Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

HEARINGS ON NATURAL GAS

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

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

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. MacDonald: Of course he doesn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Lewis: Why is the minister doing this?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Lewis: Why is the minister doing this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The Leader of the Opposition.

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

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

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Like what?

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Winkler: We are not.

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

Mr. Lewis: Read the opening sentence.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

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

Mr. Singer: Oh, nonsense!

Mr. Lewis: Not at all.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

DAY NURSERIES ACT REGULATIONS

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

Interjections by hon. members.

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

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

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

Mr. Lewis: This is confidential.

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

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

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

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

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

An hon. member: Don’t just sit there.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

LICENSING OF LANDFILL SITES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes. I would like to put a question to the Minister of the Environment. Is he aware that the application by Southwold township on behalf of Mr. McCaig in the St. Thomas area to open up a new dump in that area has been turned down on hearing by the Ontario Municipal Board? Can he explain to the House why his ministry gave a certificate of approval to the original application since it did not fit in with the terms of the official plan and has now been turned down by the Municipal Board? Can he inform us as to whether he expects a cabinet appeal to the decision of the Municipal Board, particularly since the person who has been forwarding this programme, Mr. McCaig, is the campaign manager for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier)?

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections by hon. members.

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

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

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

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

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

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

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

EXPROPRIATION REPORT

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

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

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

LICENSING OF LANDFILL SITES

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Is that of urgent public importance?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Lewis: On the side of the angels.

SEAFARERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION

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

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

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

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

Mr. Lewis: In the Star, too.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary!

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections by hon. members.

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

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

Mr. Lewis: Thanks.

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

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

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

HOUSING STARTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second school is the Downsview secondary school --

Mr. Singer: Downsview!

Mr. Young: We have had --

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

Mr. Young: Still at it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BIG BROTHERS OF METRO TORONTO

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Lewis: That’s the problem.

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

Mr. Lewis: Good; no further questions.

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

OHC BRIBE CHARGES

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

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

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

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

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

OHC LAND PURCHASES IN OTTAWA AREA

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich- Riverside.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT LEGISLATION

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

VILLAGE SQUARE HOUSING PROJECTS

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

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

Mr. Reid: Has he heard of the Act?

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

H.O.M.E. PROGRAMME LOTTERIES

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

CHLORINATED WATER

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

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

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

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

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

CANADIAN KODAK DISPUTE

Mr. MacDonald: A question of the Minister of Labour: In the new chapter in negotiations between Kodak and its employees which has developed following the rejection of the offer last week, can the minister indicate when his ministry or his officials will be moving into the picture; whether they have, and if not when will they?

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

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

DENTURE THERAPISTS

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

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

Mr. Haggerty: In 1974?

Hon. Mr. Miller: It’s very possible.

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

HOUSING IN ARMSTRONG

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

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

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

FOOD SERVICE PROJECT FOR OTTAWA HOSPITALS

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary, yes.

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

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

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

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT

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

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

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

DIESEL FUEL TAX

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

CARLETON UNIVERSITY

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

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

Mr. Lewis: No kidding!

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

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

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

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

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

Mr. Speaker: That is an entirely different question.

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

VILLAGE SQUARE HOUSING PROJECT

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

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

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

Mr. Reid: They only have 90 days.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I realize that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

ODC CONSULTANT

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Shulman: C. D. Smith.

Mr. Lewis: Let his name rest in Hansard.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Breithaupt: How much is he getting?

Mr. Shulman: On a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

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

RAILWAY RIGHTS OF WAY

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

FUTURE OF ARMSTRONG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Lewis: Their reaction was nil.

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

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

Mr. Lewis: What is his campaign manager doing?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How old is he?

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I hope not.

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

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

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

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired,

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

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

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

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

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

CORONERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerr moves second reading of Bill 162, An Act to amend the Coroners Act, 1972.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

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

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

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

The matters of local police assistance are dealt with in section 3, with an amendment, and section 4 sets out a coroner’s warrant for burial which makes it certain that that is required in all cases.

