having the premium notes signed?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this situation. I am advised at the present time that it might well be very advantageous for the mutual companies insofar as those writing fire protection are concerned. The same remarks do not apply to those mutual companies which write weather insurance. We are looking into it. I have had communications from several members of the House who demonstrated their interest in it, but I can give no firmer answer to the hon. member, at this particular time, other than to say I am aware of it and of the problem insofar as the insurance companies underwriting that kind of coverage are concerned.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

THUNDER BAY STUDY

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Treasurer, if I might: Why is it that in the terms of reference for the study for the proposed heavy industrial complex or complexes in Thunder Bay he has specifically excluded public participation as a criterion for phase one of the study? Secondly, why is it that the study does not consider housing as one of the things that it should be looking at in terms of the impact of the industrial complex?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what document the hon. member is referring to. If he will show it to me some time I’ll get answers to whatever questions he may have.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: It is a document that the Treasurer sent to me on Nov. 12.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): I did have a question but the minister is not in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener, then.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST REGULATIONS

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Attorney General: Following our earlier discussions with respect to the regulations matter of conflict-of-interest regulations, can he advise if he will be able to inform the House before the Christmas break whether in his opinion the regulations will be more effective if introduced by the region, or whether he intends to have a pattern of regulations with respect to matters such as those applicable to all of the civil servants within the province, both provincial and regional?

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for justice and Attorney General): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I intended to do that. In fact, I thought I had. But I’ll clear that up next week.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

RETIREMENT PENSIONS

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Would the minister be prepared to introduce legislation which would prevent agreements between employers and insurance companies to reduce retirement pensions for working people as a result of increases in cost-of-living awards from the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand the question. Perhaps the member might state it again.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, what I am asking the minster is whether or not he will be willing to introduce legislation which would prevent insurance companies from reducing private pension plans, which guarantee a percentage of a man’s income for his retirement, as a result of cost of living increases from the federal government’s pensions?

Hon. Mr. Clement: As I understand the member’s question, the situation of which he complains is where a cost of living increase on the federal pension of, say $5, is payable by the federal government, then the applicable employer-employee contract is reduced, probably by a similar sum so that the net increase to the recipient doesn’t change?

Mr. Laughren: Exactly. So he doesn’t benefit from the cost of living increase, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, those matters of course are I suppose one of private negotiation on the original contract between the employer and the underwriter.

Mr. Laughren: That’s why it requires legislation.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It might require legislation, I don’t know. I haven’t considered the problem, but it might well be one, I am sure, that should be and will be a matter of negotiation between the employee and employer in the future. If we did introduce legislation, we could not, I suppose, make it retroactive for a number of reasons, but I will look into it. I haven’t considered the problem.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

EGG INDUSTRY PRODUCTION CONTROLS

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Has the minister made any progress in respect to instituting production controls in the egg industry as recommender by the advisory committee?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, not as yet. The matter is actively under consideration.

We would like to see what’s going to happen in connection with CEMA first. I have some reservations about implementing production controls in the province if CEMA isn’t going to continue, and I would like to know the situation there. We are certainly supporting it, but I would like to know just where we are at in that regard.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary: Does the minister have any answer or recommendation with respect to the new buildings which are now being constructed apparently to house replacement pullets?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I wouldn’t know why anybody would be constructing buildings to house pullets when we are over-supplied with those buildings today in some quantity. It would seem to me that it would be a substantial error in judgement and completely imprudent for anybody to be doing that today in Ontario.

I think it points up the difficulties, Mr. Speaker, that are associated with this industry when people try to take advantage of a situation in that regard.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Resign!

Mr. Gaunt: What is this?

An hon. member: Did the Chairman of the Management Board wake the minister?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister can say that in good time.

Mr. Gaunt: Good morning.

An hon. member: Pass the omelette around!

Mr. Lewis: The Minister of Energy is like the dormouse in “Alice”, isn’t he? He just woke up and had to say something.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Gaunt: I will have a question of the Minister of Energy later.

I completely concur with the minister’s observations. I put the question to the minister in this way: Would the minister advise the egg board that in his view this is a very serious mistake on the part of egg producers who are building new buildings, presumably to grow their own pullets and to replace the pullets that have already been grown by legal and registered pullet growers?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We will take that suggestion under consideration, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

COSTS OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Treasurer. Is the ministry monitoring the cost of providing services under regional government, particularly relating to the Hamilton-Wentworth region? Is there a process in use which determines how much additional cost there is now to provide the services that are being provided over and against the cost prior to the implementation of regional government? And will the ministry provide a round figure, a figure of what it actually costs, both for realty taxes and for transitional grants and other provincial grants, in order that people who are paying the taxes will have some idea of what it’s likely to cost them, if and when the province no longer provides the grant structure that it currently provides on an interim basis?

Hon. Mr. White: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are monitoring and analysing these costs. Our conclusions have been that regional government saves money at any particular level of services.

Now there are a couple of variables at work here which may lead opponents of restructured government to a different conclusion. First of all, when municipalities come together in a new region, there is a tendency on the part of citizens in areas where the level of services has been low to expect and demand the highest level of services available in any particular community within the region. This urge is often translated into action by the municipal politicians. I’m not suggesting that’s wrong, but if in a region which was policed, let us say by the OPP in part and in part by a sophisticated municipal police force and the council decides that there shall be this much higher level of policing throughout the region --

Mr. Deans: That will cost more money.

Hon. Mr. White: Then, of course, it’s going to cost more money.

Mr. Deans: That’s pretty obvious. Even I would understand that.

Hon. Mr. White: The second variable that affects this is one of the principal objectives of regionalizing itself. When the Ford Motor Co. located at Tempo, the township in which the location took place was able to cut its mill rate in half and still have far more money than it needed. In the meantime, the costs were pushed into St. Thomas and London for a wide variety of public services, starting with bassinets, places in schools, hospitals, roads, libraries and all the rest of it.

Mr. Deans: How about relating directly to Hamilton Wentworth?

Hon. Mr. White: So when an area such as that is regionalized, those people who have been undertaxed for the services they’ve consumed are thereupon called upon to pay for their share of the burden, and this may be happening in Hamilton-Wentworth too.

Fundamentally, over the past few years the mill rate increases in the regionalized and restructured areas have been exactly the same as the mill rate increases in non-restructured areas.

Mr. Deans: Not so.

Hon. Mr. White: Yes, it is so. It’s about four per cent a year.

Mr. Deans: Not by the ministry’s own statistics.

Hon. Mr. White: Yes it is.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired. I will recognize the member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. Ruston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could welcome 85 students from Belle River District High School who are in the east gallery, accompanied by Mr. Thomas Lightbody and Mr. Halpin, who is the son-in-law of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman).

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, do you know where the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) is?

Mr. Speaker: I wasn’t really worrying about it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He’s sailing the Great Lakes.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr) know where he is?

Mr. Breithaupt: He is paired with the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

ONTARIO SPCA ACT

Mr. Gaunt moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1955.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate that the purpose of the bill is to extend the exemption of taxation under section 9 of the Act to include the Toronto Humane Society.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Just before we move into the orders of the day, I would like to inform the members that this is the last day on which this particular group of pages will be with us. They’ve served us well for the last seven weeks. As is the custom, we will read their names into the record and send them a copy of the appropriate Hansard. I have their names and addresses but I do not have the ridings to which they belong, so that will have to be filled in by each one. They are:

Brian Armstrong of Brussels, Carol Barr of Toronto, Kathryn Beech of Cobourg, Robert Ellsworth of Ridgeway, Carol Finbow of Huntsville, Jacky Giroux of Sudbury, Cameron Huffman of Markham, Fraser Kelly of Sault Ste. Marie, Ricky Ofner of Thunder Bay, Kathryn Pettit of St. Thomas, Julie Racok of Niagara Falls, Gabrielle Rubaj of Toronto, Charles Sleep of Britt, Alison Sloga of Mississauga, Harold Sturm of Rexdale, Randy Thomas of Scarborough, Richard Vermeulen of Richmond Hill, Roy Webster of Scarborough, Tom Weller of Islington and Jessica Zlotnik of Oshawa.

They will each carry their respective observations back to their own community, I am sure, and I hope they will be good.

Orders of the day.

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

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP. ACT

House in committee on Bill 158, An Act to establish the Ontario Energy Corp.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any member wishing to speak to section 1 of this bill? What section?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): I would like to comment on section 4 of the bill, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 4?

Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: On section 4.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister would tell us whether or not he has determined who the people are going to be that he intends to appoint to the board of this corporation? It would appear to me that he must have had some discussions with respect to membership on the board. What is his ultimate intention with respect to the size of the board?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Ministry of Energy): No, really no discussions have taken place yet that I have been privy to. Perhaps the Premier (Mr. Davis) has had some discussions. They are in a very preliminary stage as to the composition of the board. The member will note that the corporation comes into being on a day to be named. That’s the reason why when the bill is passed, we will seek out the board. They will have to be appointed at the same time as the Act is proclaimed.

As to the size, the member will recognize that the corporation could, at a shareholders meeting -- which shouldn’t be too difficult to arrange since there is only one at the moment or will be only one -- increase the size of the board. We think five is the place to start. I have no fixed feelings on that and it may turn out to be six in the first instance.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps I could jump ahead then because of the minister’s response? When does he anticipate that the corporation will be a viable corporation and ready to commence its operations?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would hope in January or at the latest February. You asked about the composition of the board. Let me give some indication as to the kind of people I think we should be seeking. They will be business people in the broad sense. We would like to find two out of the five, for example, with some energy knowledge, and the more the better. This becomes somewhat difficult because of, if not real, then perceived conflicts. It will be a little bit difficult to seek the kind of people or get the kind of people we want, bearing in mind the perceived conflict.