Unfortunately some rather large tragedies have occurred recently with respect to automobile accidents and even aircraft accidents, so that the provision set out in section 8 amends section 21 of the Act now to allow one inquest where there are multiple deaths. This, too, we believe, will result in a saving of time and the avoidance of duplication of procedures which might otherwise occur in such an unfortunate circumstance.

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

Section 21(a) under the new Act is going to allow this request to exist, but we think that there should be one thing that we would commend for a change to the minister, and that is to move the 60-day period to 30 days. We are, of course, well aware that coroners are busy people. However, one would think that 30 days would be long enough to advise the person requesting such an inquest that the final decision has been made, perhaps, not to hold it. Of course, there will be reasons in writing at that time, but we would think that 30 days would be sufficient time in which to make sure this procedure is followed.

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

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

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

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

Under subsection 5 in the new section 12 -- or I should say in the new section 28, in effect -- there is the possibility of being excused on the grounds of illness or hardship. We think that those particular exclusions are satisfactory and there should be this opportunity to make a judgement as to whether a person really should be excused from performing these duties on those terms.

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

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

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

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

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

I had misgivings about the latter when I first read it, saying that it didn’t go far enough, because the decision of the chief coroner is final. It could be arbitrary; it could be the end of the road if he simply says, “No, we are not going to give it.” However, I don’t feel that strongly in connection with the matter, insofar as the section says the chief coroner’s decision is final subject to section 19. That other section 19 gives the minister the ultimate and final power within the matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. minister.

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

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

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

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

The new Juries Act will, of course, pretty well apply as far as the selection of jurors for inquests as set out in the new section 28.

The member for Lakeshore, I believe, dealt mainly with section 10. There have been some comments by the Crown attorneys regarding the existing section in the Act -- that is, section 23 -- in that they want it to be more than persons in good --

Mr. Lawlor: It was section 11 that I was interested in; not 10.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am sorry, section 11; and therefore I would refer to section 24 in the present Act, where Crown attorneys have said that there is some anomaly in referring to them as persons with standing -- “to be deemed a person with standing” -- and they ask that it be made specific and definite that they are acting as counsel to the coroner.

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

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

Mr. Lawlor: Might I ask a question, Mr. Speaker, since we are not sending it into committee? How about section 12 as to the embodiment of the reference to the Ontario Evidence Act?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I was unable really to notice the reference to the Canada Evidence Act in section 12. Does the member mean section 12 of the new bill?

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, sorry, section 13. I am just reading the minister’s explanatory note.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Section 13 in the new bill is amending subsection 2 of section 34?

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

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

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

FIRE DEPARTMENTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerr moves second reading of Bill 166, An Act to amend the Fire Departments Act.

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

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: “Why?” is my simple question. The Arbitration Act is excluded presently under section 8, specifically with respect to both agreements and to awards or decisions of boards of arbitration. Now the minister is seeking to add the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, 1971. I would like a little further explanation of what his position is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

POLICE ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerr moves second reading of Bill 167, An Act to amend the Police Act.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

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

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

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

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

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

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

CORONERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, the hon. member for Lakeshore indicated that he wanted the bill to go to committee because he would like to see the Ontario Evidence Act apply as well as the Canada Evidence Act. I have pointed out to him that section 34 of the Coroners Act gives automatic protection, which would cover both pieces of legislation and, therefore, he has agreed that it continue on to third reading.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 162, An Act to amend the Coroners Act.

Bill 166, An Act to amend the Fire Departments Act.

Bill 167, An Act to amend the Police Act.

LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves second reading of Bill 168, An Act to amend the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only report that the Minister of Revenue had for us at that time was, “Well, after all you must realize that the government of Canada taxes for the whole of Canada.” That was the first time the minister began to back down as ingloriously as he did back down. Because that, Mr. Speaker, was the point we made throughout the six-week debate -- that if by any chance this tax was deductible as an expense of doing business, it had to mean that the government of Canada was going to allow its taxing authority to be completely undercut by the provinces, and that if the government of Canada took this position insofar as this bill was concerned it would have been, in effect, giving away its right to tax. It would have been abandoning its duty and its responsibility to all of the people of Canada.

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

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

Mr. Breithaupt: Dec. 9.

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

Mr. Breithaupt: Eight months.

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

Mr. Breithaupt: To the day.

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

Mr. Breithaupt: A short gestation period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, certainly we can accept section 1, which reduces the rate of tax from 50 per cent to 20 per cent. Certainly we can accept section 3 which provides for a rebate in the event that anyone has been foolish enough to have been caught up with the higher incidence attached and now has to get it back, although I wonder why they only give it back with interest at the rate of seven per cent when the minister knows full well that nobody can borrow money at the rate of seven per cent and that one can get money back from the bank on a savings account at the rate of 9.25 or 9.5 per cent. If you want to go to GICs, Mr. Speaker, you can get 10.25 or 10.5 per cent and if you want to go into something a little more risky, but not very much, you can get 11 per cent. Why should people, who have paid too much to the government because the minister wouldn’t recognize some of the facts of the taxation laws, only get back their money at the rate of seven per cent, if they have done foolishly what the minister said they should have done, the minister of course being wrong?

However, let me deal with section 6. Section 6, now installs another ministerial discretion. The minister doesn’t even know he has got another discretion in section 2; this is as bad as the other discretions that he reserves for himself. The minister had a little surprise on his face, if I read him correctly, that he now has another discretion.

Section 6 says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We object to that, Mr. Speaker. We object to the insertion of an extra and a further unfair ministerial discretion in an Act that is just full of ministerial discretions; in an Act that doesn’t set out the law, but sets out ministerial discretions; in an Act that is just as good as the length of the minister’s foot on a particular day. That’s what the rule of taxation under this statute is. It’s as long as the minister’s foot is on a particular day and that just doesn’t make sense in a taxation law, Mr. Speaker.

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

If one can say, Mr. Speaker, that the principle behind this is to do what we advocated last April and May, I guess we will vote for second reading, but we will ask that the Bill go to committee so that we can properly oppose section 2. But I make our position quite clear that in voting in support of the bill in principle, we are not supporting the insertion of another discretion with all the unfair attributes that it brings to it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

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

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

It’s most unfortunate legislation all the way around. Doesn’t the minister feel that he has suffered the perils of Pauline, that Pauline Meen has come under fire at the very time in history of the province when the market is falling out of housing; when, due to escalating interest rates and inflationary pressures on the credit market, the housing market is in a state of total dereliction, with all the misery that implies to any number of people living in the province, taken together with the embarrassment it causes the government to be unable to produce the housing unless it enters the housing market, overtly in a direct governmental way which the government, because of misguided ideological preconceptions, is unwilling to do. That being the case, then the minister gives what might very well be called the double whammy to the whole thing, namely the Land Speculation Tax Act.

As things stand, sometimes I think we’d be better not to have the Act and that we could stand a little speculation because there’s absolutely nothing going on at the present time as between the two horns of the dilemma upon which the housing market finds itself. It’s in a state of total squeeze. The Act hasn’t had all that impact, in my considered opinion. I noticed the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine), standing in his place today, didn’t even refer to this legislation; I don’t think it was because he’s necessarily ashamed of it but simply because he places the onus where it belongs in terms of the interest rates and capital expenditures on housing currently taking place. But this minister has made his picayune contribution too; and it may be just that extra weight that killed the goose that didn’t lay very many eggs. In any event, they weren’t golden.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Meen: There is a matter of principle involved with respect to the erosion of a tax base; even though in this sense, since we weren’t out to raise money -- and, indeed, were not raising very much money under this Act -- that it really was of an inconsequential nature as to the amount of the erosion. But, when finally the hon. John Turner did confirm to me -- first orally and subsequently by letter -- that the government of Canada could not accede to our suggestion that this be continued to be recognized as a deductible expense, it became apparent to me -- and I have said this, too, for some while -- that probably the simplest course of action to follow would be an amendment to the rate of tax applicable.