Obviously, we would like to have on the board one or two people knowledgeable in the exploration business, and I think that’s going to present some problems. I don’t know whether we will be able to do it or not.

Going on from there, we envisage the corporation, in the first year or two years, to be really nothing more than a board, with a chairman who may be full-time -- I suspect he may be part-time, two or three days a week sort of thing, on a per diem basis -- a secretary and that’s it. The personnel will be provided, again perhaps for a year or two years, perhaps longer, by the ministry. If, for example, the determination of the board at its first meeting was that it should look into investing in the Syncrude project, which we talked about last night, I think it would go to the ministry. I think they would perhaps go to Treasury, and I think they would perhaps go to some consultants, or ask the ministry to go to consultants, and research that whole thing without building up the staff in the first two or three years, which may well be available within the ministry or within some other ministry of the government. I don’t think that will hold forever.

As for the financial affairs of the corporation, we have already asked that Treasury designate an officer who will probably be the treasurer of the Energy Corp. on an obviously very part-time basis. We hope to start that way.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat surprised in this section not to see some control on or some reference to the remuneration which is going to be paid. I heard what the minister said a moment ago, that if the person in the initial instance is part-time he would be paid some kind of a per diem rate. Is it not customary that these appointments, certainly in the initial instance, should be subject, so far as remuneration is concerned, to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council? In addition to that perhaps important but rather technical question, what is the range of remuneration that the government is thinking about?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The remuneration of the directors and of the chairman on a per diem, I would expect would be something which Management Board would have a good look at, and would fit into the various schedules which it has established over the years. I have just forgotten what the remuneration for Ontario Hydro is. I think it is a base amount of something like $2,000 a year -- it may be three, I have forgotten -- and so much per meeting. As I recall, $150 or $200 per meeting. I would think that was determined by Management Board, and I would assume we would be following the same sort of thing here. Of course, the remuneration of directors would have to be approved by the shareholders, and that, again, is the control.

Mr. Chairman: Section 4.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): I wanted to speak on section 4. I spoke last night about it, and perhaps maybe the minister can clarify it. Section 4 says:

(1) There shall be a board of directors of the corporation consisting of five members and the first directors of the corporation shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to hold office until their successors are elected by shareholders of the corporation.

(2) A majority of the members of the board shall at all times be resident Canadians.

This is what I am concerned about.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I might have answered that last night, and I should have, because the member raised it last night. “Resident Canadians” means Canadian citizens resident in Canada.

Mr. Haggerty: Registered in Canada?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Resident.

Mr. Haggerty: Resident in Canada. This doesn’t say that the directors are going to he from the Province of Ontario. The directors could be from Alberta and, of course, as I said last night, there are a number of giant oil corporations out there, with a number of knowledgeable persons dealing with the oil industry, who own homes here in Canada, but don’t actually live here. I think if one goes back to the select committee report dealing with Canadian economic and cultural nationalism, I think it definitely stated there that 51 per cent ownership, as suggested in this bill, will not necessarily accomplish the goal of ensuring that control of the province’s resources will remain in Canadian hands.

If the shares issued to Canadians are widely held and the remaining shares are concentrated, foreigners may still have effective control of the province’s Energy Corp. and related matters. I think particularly too, of the uranium holdings here in the Province of Ontario. We could lose complete control of that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, no. Look at section 4(1), or --

Mr. Haggerty: Section 4(2)?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Section 16, is it?

Mr. Haggerty: Section 16. That’s right.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, section 17. We’re going to have a majority. The minister is going to subscribe; unless the Act is amended, the minister at all times will have a majority of the shares, 51 per cent plus.

Section 4 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything before on section 6?

Mr. Renwick: Section 6, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. F. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Section 5, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Section 5.

On section 5:

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, why must the head office of this corporation be in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto? That may well be where it turns up, but why on earth are you building it into the legislation and forcing it to be here in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It just happens to be the capital.

Mr. Bounsall: That is not an adequate explanation, surely. It could be sited anywhere in the Province of Ontario. It doesn’t have to be in the capital city.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It doesn’t have to be, but it seems to me to be logical.

Mr. Bounsall: On what basis?

Section 5 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: On section 6, the hon. member for Riverdale.

On section 6:

Mr. Renwick: On section 6, my main question is why the minister specifically thinks it necessary that the activities of this corporation be carried on outside Canada and that they should have that power to go abroad. In the first of the “objects” clauses there’s a reference to “investing or otherwise participating in energy projects throughout Canada or elsewhere,” but the other objectives of the corporation are not limited to Canada as well. I would like to know specifically whether it’s just the generalized drafting of the lawyers who happened to write the bill or whether it has some substantial purpose behind it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I think it was done deliberately. I thought I explained that last night, but perhaps I didn’t explain it very well. Interestingly enough, since we announced the corporation on Sept. 4, I suppose we have had 20 or 30 suggestions or proposals of one sort or another put to us as to what the corporation might or might not do. We’ve spent -- either I, the deputy or some of the staff -- a certain amount of time on each one of these, saying that we were reserving them all for the corporation and we will hand those files to the chairman when he’s appointed to the board.

Just as a guess, at least a third of those -- I shouldn’t define it as one-third; it may be more or less -- but a number of those fall into the category of small Canadian independent petroleum companies who are in need of partners to expand their exploration activities. In several instances they are companies that have uncommitted reserves of oil or gas which our purchase by way of debt or equity in those small Canadian companies, some of them not so small, would guarantee that oil or gas to the Ontario market.

When I say those companies are small, many of them are small in relation to the Exxons of the world, I guess, but a number of them have interests in the North Sea, a number of them have interests elsewhere in the world; one, as I recall, had interests in Mexico. If we were to enter into a joint venture with them, I think we might will be taking a small part of the action in the North Sea. You might want to dispose of that very quickly, but you could be involved for a period of time in a minor way in exploration activity; and I just use the North Sea as a possibility. I think, to be perfectly fair, we should go beyond that. It might well be that the energy corporation would feel that the best and the cheapest place to find oil today might well be, for example, Mexico.

If we see a real oil shortage developing which is a great concern to Ontario, then their recommendation might be that we would get faster results by putting money, for example, into Mexico than putting it even into offshore on the east coast or into the delta. I don’t think that’s a real possibility but I wouldn’t want to close the door to it. And I think that is the reason for the background to that phrase in the particular subsection 6(a).

Mr. Renwick: Mexico, of course, would be a good example for you to follow in relation to its relationship with the oil industry.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes. Well, we might want a joint venture with the Mexican petroleum company. I’m sure my friends who voted against the bill last night would be embarrassed at that point when we entered into a joint venture with Mexico.

Mr. Renwick: As a matter of fact, we would be pleased if you did.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: All right.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 6 carry?

Mr. Bounsall: No.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, in section 6(b) one of the specific objects is to “develop other forms of fuel and energy.” The minister remarked last night in his reply how inconsistent the four speakers who spoke on this bill were, but I find a particular section of the minister’s reply remarkably inconsistent, where he said several times that Hydro is big enough and has its specific mandate in the field of electrical power. Yet when it comes to finding a technologically produced replacement for natural gas, you exclude a company with which Hydro is competing and has therefore, I think, not shown any other attitude except to compete with them in the past in terms of providing energy, and you say that whole technology of looking at and producing hydrogen gas as the replacement for natural gas is not to be a concern of this energy but is to be a concern of Hydro and has in fact been given to Hydro.

I find that remarkably inconsistent. On the one hand, Hydro is big enough and has its hands full producing electrical power; on the other hand, we are giving the hydrogen problem to Hydro. Could the minister explain his thoughts more fully on that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We are not giving any problem to anybody, but I would suspect that Hydro has done some work on the hydrogen economy over the years; certainly for the time being that is where that work should continue. A great deal of it does depend on the electrical supply and there is that tie-in. I don’t say that it would stay there forever, but certainly in the initial stages of the corporation -- I think I said last night that hydrogen economy was at least 25 years away or up to 25 years away -- I think for the next five years or so we would want to leave our efforts in that area and our monitoring of the whole situation with Ontario Hydro rather than moving it.

Mr. Bounsall: Just one further question on this point, then: As the corporation here will be involved with all forms of energy, I assume one of its tasks will be to involve itself with Ontario Hydro, assuring itself that Ontario Hydro is progressing, and that therefore they will be at the same time looking at Hydro’s progress in the hydrogen research field.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 6 carry?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Just referring to my friend from Riverdale’s question so that we are clear with regard to the composition of the board, we don’t preclude an interchange at that level.

Section 6 agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, my only question on section 7 is: What sort of global number of dollars must the ministry have been thinking about when they established the authorized capital with these particular figures? There must have been some kind of a ball-park operation operating.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: On Sept. 4 we said $100 million, and that figure still holds. Whether it is all advanced to the corporation by way of equity between now and the end of the fiscal year, or whether none of it is or whether more is advanced, we honestly don’t know. It will depend on the scope of the first investments.

There is no point in transferring over to the corporation a large amount of money and having them in the temporary investment business. We will try and keep it with the Treasurer (Mr. White) as long as it can be. But for global figures, $100 million.

Mr. Renwick: The $100 million would include money invested by way of share subscription, as well as money lent to the corporation?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other section of the bill the members wish to speak on at this time?

Mr. Bounsall: Section 22.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before 22?

Mr. Renwick: Before we get there, I think the language of section 13 is clear with respect to the ownership abroad of interests in the corporation -- but I think I would like to hear the minister’s comments about the 10 per cent limitation and the 5 per cent limitation.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: These restrictions, or provisions, are identical to those in the Ontario Transportation Development Act, and we simply accepted them without giving it a great deal more thought than that. That seemed like an appropriate place.