The difficulty with reducing the amount of tax -- if there is any difficulty in it -- is primarily that it loses its immediate impact as a transactions tax by being only 20 per cent of the amount of the speculative gain, rather than a very substantial, healthy and significant 50 per cent. So perhaps this will not be as significant in the psychology, I suppose, behind the holding of land for speculative profit. I would like to think, though, that people dealing in land look a little farther down the road and see what the net tax impact is going to be, because if they do that they will realize that with the level of tax as proposed at 20 per cent, the net resultant impact on their tax dollars in the long run will be essentially the same.

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

Well, taking a look at various amounts of tax, if the land speculation tax were 25 per cent -- and that was a figure that was bruited about for a time, as was a figure of 30 per cent -- so-called private corporations would drop from 81 per cent to around 75, though I think that would be a little higher than that, and public corporations would come in at 87, which is what they were previously in the budget statement figure. Individuals, though, would have a maximum tax of 86 per cent rather than 81. So it was my feeling and the feeling of my colleagues that that figure of 25 per cent speculation tax then would not meet, in the case of some individuals, the obligation which I undertook on behalf of the government that in the event of the tax being disallowed, no one but no one would pay more tax than had been anticipated in the Treasurer’s budget statement. Twenty per cent achieves that level.

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

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

Mr. Lawlor: It would be a foolish taxpayer.

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

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

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

I don’t want to close my remarks without referring to the member for Downsview’s comments on the amendment to section 6 of the bill. I wonder if he has really looked at section 6(a), being section 2 of the amending Act, because section 6(a) is a simple restatement of section 6 of the Act as it stands. It is split off into subsections (a) and (b) simply so that we can pick up, by subclause (b), to which the member for Downsview didn’t even make reference, a situation in which corporations, through the provisions as to deemed dispositions and though a practice called “stuffing” -- where one can pack a company with money so as to get its assets in real estate down below 50 per cent, then make the transaction, then withdraw the money again; an obviously colourable attempt to avoid the provisions of the Land Speculation Tax Act --

Mr. Lawlor: That is the opposite of --

Hon. Mr. Men: -- could have avoided the provisions of section 6. It was therefore the purpose of section 2 of the Act to bring in, by subclause (b), this provision, the same sort of authority as presently resides in section 6 of the Act.

When the member for Downsview said that I looked surprised and raised my eyebrows when he was suggesting that I had imported still another ministerial discretion, he’s quite right. I was surprised, because we haven’t imported it at all. We are covering an area that was an obvious loophole with the same authority for reassessment, no more, no less, than presently exists in section 6 of the Act.

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

Hon. Mr. Meen: In any event, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason for section 2 of the bill, and although I’ll be happy to put the bill into committee so that the members opposite -- the Liberal members anyway -- can show their opposition to this amendment by voting against it in committee if they wish, I think they are mistaken in their understanding of it, because I would suggest to the hon. members. Mr. Speaker, that the amendment proposed in section 2 is a highly desirable one.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The standing committee?

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

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

CORPORATIONS TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves second reading of Bill 169, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

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

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

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

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

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

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

LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill 168, An Act to amend the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974.

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

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, on section 1.

Mr. Chairman: On section 1, the hon. member from Kitchener.

On section 1:

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

Hon. Mr. Meen: I could have sworn the hon. member was in his seat when I just gave it, Mr. Chairman, but in short the 20 per cent speculation tax, when added to the absolute maximum rate of 61 per cent, which arrives at a personal taxable income level of something like $55,000, will then derive a total of 81 per cent, which was the amount shown in the Treasurer’s budget statement of April 9. That’s the reason for arriving at the 20 per cent figure. Actually, I would suppose that the vast majority of individuals who are involved in transactions of this sort are well below the $55,000-a-year personal taxable income level and their rate then would be somewhat below the 81 per cent. But that was the basis upon which the Treasurer (Mr. White) had proceeded as well. We were aiming at meeting that figure without giving away the store, so to speak.

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

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member from Downsview on section 1?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): No, section 2.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Singer: Yes, on section 2, Mr. Chairman, the minister hastened to point out to me that he wasn’t getting a new discretion and that my interpretation of his raised eyebrows was, in fact, incorrect. Well, he’s doubled his discretion. He had a discretion under section 6(a) and he now extends it to a discretion under section 6(b). So he has taken a new discretion, no matter how he phrases it.

We said as many times as possible, when this Act was going through, that we objected to the various discretions being given in a taxation statute. I thought it was appropriate, Mr. Chairman, to talk about the discretion in 6(a). The minister says I didn’t specifically deal with 6(b) and in that he is correct, but it is an extension of the principle which we find abhorrent in a taxing statute.

It would seem to me, if the minister is going to take it upon himself to say he doesn’t believe that the price for which this land is sold is a true price but is, in effect, the price artificially or unduly reduced, then there should be some onus on the minister to prove it, whether he is asserting this right under (a) or (b). It should be in some form whereby the person whom he is disbelieving or the corporation whose statement he is not accepting has an opportunity to know the case that he is being faced with and has a tribunal before which that can be argued, where he can see the minister’s case in either (a) or (b) and have an opportunity to be heard and to cross-examine.

The way this is phrased -- and it was bad enough when only 6(a) existed -- it’s doubly bad now because there are 6(a) and 6(b) which give him an additional discretion. If the minister decides that the transaction was set up in order to artificially or unduly reduce the price, all that has to happen is an exercise in ministerial discretion where this is said. Then whatever onus there is is shifted to the vendor or the purchaser. The onus is off the minister.

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

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to understand why the member for Downsview is objecting to this section. Certainly it’s an application of the right to reassess if it should come to the ministry’s attention under subsection (b) that an action technique I referred to called “stuffing” has taken place. There may be other techniques that fertile minds will dream up over the year, through the use of shareholdings and the dealings in shares rather than the disposition of real estate itself in the direct sense.

All subsection (b) does is import into section 6 the authority to reassess in the event that that occurs. It takes nothing away from the right of the parties to appeal, according to the mechanism set out in section 10 of the Act. If the member would care to take a look at that, he will see the appeal procedure that applies just as readily to subsection (6) of 6 as it does to subsection (a). Subsection (a) is a restatement of the old section 6. Sections 9 and 10, with objection to assessment, and section 10, the mechanism before the courts, are untouched in the Act. The same procedure applies there as applied in the section before.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to let it go at that. The minister seems to think if they bulldozed a section through the House one time they can then say it is good because they bulldozed it through the first time.

Let me read him certain extracts from the debate relating to section 6 as they took place when the bill was going through the House.

The debate on the section revolved around the concepts of avoidance and evasion in law. It was pointed out that avoidance of the tax is proper and legal. However, this section with the marginal note “avoidance” allows a collection of tax on the basis of a full value of the designated land where the value is considered to have been artificially or unduly reduced. The minister defended the use of “artificially” and “unduly” by referring to a like usage in section 55 of the Income Tax Act.

At that point, Mr. Chairman, I commented that what the minister seems to have said, just a few moments ago, is that if someone avails himself of the provisions of those parts of section 1 and puts himself in the position where he can avoid a tax, and the minister comes to the conclusion that the taxpayer may be reasonably considered to have artificially or unduly reduced the amount of the taxable value of the designated land that he has disposed of, the taxable value shall be computed as if such reduction had not occurred.

And to refresh the minister’s memory, I would suggest that he look at pages 2566 and 2567 in Hansard of May 28. My colleague, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook), said this:

“I want to bring to the attention of the minister and all members of the House the fact that the minister seems to rely upon the efficacy and equity of section 55 of the Income Tax Act. That section relates to the computation of income.”