Mr. Renwick: I see.

Section 13 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor West wanted to speak on section 22. Anything before 22?

Mr. Renwick: I just wanted to comment briefly on sections 18 and 20.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Ms. Renwick: In section 20 there is the provision for funds to be advanced out of the consolidated revenue fund with respect to share subscriptions until the end of the current fiscal year of the government, and thereafter to be paid out of moneys appropriated by the Legislature. I can’t understand why the same provision is not included with respect to funds to be loaned to the corporation or invested in the corporation by the Treasurer under section 18.

In this day and age, there really isn’t a great deal of distinction between how money is put into a corporation, particularly when they have got the opportunity of purchasing the common shares and repaying the funds to the Treasury.

It would appear to me to make sense that the moneys required for investment by way of loan in this corporation should be out of the consolidated revenue fund until the end of this fiscal year, and thereafter out of funds to be appropriated by the Legislature.

This touches upon not mere consistency; this touches upon the point which we expressed last night to be of great concern to us, and that is the accountability to this assembly for the funds which are invested in it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There are two things. The Treasurer, under the Financial Administration Act, I suppose, has the power to make loans to various Crown agencies, so it is not necessary here to spell that out and it is not necessary to have an appropriation to do it.

I don’t quarrel with what my friend has said, but the other point is that the amounts are so nebulous. If we were asked to put in -- and I think we will put in -- an amount each year by way of an appropriation; and it may be either for a loan or for equity. I don’t suppose we would want to put in a dollar, but it will be a nominal amount. Because I don’t think at the beginning of any fiscal year the corporation will have -- or certainly not when estimates are prepared -- a firm fix on whether they need; by way of loan or equity, $1 million or $100 million during the course of a year. I think my friend would appreciate that these things may happen very, very quickly.

So there will be, I would think, a nominal amount. And whether it’s specified as a loan or further share subscription will depend on what plans may develop during the course of the year by the corporation insofar as going public is concerned, which isn’t going to happen in the first two or three years.

Mr. Renwick: I am content with what the minister has said because, just so long as we do get the assurance from the minister that there will be appropriations -- whether it’s $1 or $10, I really don’t care, so long as the money is to be appropriated it gives us an opportunity to comment about the affairs of this corporation and to directly question the minister about it. If it is not there, we are in the rather nebulous situation which we are often in with respect to other boards and commissions. With that understanding that there will be some dollars included in the ministry’s estimates, we have got some kind of handle to open up questions related to the corporation.

Sections 19, 20 and 21 agreed to.

On section 22:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to make to section 22(2).

Mr. Bounsall moves that the following phrase be added at the end of section 22(2): “and the report shall then be referred to a standing committee of the assembly.”

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I spoke to this last night, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that this apparently is in another bill. It was an amendment which was accepted by another minister but I don’t propose to accept this amendment in this bill. I think you clutter up Acts with unnecessary verbiage.

The report will be laid here. It may well be that it makes sense for the total assembly during estimates or at another time to discuss the affairs of the corporation fully. I don’t know that a standing committee is necessarily the place in a given year where it would be discussed or not be discussed. I think that’s something that the assembly decides at the appropriate time and is not put in legislation. For those reasons, I would not accept the amendment.

Mr. Bounsall: Speaking to it, Mr. Chairman, I regret that very much, particularly over the first two or three years in which there will be no common shares issued. There will be no stockholders meetings then.

I think that other than just in the time strictures of the estimates the members of the House and the members of the public would find it very profitable, as perhaps would the members on the board of directors, to meet with us and outline what their plans are and what they have done in the past as a transfer of information. This would take two or three days in the course of a given year. There’s often the technical time problem where the annual report of the corporation would be laid before the House after your estimates for the year have been discussed so that we have gone perhaps a year plus before we get back to you over the details that are in that report in a meaningful way in terms not of just questions in the House but of a way in which information could be transferred and suggestions made.

I would hope that that would take place. If the minister is suggesting there is some better way other than a standing committee of the House to which all members and the public could come to talk to the board of directors about the corporation, so that at least yearly over a period of a couple of days we could have that sort of informal questioning and exchange of ideas, which has proven to be so valuable in the past. I would be interested to hear it. Two or three days a year for that sort of exchange is not an unreasonable way for this corporation to be operating vis-à-vis us and the public.

Mr. J. B. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, I would commend this amendment to the minister. We have seen over the last few years the assembly on occasion debate, or at least discuss, the reports both of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and of Ontario Hydro. We now see developing in accordance with the legislative programme of the government this year two new and very substantial corporations. The first is the one set out in this Bill 158, the Ontario Energy Corp. The second, which we will be eventually coming to, is set out in Bill 133, the Ontario Land Corp.

It would appear that these four particular emanations of government are going to have an increasingly important effect on the affairs of the province. I think we should be in a position to discuss the activities of those four areas in some formal way within the Legislature. I think it would be worthwhile to develop the practice and to put into the statute that the report of this particular organization will come before the House on a regular basis. Whether it should go to standing committee or not is something the Legislature can decide, but I presume that standing committee would he the better place to send it because of the input that could come from citizens and other groups within the community.

I think the amendment is worthwhile and I think that it would be in the best interests of all of us if this organization, the Land Corp., and those other two I have mentioned, would be coming before the Legislature on a regular basis. I think the amendment is worthwhile and I’m sorry the minister cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to speak on the amendment?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it

I declare the amendment lost.

Section 22 agreed to.

Bill 158 reported.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 158, An Act to establish the Ontario Energy Corp.

Bill 136, An Act to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act, 1974.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT

Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Rhodes, moves second reading of Bill 157, An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. B. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, this bill does provide some housekeeping effects with respect to the general matters of public transportation and highway improvement within the province. There are a number of provisions that have been removed from the bill as they are somewhat redundant, due to later amendments of a similar nature in the main bill itself.

There are four particular areas in which the approval of the minister is being removed, and we think that in the housekeeping provisions in the bill these are worth while. First of all, we have an agreement whereby a local municipality, or a county or a suburban roads commission, can get together concerning the construction, widening or maintenance of county or suburban roads. We think that it will be only expected that the parties will agree if they are going to enter into any expense, and the removal of the requirement that the minister approve this kind of arrangement is worthwhile. Similarly, this may save some delay in the construction of a road.

In the dealing with gasoline pumps and signs near roads, with respect to county bylaws that concern those, again the minister’s approval is being removed.

Finally, where a city or separated town issues debentures to raise money for work on suburban roads, again the minister’s approval is not required. But of course one would expect that those debentures would receive the approval of the municipal board, just as other debentures would, so there is, in fact, some ultimate review of the necessity and approval of the expenditure which the municipality is going to make.

There are three sets of further circumstances where certain requests need not be authorized by resolution of the council. In the first case, for the payment of moneys allocated for road improvements, which are submitted to the minister. Secondly, where there are moneys allocated for rapid transit, which are also submitted to the minister. And thirdly, moneys allocated for public transportation that are submitted to the minister.

Again these changes -- both with respect to the minister’s approval and in these latter three the examples that I have given -- avoid some of the red tape that no doubt involves itself as various expenditures being approved for improvements to highways.

Since each of the requests is going to be submitted with a detailed statement of receipts and expenditures, we presume there can be no question that the moneys are being spent on what is, in effect, an authorized project. We have no other comments to make with respect to the bill. It is of a housekeeping nature and we will support it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, in brief, these amendments are pretty innocuous. As I read it, the sections deleting references to public transportation are designed simply to eliminate overlapping clauses. For example, references to public transportation appear now in the amended section 87 of the Act, rather than in several other clauses throughout it. The only principle embodied in the bill is the decentralization of the Ministry of Transportation and Communication’s responsibility.

Several sections -- namely 2, 3, 4, and 5 -- eliminate the requirement of ministerial approval for various municipal road improvement works.

In December of 1973, on the Treasurer’s (Mr. White) advice, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications went before the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee to discuss ways and means of decentralizing ministerial responsibilities. A committee was struck and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario worked closely with the ministry officials in the preparation of these amendments. According to the association, no features of the bill are offensive.

Sections 8, 9 and 10 remove the requirement of municipal council passing a resolution to authorize requests for already budgeted funds from the ministry.

Try as I might, I can’t think of any malevolent purpose behind the removal. It will relieve municipal councils of one more tedious, non-substantive and time-consuming task.

I did check all the clauses to make sure there were no variations between the explanations opposite the amended sections and what the amendments actually do. It turns out, unfortunately, that the explanations are accurate and not misleading. Thank you.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment -- rather than ask that the bill go to committee -- on the practice that has been of such value in the past where the province has required that when municipal roads are going to be in receipt of provincial grants they must come up to certain specific standards of width, the control of run-off and so forth.

I would submit to you, however Mr. Speaker, that the value of those requirements is, perhaps, no longer so evident. There are repeated instances where municipal roads of one type or another should be upgraded as far as their surface is concerned, but it should no longer be necessary in order to get that assistance that there be a full 66 ft right of way, or at least that the measurements for the surface itself should have to conform so rigidly to standards which, undoubtedly have been established after careful research. I’m sure the parliamentary assistant knows full well of certain instances where a local municipality was not that keen to have a broad and modern type of road where it would involve the removal of trees; particularly in the case where this is a substantial subsidy for the improvement of streets in villages or police villages, like St. George where the hon. parliamentary assistant is himself well known.

The requirement that the streets come up to these specific and rather rigid specifications has resulted in the removal of trees and the paved part of the road coming up almost to the doorstep of the citizen’s home. Certainly the council is quite anxious to have grants to improve these streets, but when the requirements are such as are dictated by ministerial specifications they don’t seem to have the flexibility that is necessary.