And further along:

“In other words, section 55 of the Income Tax Act does not affect the liability for tax. What you have done is plucked it out of the federal Act and applied it to the taxable value of the land, which you define in your first section. But what you are saying here now, by plucking out that statute, is that if you unduly create a taxable loss with respect to the disposition of designated land -- over which you might sometimes have no control at all, may I say -- then you are deemed to have disposed of it at a taxable value that it had, notwithstanding that the loss was suffered as a result of the disposition.”

And the member for Sarnia goes on to say:

“I don’t think you can pluck that section out and relate it to the taxable value of the land.”

That’s in Hansard. It should be noted, Mr. Chairman, that section 6 was approved on a vote of the House 53 to 29. It has no more efficacy in our opinion today than it had on May 28. It’s a bad section. Adding subclause (b) to it now makes it doubly bad. It’s an improper exercise of discretion. It’s a bad principle in the taxation law; and we continue to oppose it.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on section 2? Shall section 2 carry?

Mr. Singer: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of section 2 will say “aye.” All those opposed will say “nay.” In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Mr. B. Haggerty (Welland South): Do you want a hearing aid?

Section 2 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further question, comments, questions or amendments to any other section of the bill?

Bill 168 reported.

CORPORATIONS TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill 169, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

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

Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 169 reported.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report two bills without amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 169, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

Bill 168, An Act to amend the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974.

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves second reading of Bill 163, An Act to amend the Industrial Safety Act, 1971.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. Speaker, we concur with the principle of the bill and the amendments. But dealing with safety in the Province of Ontario, I’ve mentioned to the minister on a number of occasions the number of accidents that do occur in industry throughout the Province of Ontario, and what little input there is with regard to safety measures from those employed in the industry. I was just wondering if the minister has given some consideration now to move in a direction where those employed in industry will have some say and voice in safety matters.

In particular, I’m thinking that amendments should be made to the bill to indicate that when a safety committee is established within an industry they do have an input into all safety matters and that they are protected under the laws of the Province of Ontario.

I suppose if we wanted to we could get into the Mining Act and other matters of safety in the Province of Ontario, but those employees in industry have no say in safety whatsoever. Now this bill perhaps indicates that the government is making some amendments here to the benefit of those employees and employers, but with little input from the persons employed in the industry. I would like to say to the minister that I would like to see some legislation brought into the House providing that where a safety committee is established in industries there shall be an equal number of employees and employers involved. In other words, if there were 10 on a safety committee, there would be five from the labourers in the industry and five from management.

I say to the minister that when his inspectors move into a plant or industry in Ontario they should go directly to the safety committee, and have the input of those persons employed in the industry in matters of safety. Too often the Province of Ontario inspectors do go in, but perhaps they don’t contact the right persons.

I could go into more detail with specific matters, but I suggest to the minister that if he wants to cut down on the number of accidents in the Province of Ontario, then for God’s sake he should let the man working in industry have some input into the safety legislation. It’s no use going to the IAPA; they’re not getting in touch with those persons working in industry. So I suggest that the minister take into consideration the employees in an industry and give them some voice in safety matters.

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments on this bill? The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill that was the result of a good deal of discussion that took place with the safety committee of the Ministry of Natural Resources, I’m told; or was it the safety committee of the Ministry of Labour?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): The Labour Safety Council.

Mr. Stokes: The Labour Safety Council; well all right. I had some discussions several months ago when there was some indication that this administrative change would be made, to repeal the Loggers’ Safety Act and to put it under the umbrella of the Industrial Safety Act of 1971. There was a good deal of concern among those who are actively involved in logging, and in particular the lumber and sawmills workers’ union, which felt that they had competent people within the Ministry of Natural Resources dealing with safety in their industry. At one time the Loggers’ Safety Act did come under the umbrella of the Ministry of Natural Resources and it seemed to be working fairly well when that ministry had people monitoring the situation for any unsafe practices or unsafe situations.

Now I question very strongly, Mr. Speaker, changing the responsibility for logging safety to those who would be responsible for administering and monitoring the situation in the workplace under the Industrial Safety Act, I’m not absolutely certain that the ministry has people who go out on a regular basis to inspect what is going on in any of these operational setups in the bush where they’re many miles, in most instances, from any habitation. The people who are charged with the responsibility of seeing that the workplace is safe are not at all satisfied that this is the right move to make.

I am particularly concerned, Mr. Speaker, with section 3, subsection (2), which reads:

“Notwithstanding subsection 1, and except at a place where logging is carried on, any person who under a contract with an employer or owner of an industrial establishment supplies the employer or owner with a machine or device and a person or persons to work in connection with the machine or device shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the employer of the person or persons supplied.”

This means that if we have, say, the prime licence holder, which is company A, working in a particular place and for some reason or other it finds it necessary to lease or to rent equipment from a third party, it means that it can move that machinery and the personnel to operate it in the workplace, and automatically a new employer becomes injected into the situation.

It no longer is the traditional employer, the employer for the implementation of this new Act, An Act to amend the Industrial Safety Act. We have, in effect, another employer by virtue of the fact that he is working under contract and is the owner of the machinery that has been rented or leased.

This tends to circumvent, for all practical purposes, the provisions of any collective agreement entered into between the authorized bargaining agent -- which in this case would be the lumber and sawmill workers’ union -- and the traditional employer. The traditional employer might be Kimberly-Clark, it might be Great Lakes, it might be Abitibi, or any one of a number of employers whose chief aim is to harvest timber, for whatever reason -- whether it be for saw logs, whether it be for pulp and paper, plywood or whatever. However, the representatives of the men and the men themselves see section 3, subsection (2) as a means of circumventing the provisions of a collective agreement where, in effect, by the implementation of this Act, a third person is deemed to be the employer; thereby, as I say, circumventing the terms of a collective agreement.

I am just wondering why it was necessary to put that in, Mr. Speaker, if I could get that kind of a response from the minister.

I object to the bill on two counts. One is that I am not altogether convinced there will be the kind of monitoring that is necessary to keep the workplace safe, the kind of monitoring that has generally been done under the former bill, the Loggers’ Safety Act, where I haven’t had too many complaints from either people right in the workplace or from their representatives about the monitoring of all safety aspects dealing with logging. To suggest that it will be done much more efficiently under the Industrial Safety Act, I am told that that is not likely to happen.

I do have those two objections to the bill and perhaps when we get to clause by clause we may get into it in a little bit more detail. Those are all the comments I have on second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? The member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, this bill, as I understand it, doesn’t really change from the Ministry of Natural Resources doing the job to having it handled by the Ministry of Labour. Labour has had the responsibility under the Loggers’ Safety Act for more than a year or better now by an Act of this House.

The thing I don’t particularly like about it, and I’ve said this before, is that I don’t think inspectors who are set up in territories or districts and going on jobs periodically can do the same sort of job the Ministry of Natural Resources was able to do when it had been already on the job, usually for marking timber, for scaling or for all the phases of their operation in the forest.

The other thing is that it will be absolutely necessary to have a certain amount of inspectors with the ability to talk safety language in French as well as English. I think this puts a responsibility on the department to have some inspectors in the northern part in this regard.

Another thing that I think is very important is the consultation about this between the Labour Safety Council, the Forest Products Accident Prevention Association and the Ontario Pulp and Paper Makers Safety Association as well as the industry. I understand this has taken place. I do believe we need this bill in order to do the job that is at hand. I know the minister’s staff cannot work without this bill. I think it is very urgent and I urge the members to agree to the passing of it.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: I have just a few comments to make on the bill.

I was shocked by the statistics that were revealed during our discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Labour and the Industrial Safety Act. I was also shocked by what I feel is a wrong attitude on behalf of the director of the branch in regard to industrial accidents. His comments at that time were simply that there are so many opportunities for an accident to happen and, depending on what the law of averages seems to be this year, we’re going to have accidents. It doesn’t strike me, Mr. Speaker, that this is the kind of attitude we should have in the industrial safety branch.