I don’t believe this happens frequently, but I would hope that the ministry and those people who assist the smaller municipalities in their road design would not only permit them to allow the roads to wind around the trees and things like that, but particularly take some initiative to see that the municipalities don’t always go at road building with chain saws and with the curbs, gutters and everything which seems to be so necessary in the specifications as they are normally put forward.

There are instances in my own constituency in the last year, which I think have been a very serious abridgement of common sense in this regard -- in my own village of St. George, and also of prospects in some of the townships in the constituency of Brant. When I question those people who have some responsibility in this regard they normally say they get along very well indeed with the highways officials but that it is necessary, in order to get the grants, to have the roads up to these certain specifications.

I would just suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come for a great deal more flexibility so that the funds are available for the improvement of these roads where it is deemed proper locally, but the specifications and the impositions of the specifications should not be rigid.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further comments by hon. members? If not the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. R. B. Beckett (Brantford): Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned by the three gentlemen who have spoken to this bill, it’s mainly removal of certain decisions concerning matters of local concern. I think the three hon. members have covered the whole matter. I would like to assure the hon. member for Riverdale that I’m glad he checked it, because I checked it and I was concerned because I could find nothing wrong with it.

With regard to the matters raised by the member for Brant, I believe the subject that he has broached here is under consideration by the ministry. It’s not really within the terms of these amendments to the bill, but this concern that the approach of the engineers is always to build something wide and zoom right through is certainly being considered. I believe that the minister would appreciate any remarks, any comments, any advice the hon. members have on this matter. I think members will appreciate the fact that we have heard quite a bit about this, and the more we hear the sooner we can come in with some recommendation to this House.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 157. Shall this motion carry?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 157, An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves second reading of Bill 125, An Act to amend the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): It gives me great pleasure to move second reading of Bill 125.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is amazing how much pleasure one can derive from a simple exercise such as moving second reading of a bill like this, but I will have to take the minister’s word for it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This bill has given him a lot of pleasure over the months actually.

Mr. Breithaupt: A statute like this has lurched back and forth across the order paper, including both its predecessor, Bill 25, and its successor. This, of course, is the son of Bill 25. We have as well grandson Bill 168 yet to deal with. I think the grandson is perhaps going to take somewhat more time to deal with than the son will.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with some amendments which I am sure the minister would categorize as housekeeping. The valuation date, which he refers to in subsection (5) of section 1, sets out certain approaches which are, in effect, consistent with the federal valuation day procedures at least. I agree that the provision which is now being brought forward is a for one so that a person who was holding land as of April 9, 1974, will not be penalized by the fact that that land may have fallen in value between the date he acquired it and April 9, 1974. As a result he could choose the date which is to a personal advantage, and that surely seems to be a fair way of dealing with it.

The amendments which are in the bill, specifically, are those which are completing certain matters of definition. The exemption of the long leases from the tax was discussed earlier on. The term of 50 years now replaces that of 10 years, so that there is a present value situation upon which the ministry can make a decision as to whether the speculation tax should be applied or not,

If it were otherwise, I would think the administrative difficulties would be such that a practical decision as to what is in most respects the transfer of a property would be very difficult to resolve. A 50-year lease surely is an effective transfer of title in all but name. The ministry obviously requires some kind of ability to deal with such an approach which might otherwise he an attempt to avoid the requirements of the statute.

A second amendment that this bill is bringing forward deals with farming land that is not exempt from tax because it is sold to a stranger and not disposed of to a member of the family. Under the bill, its taxable value is going to be reduced by one-tenth for each full year of farming, and once the maximum of ten years of uninterrupted farming has taken place, the tax is not going to be applicable. As a result, if a farmer does farm his land or her land for an uninterrupted 10-year period, then he is going to be able to sell it to a stranger whether for farming or development or recreation. The tax of course, will not be applied.

If the land was zoned for agricultural purposes, it obviously could not be used for any development, other than that which might be allowed through the various zoning changes which are available to any citizen within the province. However, we think the principle is a sound one, that this sort of exemption over the 10-year term should be a way of dealing with a difference between the farmer who is legitimately in the business of farming and the person who is holding land for speculation.

I think one of the greatest problems we had in the earlier bill was the presumption that was left in a great many people’s minds that every farmer was being called a speculator. This, surely, was not the intention of the ministry. It was a matter of definition, and the approach that the minister has taken, I think, has set a reasonable period of time. The 10-year approach surely is as good a rule of thumb as we are perhaps able to develop as we look to changing taxing policies over the years.

In addition, we have a one-tenth provision dealing with investment property, provided that the owner or the spouse of the owner, during the whole of the uninterrupted 10 years, holds this property. The same rules apply when they are determining this kind of an investment, and so they should. A person should surely have the opportunity to hold property and use it as a hedge against inflation.

The 10 per cent rate is as practical a one to be dealt with here as it is in the case of the farmer. That kind of penalty that we are looking for in the application of this tax is surely not to be assessed against someone who has made some savings and decides to invest them in property, as opposed to investing them in gold or jewellery or in the securities markets of one sort or another.

The individual involvement, if this is in any way a free enterprise society, as we are told it is, should surely be to have the tax policies assessed fairly against that person’s choice of investment, rather than being confiscatory in one area and without tax in another.

The rules dealing with designated land which are set out near the end of the bill determine when 50 per cent or more of the assets of a corporation are going to be involved so far as the application of this tax is concerned.

Another area that this bill deals with is, of course, the definition of farming corporation and farming assets. This, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, gave many of us some concern when Bill 25 was brought forward and we are pleased to see that the definitions have been, in one sense, expanded, and another tightened up, as the experience of the comments made -- hopefully by members on this side of the House, as well as by farming organizations and other parties -- have led the minister to make changes in the definitions.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there are any particular principles that we can deal with in this bill. If one -- as we have done -- opposed many of the areas because of their inadequacy in the second reading debate of Bill 25, now we see that at least some of the changes, set out first of all by regulation but later and more acceptably as amendments to the Act, are things which hopefully will improve the statute.

It is clear that any of these taxing statutes must be unequivocably understood by the persons who have to deal with the statute. Surely we have seen amendments like these come and go in various bills and hopefully the end result is that persons know what the rules of the game are. To have gaps in the legislation, or bad definitions, will only lead to actions in the courts, to lengthy discussions and time-consuming matters in the ministry and will not, in fact, administer the law in a clear and even-handed form.

These amendments will go some distance, at least, in improving the matters of definition and in making the application of the law somewhat better within the province. As a result, we find the changes which are proposed, at least of some improvement and will support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker, this is curious tax legislation, to say the least. I suspect it is the only piece of tax legislation that has ever come before this House with an intent not to tax or to diminish the tax to the lowest zero point possible. Therefore, we are not really talking about taxation at all, we are talking about a social policy; a particular intent which, using the tax device, sought to bring about other consequences with respect to land speculation. I will not, on this occasion, discuss the momentous news of the change in the tax from 50 per cent to 20 per cent because that bill resides before us and will be given due attention some time early next week, I trust.

I think the members of this House who participate in a debate of this kind should be commended, and therefore I must spend a moment or two commending myself, whoever else may speak on these matters and those who attend the committees -- and they are few enough, I think the minister will agree, Mr. Speaker.

This is dogwork -- hard, slugging, intricate, difficult dogwork -- and those in this Legislature who find their chief gravamen in the spectacular and in the dancing phrase do not submit themselves to the undramatic and the hard, which I consider the fundamentally meritorious work of this House.

If we over here didn’t scrutinize, with the utmost care, legislation of this kind -- and I groan this morning because I was up half the night working on the wretched thing -- then not only would we fail somehow, but the whole of the community out there would suffer gravely in very defined ways.

It’s because of the time spent in this particular regard that the issues which perhaps don’t reach the public in an overall way, and are not the subject of first-page comment, nevertheless have a far more searching and deep effect upon our future in this province and upon the overall maintenance of some kind of economic and other stability than all the other foofaraw that goes on around here.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s much more fun to carry a gun.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes!

Mr. Lawlor: The range of problems introduced by legislation of this kind, which is novel and testing a whole new area of law, is simply horrendous.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a certain Chris Miller, a very astute lawyer indeed, appeared before the law committee downstairs and indicated a range of five or six problems which were undreamed of by the minister, by his horde of officials, by everybody who has fed stuff into us, by Anson-Cartwright and by any number of others. It was stuff that we hadn’t thought about at all, even in a simple way with respect to rollover provisions touching principal and subsidiary corporations being identical and 100 per cent owned. There is no provision that the tax doesn’t apply in that situation, and there seems to be good sense that it should.

Then he got on to things that I’d never heard of before, such as constrained share provisions largely contained in federal legislation, particularly in the Banking Act, with respect to corporations located in Canada but widely held throughout the world by way of shareholdings, etc., where by a policy of the directors, a small shift in the share-holdings by way of marketing or expansion I could shift the balance to the 50 per cent landholding corporation so that it becomes taxable and the full taxation situation would fall on the minority shareholders and others. It was thought it would be necessary at some point to get into something very sophisticated indeed to place some kind of restriction upon the transfer of shares through the instrumentalities of management or even a block of shareholders, so that they would not be able -- without consultation with the other shareholders at least -- to turn over these shares to the detriment of the majority of the shareholders involved and maybe even stupidly not realizing the impact of this legislation upon a small shift of say two per cent or even less of the corporate holdings in this particular regard.

That kind of problem really boggles the mind; it really takes time to work out. We are up against the same sort of thing here, because they are parallel types of legislation in many ways with the land speculation tax today. That very same problem seems to me equally applicable in this legislation and ought to be mused over and taken account of before we reach committee and see whether or not there are any solutions immediately available so that the legislation may be further amended in order to provide for these contingencies, as they can be, again, terribly serious in the business community and for those who deal in corporate shares that are widely held at all.

The only other general comment on this legislation I have, Mr. Speaker, is that it’s sure a marvellous piece of legislation from the point of view of keeping the legal profession on hot coals. I have never seen anything like it.

I think a good deal of the resentment that lies with the legislation is that the old habits of thought have to be remoulded, and it’s a terribly painful process. But apart from that, the legislation itself is so convoluted as to require a lawyer to be Philadelphian-bred.

You just simply have to be at the top of the profession, Mr. Speaker, in order to be able to read the legislation at all and construe it. I suppose that this particular piece of legislation and amendments as they go through will bring about a new wave of hearings with the law society, where 2,000 of them come down from all parts of the province on a single hearing in order to clue themselves in as to what this thing is all about.

This piece of legislation this morning is a fairly profound reworking of the old bill. It’s altering a great many things, particularly in the valuational sections where the whole motions of valuations, the basis on which they are made, the acquisition cost principle, and the fair market value principle more importantly, are worked into and given greater definition than it had previously. It was as loose as gravy on all previous occasions. We got that in the area with respect to trust on leases with farms; various workings of the maintenance principle, maintenance costs worked into the basic valuational picture.

A second principle of the improvement costs was given cognizance and more closely defined; finally, the theory of disposition costs was recognized for the first time and brought in and given a role in the thing. So there’s a whole set of costs that have to be added -- and in certain cases can’t be added -- but in the bulk of cases can be.

All this nice thinning out and refinement can’t be done on second reading. This precisely is the detailed dogwork of a committee to straighten it out and keep it clear.

As the hon. member for Kitchener mentioned, the lease period has now been extended. It started off at 10 years. I believe the bill expands the definition of a lease -- in any case, all it derives therefrom assignments of leases or anything that can be construed as a lease. Previously the tax would fall after 10 years. Then it went to 30 years by directional order. Then, subsequently, again by ministerial order -- or maybe it was Lieutenant Governor in Council, who knows? -- it went to 50 years; and now the 50-year provision is embodied in the legislation. I don’t take any great issue with that particular feature of the legislation. It’s by and large beneficial.

The provision has been made for new ratios. If the ratio of ownership in a corporation remains the same, even if new shares are picked up or the corporation structure expanded, the mere fact that there is a transfer of shares involved doesn’t attract the basic tax.

The ministry has made provision in both this legislation and the previous bill with respect to the non-consummation of a transaction. If a deal don’t go through, there ain’t no tax paid. The minister didn’t have that previously, and I am sure it worked a considerable amount of hardship upon those whose contracts were highly conditional, who, in order to have their documents accepted and a lien lifted, or certificate given, were obliged to make a deposit of moneys, bonds, or whatever type of security was involved, in order to bring their transaction about. That money is now returnable.

I am indeed pleased that the minister has apparently disregarded in toto the recommendations of his own ad hoc committee with respect to the business of the Crown corporations and ancillary same-type corporations -- conservation authorities, Hydro and what not -- to leave them outside the legislation so that land conveyed into their hands, either by way of expropriation or by sale, will be lands free of the tax.

The animus of the ad hoc committee was that this was a notorious breach upon the free enterprise principle, that it gave a leg up to the public interest as being more persuasive of people selling their land to the public realm rather than to the private. They had to pay a tax perhaps, touching the private area, whereas that tax did not apply when the same property was sold into the public realm.

Lord knows, as many pieces of legislation going through this House have proved, the minister needs a much more determinative role with respect to land holdings. In order to preserve the fruitlands, in order to preserve agriculture, in order to preserve recreational land, in order to designate lands which ought to be in industry precisely in industry and not in something else, and in order to utilize that power extensively or at all, he must have a flexible role to play with many instruments at his disposal, and this is a prime instrument to that particular intent. Please don’t alter it. Don’t be persuaded by that obscurantist and throwback mentality which I see in those particular nostrums that were given to the minister by that committee.

There are two areas in which the legislation may be quite questionable. Touching farms and farmers, the minister has made a flip, a 360-deg turn -- no, I’m sorry, 180-deg turn; he is just at the opposite end at the moment. Previously the theory was that all farmers, bless their hearts, were speculators in potential. That was the basic position of both this party and the Liberal Party in the earlier bill.

Now, it seems to me, the minister in his legislation has reversed that. He says that no farmers, under any possible circumstances apparently, can be speculators. I think that that’s an equally questionable proposition. Men do remain in marginal farming, or in farming at all, on the outskirts of our great cities, surrounding them in a wide orbit, sitting there, in effect, waiting for the escalation of land values and being the beneficiaries of those values, and I don’t think the minister catches them and I don’t think this legislation does a thing.

As a matter of fact, with this new rule with respect to the 10-year business -- that the 10 years may be dated back as well as forward from the April 9 date -- the minister seems to have carved a loophole as wide as the largest tunnel at General Motors into the centre of the legislation.

That’s one thing I’m not going to take that much exception to. I would expect that if the farmer turned over his land at a very great profit over its true evaluation of, say, three, four, five years ago, brought about by a municipality placing services five miles south of its location, and it continues to escalate in this regard, in any event, the man who buys that land is either going to have to be a developer or prepared to subdivide and give it off to smaller builders.

If he is a speculator then I suppose that’s where the minister thinks the axe will fall; at that particular point in speculation where the man simply buys it up and tries to turn it over without adding any improvements. Well, I suspect it could begin at a somewhat earlier point in time. But, as I say, I shan’t flagellate the minister on that one.

A more serious one has to do with the investment property concept, that is, apartment houses basically. I don’t know what pressures were brought to bear on the minister in this particular regard. Previously they were obliged to hold their properties for three years, up until 1977. He has wiped that out. Not only has he wiped that out, he has permitted them to go back again. If the property has been held by a spouse, or with themselves as the owner along with a spouse, or by spouse only over a period of 10 years, back or forward, the situation is that they are free.

Some of the major speculation in this province has taken place with respect to such buildings. That has been a notorious form of ripoff, rake-off, exploitation. Every lawyer knows that it was the sweetest deal in the world to buy an apartment house. You bought it for $300,000 and in three years you could be sure of $450,000, Mr. Speaker. What do you think my friends do? Why do you think they are so affluent these days?

And what on earth does the minister do? Is he playing into their hands? Doesn’t he realize what happens? The fact of that type of valuation will rub off on to every other thing. If that is going to be permitted to balloon and continue to skyrocket, because it is simply a question of holding, then it is going to have an effect upon every other form of dwelling. I think the minister should have kept the lid on there. What he has done is simply opened the thing. I find it most disturbing that he emasculates his own legislation in this particular way. He saw the virtue in it previously. Now under pressure from, I suppose, the great consortium of urban apartment houseowners -- and they are a powerful bunch -- he has knuckled under and thrown in the sponge on this particular one.

Those are the major things. On the other hand, I would like to bring to the minister’s attention a number of thoughts from other sources and with respect to people who have submitted. I think the minister is only too well aware of and appreciates deeply the work of Arnold Englander, a lawyer, who has written extensively. I have before me 46 pages of a speech he made or some submission he made. He also headed up the minister’s ad hoc committee, did he not? Oh, no, that was Anson-Cartwright. Englander says:

Consideration should as well be given to the provision of an exemption for the situation where land and buildings in an urban renewal area are sold, after having been occupied for a number of years by the owner thereof for industrial-commercial purposes. At the time of the sale the buildings have very little value relative to the land value, and the business is being carried on on land too expensive for its purposes. [That’s the whole point in the urban renewal concept.] The sale may result at considerably less than 40 per cent of the proceeds being attributable to the building. The spec tax would reduce the owner’s ability to purchase new premises in a more outlying area, because he would be hit with the full impact of the tax and would have less money with which to buy a substitute dwelling or a substitute property.

I think the minister knows well that Englander has said about this. It is just that for some reason or other he hasn’t got around to or seen fit to embody it in the legislation before us. I know in one area of my own riding where we are going forward with an urban renewal scheme that that can have quite an impact and I trust wouldn’t in any way halt or obtrude upon the scheme itself.

I won’t go into it at length on this second reading of a matter of considerable principle but of considerable complexity, too. The minister knows the difficulties with respect to roll over provisions touching corporations and with respect to that whole field. There is the position of the minority shareholder. The minister and I once had a quarrel about minority shareholders. The minister didn’t think very much of protecting their interests on that particular occasion. I hope his sensitivity as a minister has widened his scope, that what Englander has to say about defending their interests has hit home and that the minister’s legislation will take that into account.

He mentions a number of possible loopholes, as he calls them.

Subclause (d)(vi) operates only where there is a shift of stock of 50 per cent of the voting power as opposed to 50 per cent of the equity stock. The sole shareholder of a corporation owning 100 common shares could convert the same to non-voting shares and concurrently issue to himself redeemable voting preference shares.

His point being that if the common shares are no longer voting shares then the minister’s definition as to the type of corporation caught in his legislation would not apply. It’s a simple device for slipping out.

Upon the sale of the common shares to a purchaser [he sells the shares not the land,] the section would not operate. Subsequent to the sale, the common shares can be made voting shares again and the redeemable preference shares removed.

He’s got the land, he’s picked up the assets and off he toodles like the Pied Piper of old. Has the minister taken that type of thing into advisement? This legislation doesn’t yet make provision for that sort of manipulation which can easily defeat what the minister wants to do.

He mentions another loophole:

A 50 per cent asset test is easy to avoid. [This is commented upon in the advisory committee report.] Assets in the form can be injected into the corporation and set off by a corresponding bank loan in order to reduce the designated land below 50 per cent of fair market value of all the assets of the corporation. Again, it is my view that neither section 1(3) nor section 6 will operate to prevent this.

Then he gets into the business of chain corporations and tier corporations. It is extremely interesting.

Because of the absence of a rollover exemption equivalent to the section 85 exemption contained in the Income Tax Act, this loophole could not be availed of unless the shareholdings of April 9 were set up in the foregoing manner: That is, a transfer of shares as between corporation A and corporation B would not result in the, imposition of any tax because of the fact that corporation A did not own designated land and, accordingly, it did not satisfy the 50 per cent asset test.

Those are three areas that he has set forth in which the legislation is apparently defective, and I wonder what the minister’s thinking is on that particular area of defectiveness in his legislation.

Then he says:

The chief criticism levelled with respect to the concept of imposing the tax on the corporation where 50 per cent voting control is transferred is that the minority shareholder who does not sell his shares concurrently with the 50 per cent voting shareholder is financially hurt by reason of the actions of the 50 per centers. If the corporation pays any taxes thereupon to that extent, it has its financial position reduced and, concomitantly, the minority shareholders investment is reduced proportionately.

There are new provisions in this legislation alleviating the situation touching subdividers. I will not say much about it, but the minister is trying to make a more determinate time as to when the release certificates will he available and, internally in his department, he is trying to improve the speed and efficiency of his staff -- and I think his staff are working very well in this matter, despite what we heard yesterday -- to alleviate what could be fairly devastating situations for individual people involved in transfers of property.

Just to return for a moment to the farming concept, I take it that the minister takes seriously the defect in that area of the legislation. It is mentioned by Ronald M. Anson-Cartwright, the chairman of the minister’s committee. On page 20 of his report he says:

“Similarly, the definition of farming corporation” -- all right, we will go back a little. He says:

The Ministry of Revenue bulletins relating to the farming provisions of the Land Speculation Tax Act indicate that the definition of farming includes the situation where, if the transferor is not engaged in farming the land concerned, he is deemed to be carrying on farming on the designated land if he is assuming the risk of the profit or loss from the farming of the laud.

Similarly, the definition of farming corporation is expanded to include the situation where the land was fanned by one or more of the persons holding voting shares of the corporation, or if the corporation is assuming the risk of profit and loss from the farming of the land.

Accordingly, it is possible for the hobby farmer, or what I call the Bay St. farmer, to obtain the special farm exemption provided the land is not merely leased to a farm operator, and he has entered into some arrangement, such as sharecropping, with respect to the operations of the farm, whereby he assumes the risk.

I trust that the minister agrees with Anson-Cartwright on his interpretation of the legislation in this regard. If so, what on earth does he propose to do about it?

I am certain we had some legislation before us a few days ago deliberately on the definition of farming and agriculture, cutting out the horse-breeding fraternity. I am sure this legislation is not so restrictive in terms of its definition. In any event, the Bay St. hobby farmer can be the beneficiary on that.

What a sweet way to get around this thing. Taking tax benefits from the federal government by way of income tax is what hobby farming is all about; and then he escapes the full impact of this legislation. Surely the minister must do something about that; and do something rather quickly about it, as things stand.

We do still find the legislation unpalatable; a hodge-podge. It is a real mess. Trying to scan it, trying to parse it, trying to make sense out of it, is one of the world’s most difficult tasks.

It’s not made deliberately so; it’s the way the cookies tend to crumble around here. It’s what the minister has got himself into. He has become, during the period of his baptism of fire in the House, a rather smiling, benign figure. No blows any longer hurt him; even the pin-pricks of destiny don’t seem to penetrate his epidermis. There he sits, both here and in committee, quite pleased that he has been able just to weather the storm; not to come up with anything shining; just to survive

As the accumulated ills and the ramifications and implications of his legislation become more apparent, he will have cause to tread water more and more. He might -- I trust be doesn’t -- he might even drown.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take part in this debate? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might say at the outset that after listening to the hon. members opposite, I have decided -- although there probably is time -- that it probably would be a waste of the time of the House to go through what I had prepared as a fairly lengthy speech. There are some 11 pages in all, dealing with the principles of this bill. However, in large measure, the hon. members opposite have dealt with those principles, and by and large have supported them. I am very pleased to hear this. As I indicated at the outset, I was pleased indeed to get on with second reading of this bill.

What have we had now -- six months, really, of operational time since the bill was introduced? Certainly over that period of time we have had many opportunities to study the way in which the bill was working. For that matter, as I have been the first to admit candidly, it was not working in some areas. So we’ve had that period of time to study the mechanism of the bill, to work out the kinks and the weaknesses that showed up, and to identify the loopholes.

One of the weaknesses in the administration of the bill was, of course, that I couldn’t immediately put in place a mechanism for lien clearance certificates. We have been able to do that beginning in September, and I believe it to be fully effective today in the registry offices across Ontario where attendance is required for the purpose of providing clearance certificates.

So I hope and believe that a vast majority of the mechanical problems faced by the practitioners who had to interpret this immensely complex legislation would be alleviated and that they would be able to get their clearance certificates.

The proposals in the bill dealing with affidavits, which the hon. members will have noticed, of course, do not wipe out the liability for a tax if a liability exists, but certainly with the attachment of the affidavit to the deed, then my staff in the registry offices or in the 31 assessment offices around the province can very swiftly issue clearance certificates.

I might mention that there have been many submissions to this ministry over the last few months. The Canadian Bar Association, through the ad hoc committee to which the hon. member for Lakeshore has made reference, chaired by Ronald M. Anson-Cartwright, undertook a mammoth task and did a very fine job of assessing the Act and giving me input from the various sectors of the community as to the way in which it was performing.

Certainly, as I have indicated before, I was prepared to accept and implement as swiftly as possible some of the recommendations which they made. Others we have had to ruminate on for a period of time, and on them we have still not acted. In still other cases -- for example, with respect to conservation authorities and Hydro and general public agencies generally -- we have not accepted their recommendation and I do not propose to accept that recommendation.

I have gone to some length to express my view that whether we do or don’t is of no dollar figure in the end result to the party concerned. But I think it makes it very clear in incorporating these provisions in the Act, both as to conveyances to agencies of the Crown and conveyances by agencies of the Crown, that there is no intention by us that the parties concerned would pay a tax.

Mr. Lawlor: Three years ago the minister would have accepted that. That just shows the maturing effect of this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that philosophy may well apply to all of us, even the hon. member opposite for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: I would say --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: -- quietly to the minister that if his colleagues only knew what was in the legislation they would disagree with him.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May we return to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t let them know; keep them in the dark.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I might just mention, Mr. Speaker, after this quiet little exchange, that my colleagues are fully conversant with the contents of this bill.

I do intend also to refer this bill to the standing committee on administration of justice, despite all the submissions that have been made, all the hearings that the ad hoc committee had held, and the various studies that the Canadian Bar Association had made, many of which as I have indicated, we have adopted, and certainly many of which we have dealt with one way and another in determining whether we would accept them or not. We introduced Bill 125 on Oct. 25.

I can tell the members that we have had the benefit of the legal expertise from such people as Arnold Englander and the Canadian Tax Foundation, and we have learned that some of the problems which we sought to overcome we have done so, perhaps, but we may well have created potentially some other minor problems. So I would like the bill, in due course, to go to the standing committee on administration of justice for a number of refinements which I would like to introduce at that time. But it just goes to show, as the hon. member for Lakeshore has indicated, that this is an immensely complex bill. It just goes to show how we can continue to identify problems which none of us anticipated. We went through -- what was it? -- six weeks I suppose of debate last spring, some pretty clever minds being brought to bear on the problems that we anticipated or that they anticipated would occur. But none of us anticipated some of the problems that eventually arose and that we hope to remedy, and believe will remedy by this amending Act and by the amendments, the refinements that I could introduce next week.

The hon. member for Lakeshore also mentioned the case put to us so articulately yesterday by W. O. C. Miller, QC, with respect to the Land Transfer Tax Act and the constrained share principle. It strikes me that that problem which he identified, and which appears to us to be a matter which would perhaps be dealt with better under the Business Corporations Act, might well apply also to the Land Speculation Tax Act, just as the member for Lakeshore has suggested.

I’ll take a look at that and determine if that is the case, in any event, as I mentioned at the committee on Tuesday. I will be in touch with my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement), to outline this matter to him and see whether it’s appropriate that some step might be taken under his legislation or whether it would be appropriate at some time in the future to incorporate some sort of provision either into the Land Transfer Tax Act and the Land Speculation Tax Act if appropriate, or whether it would be better under his legislation.

Arnold Englander’s paper is an interesting one. Unfortunately I was not able to get to the Canadian Tax Foundation conference when that paper was delivered. I didn’t hear his part of it in any event, in full, where he outlined the problems which the member for Lakeshore has recited in part from the printed form of that paper. But we are certainly going to be looking at that and determining whether there is some way in which that sort of problem -- the building used for 30 or 40 years, where over that period of time it has depreciated and no longer represents 40 per cent of the value of the real estate -- can be overcome. That is certainly a problem. I would point out that there is discretion in the legislation to amend, waive or vary the amount of tax that might be provided, and I would expect that whether we do that by general regulation or by special regulation we would be able to take care of that sort of problem.

One will recall that during the original debate on Bill 25 the member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr) drew to my attention, and the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, the problem of renovations and the case where it might be unduly expensive to incorporate 20 per cent of renovation costs in such a project in order to escape the land speculation tax. Well, one of the provisions in the amending Bill 125 will provide authority to set up a form of regulation which will allow a tapering effect, perhaps on the basic notch principle of say a range between 10 and 20 per cent of improvement. At 20 per cent there would be no tax payable. At 10 per cent the full extent of any land speculation tax would be payable and within that range between 10 and 20 per cent there would be an abatement of that tax.

That’s the kind of thing I have in mind for the renovation provisions. With respect to the 40 per cent provision, we might very well have a regulation on a similar principle running between 20 per cent and 40 per cent with a scaling up from, say, full at 20 per cent to zero at 40 per cent and, in that event, overcome this sort of problem which Mr. Englander has identified.

These will have to be things we would work out. It may well be that that schedule isn’t as equally applicable in Sandwich-Riverside as in Metropolitan Toronto, or perhaps more accurately the converse of that, that it may be completely applicable and appropriate in Sandwich-Riverside but not necessarily to the same extent appropriate in a burgeoning municipality in Metropolitan Toronto. We have to look at some of these things, too, and over the months ahead we will be able to direct our attention to them with the authority provided by Bill 125.

I will just conclude these remarks, Mr. Speaker, by concurring with the member for Lakeshore that this kind of legislation seems unduly complex. It is terribly complex. It’s a shame, in a sense, that a piece of legislation of this sort has to deal with an area of the business community that isn’t ordinarily involved in taxing legislation. Yet I suppose it’s a fact of life that this approach to resolving a sociological programme -- and dealing with money of course -- carries with it all the complexities of any other taxing statute whether it be a corporation, income tax or personal income tax statute.

I have said on a number of occasions that I would dearly love to have this legislation much simplified but I really don’t see any way to simplify it, Mr. Speaker, without creating loopholes so wide you could drive four Mack trucks abreast through them. It is not our intention to oversimplify in the interests of simplification and understanding because that will only create more problems. What we are trying to do is issue interpretative bulletins in any areas where practitioners in the field, be they accountants, be they actuaries, be they lawyers or whatever, come to us and say: “Look, maybe the section says that but I wish you would tell it to me in simpler terms.”

We are doing our best to get out interpretative bulletins to clarify these various areas. As the professions become more experienced and more accustomed to working within this legislation and to understanding its principles, I think we will have fewer and fewer problems. Indeed, the various things that have come about over the last few months to ease the procedure, I think are working toward this at this very time. I am looking forward when the bill goes to standing committee to hearing again from the public sector with any thoughts they may have on the amendments, because I know that they will endeavour to make it even more appropriate.

Mr. Lawlor: What does the minister say about investment property and what I had to say about that? It’s a question of principle.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think that we have tackled the investment property problem in a sensible sort of way. If you look at the farming community, I think everyone agrees with the fact that if a farm has been held for 10 years, whether that 10-year period begins at April 9 or whenever it’s acquired after April 9 or whether it has been held for five or, say 10 years prior to today, that really indicates that the person holding it is not holding it for the purpose of speculation. The member for Kitchener touched on this point and I think it’s appropriate. If we accept that principle in the farming community, it seems to me it’s just as valid a principle to be applied in the investment community. I suppose it’s possible to argue that --

Mr. Lawlor: But dating it back is the thing that irritates me.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Dating it back is exactly the point. If we date it back for the farming community we say: “All right, you have held the property for 10 years. You have held it in your family for 15 or 20 years. We then are prepared to say for the purpose of determining the amount of tax payable we will take a look at the length of time you have held it, whether it goes back before April 9 or not.”

Mr. Lawlor: But if you want to keep it in farming --

Hon. Mr. Meen: The same principle is just as appropriate in the investment community and that is the reason for extending it into the investment community.

Mr. Lawlor: It is not only a breach of the legislation. It is a breach of faith.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I must say that I felt that the people in the investment community who held for a three-year period without any abatement had a valid point when they argued that we were unduly penalizing them and not allowing them any kind of abatement, where in any other part of, say, the farming community, land was kept in farming, there was no similar three-year holding period. That did seem to work an injustice. And potentially, if it works an injustice and tends to inhibit the market in rental accommodation, that inherently and inevitably would work an increase in rentals and nobody would want to see that either.

So it was for these various reasons that I felt, and my colleagues agreed, that we should treat the investment community as closely as that, at any rate, to the way in which we have treated the farming community in endeavouring to identify who is the speculator and who is not.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the minister is referring it to the standing committee?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, justice.

Mr. Speaker: Justice.

Agreed.

Clerk of the House: The second order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the second episode in a continuing saga. I want to talk a little bit more today about a few other matters that are of concern to me, with regard to the policies in general. I suppose they’re related in some obscure way to the budgetary policies of the government, since most everything is.

I suppose by way of an explanation, I had intended to speak about an entirely different matter, but I haven’t really had the time to prepare it, so I plan to do that sometime next week as I continue this discussion with you, sir, about the budgetary policies of the government.

I want to deal with two or three matters that are of purely local interest, since I think that they probably should be dealt with and there ought to be some discussion about them in the Legislature, and perhaps out of what I might say the ministries responsible might find ways to resolve some difficulties that some people in the Hamilton-Wentworth region are finding to be of concern to them.

You will recall I’m sure, Mr. Speaker, that a number of years ago I spoke about the area known as Cootes Paradise in the Hamilton area. It’s a conservation area basically, at the west end of the city. It provides, I think, one of the most beautiful entrances to any municipality that I’ve visited, and I’ve visited quite a few. The trip into Hamilton on Highway 403, when it comes to the marsh area, is certainly a very pleasant trip and provides for a great many people long hours of quiet enjoyment away from the hustle and the bustle of everyday life. I’ve been concerned for some considerable time about the lack of concern that’s been shown both provincially and, I think to some extent, municipally until very lately, about the future of that particular area.

The Hamilton region is very fortunate. Because of the geography of the area we are able to enjoy a number of very worthwhile, almost back-to-nature type areas, and this is one of them. I always felt that it was an area that should be a priority preservation matter, that the government should be extremely concerned about the future of it, the quality of the land and the environment and the water in that area, and that we should do almost anything that’s within our power to ensure that it’s never destroyed, that it’s kept for future generations.

It’s the kind of place where, on a hot summer day, you can take your kids, Mr. Speaker. They can wander, they can fish, they can play a little ball, they can hike some if they want, and you don’t have to worry about them very much. It is a pleasant kind of an atmosphere in which to raise young children. We take full advantage of it as a family. I wouldn’t like to see anything happen to it that might deprive, not only them -- because they grow up and move on -- but future generations, of the opportunity to take advantage and to make full use of it.

I suggested that perhaps we should establish in our overall plan for the development of the area the priority that that particular marsh area -- that open water area, and all of the ground surrounding it -- should be preserved. I was a bit distressed to read recently of the intentions of one of the local municipalities to continue to pour a larger degree of effluent -- albeit considerably improved over what they are now pouring into the area -- into that particular section of the bay area.

I understand the need to develop new sewage treatment plants, and I understand the desire of Dundas to grow, to provide its citizens with the kind of sewage treatment and sewage facilities that are absolutely necessary for it to be up to standard, if nothing else, to provide a reasonable standard of living for the people who choose to live there. I am not quarrelling with them for having decided that it would be in their best interests to further enlarge the sewage treatment plant. I am concerned, though, that the effluent from the enlarged sewage treatment plant will be permitted to go into the Cootes Paradise area. Albeit that it will be cleaner than the stuff that is currently going in, there will be so much more of it. In fact, over the course of a number of years the amount of effluent and the damage that would be done by the effluent would no doubt at least measure up to the damage that is being done by the effluent presently going into it.

There are alternatives. They are not cheap. In fact, they are costly. But the fact that they are costly is only one consideration. It is a consideration -- albeit important to people paying taxes -- that we have got to weigh up very carefully. It is the kind of cost that you have to weigh up over and against the long-term value of maintaining or developing a clean area for recreation purposes.

As municipalities grow -- as Hamilton grows in the future; as Dundas grows in the future; as Ancaster continues to grow; as the entire regional municipality grows, Burlington included -- there is no question at all that there will be considerable additional pressure added to the need for recreational facilities. The Cootes Paradise area, together with many of the other areas, is going to be used to a far greater extent than they have been used in the past. There is going to be a great deal more pressure put on the very valuable and unique areas which are suitable for passive recreational purposes.

It is fine to talk about building ball diamonds at corners or making sure the children have access to playing fields, and we have to do that. But for the majority of people who will be moving into the area, who will be growing up in the area between now and 10 or 15, or perhaps 25 years from now, passive recreation within easy access will be something that will become more and more of a requirement. If we are not extremely careful today; if we are not almost to the point of being rigid about ensuring the preservation of the areas which have the greatest potential, then in 25 or 30 years we will look back and, much to our chagrin, say that there were errors made by governments of the 1970s which have deprived citizens of the 1990s of the access that they require.

This isn’t a question of whether we need it for development. We don’t. It isn’t a question of whether we can, in fact, provide alternatives, because we can’t. It’s a question now of whether we’re prepared to pay the cost and I think we have to. That’s the conclusion the government has to come to. Just as we’re prepared to pay the cost to clean up other areas and just as we’re prepared to pay additional costs to transport people, we have to be prepared to pay the additional cost to ensure that passive recreational areas are maintained, generally speaking, in their traditional form in order to ensure that over the course of time as generations evolve they ill have access to them.

It’s frankly unique. It’s as unique, in fact, as the Red Hill Creek area is in the east end of the city of Hamilton. We’re very, very fortunate in having it. But the good fortune which we have will only be with us for as long as we’re prepared to take strong measures to preserve it.

What I’m really saying to the government is this. It is far too valuable a resource, far too valuable in potential. It’s need, though great today, will be considerably greater as years go by. If we have to pay a little more over the course of a number of years in order to preserve it, then let’s pay a little more. Let’s provide the pipeline, if that has to be provided, to take the effluent that presently goes in and the effluent which will, no doubt, be dumped into the area in the next 10 or 15 years. Let’s take it away from there altogether. Let’s guarantee the preservation of this area so that in the future my children and their children and yours, Mr. Speaker, if they want to visit the area -- grandchildren or whatever -- will be able to come there, a very short distance from where they live and visit and walk and enjoy some of the finer things of passive recreation.

While I’m talking about that I want to talk about another area too, because I think it’s also vitally important. It’s very easy when one is looking for places to run highways to look to all the open space, but for anyone who is familiar with the Hamilton area would appreciate, I’m sure, that in the east end of the city we have what is perhaps unique in major municipalities. We have, again, an almost wilderness type of area that is used for hiking, for nature walking, for children learning about nature itself and for recreation, though perhaps not of the organized but of the unorganized type. Discussion is currently going on about the possibility or the likelihood -- maybe even the advisability -- of running a major highway through the heart of it.

The area from St. Catharines to Toronto, from Hamilton to Nanticoke, will over the course between now and the year 2000, double, triple and quadruple perhaps in the numbers of people who are going to live there. The pressure on open land and the pressure on suitable recreational land will become immense. It will be almost unbearable.

There will be tremendous pressure put on by developers. There will be tremendous pressure which will evolve naturally because of the growth of the area itself. It is not difficult to identify the areas which should be unreserved, It may well be for pure economic purposes, both in terms of industrial economics and in terms of provincial economies and the provision of funds for the development of roads, that it would be more desirable to run a highway down through this natural ravine. But you’ve got to stop and ask yourself, Mr. Speaker whether or not in the interests of the guaranteeing of adequate recreational facilities, the preservation of three things which are worth preserving, it might not be cheaper in the long run to go a little further and to try to avoid damaging, and perhaps destroying for all time an area that is a natural beauty and an area which can be, in addition to the one I have mentioned before, a great source of enjoyment and relaxation for people upon whom tremendous pressures will be exerted just simply to provide for themselves and their families a reasonable level of existence.

It can be a place they can go to where they can walk; a place they can go to within a five-minute drive of their home; a place they can go to where they can get away from the noise of transportation, away from the pressure of business, away from the tremendous impact on humanity of the sort of economic pressures that are being exerted day by day as a result of things like inflation and job types and the way in which industry works.

I am persuaded that we should look seriously at providing an alternative to using what may well be, in the first instance and in the first glance, the most satisfactory, most sensible, shortest and cheapest way. Quite often in the long run the cheapest way turns out to he the most expensive.

I’m appealing to the government, I suppose, not to play games. I understand that the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) has been in Hamilton. He has spoken to the local region; he has talked to them quite seriously about the need to have such an access route from his Nanticoke-to-Hamilton-corridor study area down into the industrial sector of the city of Hamilton. It is short-sighted to recommend the destruction of that ravine; it is short-sighted to think that we need have the shortest distance between two points as the only way to moving vehicles and materials.

Let me give you some alternative Mr. Speaker, to it if I can, I am absolutely convinced that what we need in Hamilton, by way of transportation, is a loop running around the southern end of the city, connecting up to Highway 403 on the west, connecting up to the Queen Elizabeth Way on the east, with an entirely new access route to be developed. It should perhaps be a sub-grade route in order to remove or to diminish the destructive effect on the environment, but it shouldn’t use existing highways or rights of way. The reason it shouldn’t is because the tendency then becomes to purchase homes to widen highways, and, in the main, most of the existing roads and highways are built up to a great extent. The cost of acquiring property which has been developed is obviously considerably more than the cost of acquiring property which at this point is still in its raw state.

I am urging the government to give serious consideration to a study which will locate a suitable area of open land where a new highway, controlled-access in nature, will link the Queen Elizabeth Way to Highway 403, provide a route around the city for those who don’t wish to go through the city, and thereby relieve the congestion within the city itself. It would provide within reasonably easy access, though perhaps a drive of a little distance, a route for industrial and commercial traffic which must go from the downtown eastern industrial sector out on to the mountain in order to gain a direct route to the Nanticoke development that is taking place.

I think if that were looked at, we would find that the cost of doing that likely wouldn’t exceed the cost of acquiring property on existing highways. While the distance may be a little further in miles, the speed at which the traffic could travel would be considerably greater and therefore people would be able to make the trip in a shorter period of time. It would relieve a great deal of the congestion which currently exists and which will no doubt continue to grow, both within the Hamilton core itself and also within many of the areas that immediately surround the city of Hamilton. If that were done, if that proposal were to be accepted -- and I will go into the details of it at some other point -- I can pinpoint areas worth looking at -- then the whole Nanticoke to Hamilton transportation utility corridor could easily be located.

I want to say, as a warning, that of the four proposals that have been put before us in Hamilton, of the four proposals put before us by the study group under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, there is not one that would fit the bill; not at the Hamilton end. It may well be that at the Nanticoke end and all the way through Haldimand county or Haldimand region it is satisfactory. But once we enter the Hamilton-Wentworth region, the proposals don’t take into account a number of factors.

The western proposal suggests that it would tie in with Highway 403. There are two major flaws in that proposal; one is that it is not suitable for utility purposes. The utility pipelines, hydro lines, Bell telephone lines, couldn’t possibly follow Highway 403. In addition to that, there is no ready access, nor is there any likelihood of a way of developing a ready access, from Highway 403 to the easterly industrial area.

It would require one of three things. It would require either that the transportation, the commercial and industrial transports, would have to go across the Hamilton Skyway bridge, or Burlington Skyway if you prefer, Mr. Speaker, and in at the east end of the city. Anyone who travels that route knows full well that that bridge is already taxed almost to capacity and additional traffic on it would be impossible to countenance, It would require, as an alternative, that the traffic travel down Main St. or Burlington St. or Barton St. within the city of Hamilton, and anyone who travels in Hamilton knows that those roads are no longer suitable to carry additional traffic, particularly during the rush-hour periods, which seem in these days to be becoming rather extended. Or it would be necessary to build an entirely new road linking Highway 403 with the east-end industrial complexes; the Steel Co., Dofasco and all of the others that are there.

So I think it is evident to anyone who looks at it that that route is not satisfactory. The next route travelling east from Highway 403, it is suggested, might tie in either with James St., Highway 6 or with Wentworth St. I hasten to tell the members that neither Wentworth St. nor James St. could handle the traffic. There is no reasonable, sensible, economic way of providing a sufficient width of highway to carry the traffic. In addition to that, it would still require that the downtown core be inundated with transportation, quite unnecessarily, and I suspect and suggest that that route is not suitable.

The next route that was suggested travels down to the Red Hill Creek area that I was speaking about, the ravine area, and relies to a great extent on the development of a highway through the ravine. For reasons that I have just mentioned, I think that that really would be foolhardy. It would be destructive in the long term, costly -- though not as costly as others -- in the short term, but over the long period of time, looking ahead through one or more generations, would be regretted by any who made the decision.

The final route that they have suggested is to utilize the existing Highway 20. Now, I don’t know if you have ever travelled on Highway 20, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to tell you, and I make the statement categorically, that it is absolutely impossible to consider taking the volume of traffic that they predict down the existing Highway 20. The intersection of Highway 20 and King St. is the most dangerous intersection in this part of Ontario. Members will recall the hill. Traffic coming down that hill has to go through the busiest intersection in the area. We have had numerous accidents there, some of them costing lives and all of them costing considerably in property losses. I want to suggest that that particular proposal be discarded now so that we can talk about sensible things.

I want to suggest that we sit with the city of Hamilton and the region and that we attempt to iron out what was once a very sensible proposal, that of developing something called the Limeridge Rd, No. 53 freeway, which would be developed laterally east and west across the city of Hamilton, somewhat south of Limeridge Rd. We should dis cuss whether that is a sensible proposal, given the growth that has taken place in the city in the last five or six years, and whether it might not make more sense to sit down with Ontario Hydro to discuss with them the possibility of expanding their rights of way, which are considerably south of the city at that point, and developing an east-west corridor for transportation and utilities. It would be more easily developed, it would be less disruptive, it would provide a much better access all the way around. To take it beyond that, it could extend past the Home Ownership Made Easy programme on Saltfleet Mountain so that the whole development, which will house some 80,000 people over the course of 10 years, would then be served by that corridor route running around the outside for access to the lower mountain and to west of Hamilton. It would also tie in with all of the existing routes that run down the mountain and would not be, in my opinion, as disruptive as the suggestions that have been made.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to continue talking, but I know that you are eager to have an adjournment at this point, so I would move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Deans moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. F. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, so we have the numbers on the record I would like to say that beginning Monday we will deal with the following items of business. I’ll just give the item and the bill number: Item 14, Bill 162; item 18, Bill 166; item 19, Bill 167; item 15, Hill 163; item 17, Bill 165; item 20, Bill 168; item 21, Bill 169; item 22, Bill 170; item 16, Bill 164; and item 13, Bill 161. Somewhere in the early days of the week we will call item 3, Bill 143, which we will be dealing with in committee; and I suggest we will probably start with bills standing in the name of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr).

Mr. Deans: I wonder if I might ask the minister before he moves the adjournment motion, if it would be possible to give us some idea on Monday morning, or on Monday before the House sits, of the order in which the bills for Tuesday and Wednesday might be dealt with.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I think that will be so; it is difficult to say at this point because some of the ministers are not available to me. Probably, as I suggested, they won’t be in the exact order I have called them because, as the member knows, there is a conference of finance ministers in Ottawa Monday and Tuesday, and there will be other people there with the Treasurer; and the cabinet will be visiting Ottawa on Wednesday. But I think I would be able to do that on Monday afternoon.

Mr. Deans: Just one final point then. If he could tell us which ministers definitely wouldn’t be available then perhaps we could be ready for the ones that we think could be. Thank you.

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

Motion agreed to.

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