Those members who come from the north will agree with me, I think, that probably 50 per cent to 60 per cent, if not higher, of our workmen’s compensation cases are back injuries; and, I hate to say this, but most of them come from those people who work and have worked in the bush. There are very few lumberjacks, if we can still use that term to describe the people who do the actual cutting and logging of the timber, who at one time or another in the course of their careers do not wind up with a back injury as a result of the nature of their employment. Therefore, this Act, and the Loggers’ Safety Act, which I don’t feel is really as rigidly enforced as it should be, must have a really strong inspection staff and backup to make them really effective.

Once again, I would plead with the minister in particular that his inspectors under these Acts should contact the employees when they go to inspect a bush operation. The biggest complaint I get from anyone who has to deal with the Industrial Safety Act is that when the union or the employees make a complaint or ask for an inspection, the inspectors come into the plant but very often they don’t contact the people who made the original complaint; they come in, make their inspection and leave. I think it’s incumbent upon these inspectors to deal with the men who are most directly involved and who are liable to be injured because of hazards on the job. I think all of us realize that logging in the bush can result in many accidents and sometimes can lead to fatalities because of the nature of the work.

Mr. Speaker, I have one particular question I hope the minister will respond to. It deals with section 4(3) of the Act. I know we may go over this in committee, but it seems to me I’d like to know for the record exactly what the Act does apply to. If it doesn’t apply to the Crown Timber Act or the Forest Fires Prevention Act, I wonder what there is left for the Act to apply to -- unless I misunderstand that particular clause in the Act.

I suggest to the minister that we will support the bill. It’s obviously been operating under the Minister of Labour for some time, in any case. But we would ask for rigid enforcement of the provisions under it.

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments on this bill before the minister replies? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, the purpose of this Act is to try and improve the safety measures which our ministry is presently carrying out.

The Loggers’ Safety Act is this little blue book, which has specific conditions in it. We wish to repeal this small Act and put it under the Industrial Safety Act, where there is more specific responsibility on the employers. The Industrial Safety Act sets standards which are easier to apply and to enforce than the specific sort of things under the Loggers’ Safety Act. It is in the hope that we can produce greater safety in the logging industry that we are putting these two Acts together.

There is also the problem in the lumbering industry of one operation automatically leading into another operation; where the actual end product is say plywood, the last operation may be under the Industrial Safety Act and the first operation under the Logging Act.

In regard to the questions raised by the member for Welland South, this is one place where we have consulted very closely with the unions involved. They are represented on the Labour Safety Council and it is the lumber and sawmill workers who have representation on that. They, as well as management, are all in agreement that this is a desirable thing to be done and that we should do so. In fact we have promised that we would proceed with it as quickly as possible.

I note what the member says about employees generally having a voice in safety, and I agree wholeheartedly with it. Unless we make the employees more safety conscious, I think we are going to be in continual trouble. They are the ones who know best where dangerous situations exist, and perhaps what can be done about them. So I agree with that. As I say, this is one case where I understand that what the member wants done has generally in fact been done.

There was a suggestion that it was not operating too badly under the former Department of Lands and Forests. We took it over some time ago, as members know, when Lands and Forests was transferred to the Ministry of Natural Resources. We’ve been operating it since that time under the Ministry of Labour, but we have depended a great deal on co-operation from the Ministry of Natural Resources to tell us where some of these operations are going on and to keep us informed.

So my note here is that even though the responsibility for logging safety is with us, the staff of Natural Resources are and will be used locally to make some of these safety checks. That doesn’t mean our people will not be going in too. Our people will be there, but we will be working very closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources.

There was a question from the member for Victoria-Haliburton in regard to the need for French-speaking inspectors. I understand that two of our inspectors in the north at the present time do speak French and that we have two of them who are improving their French, or trying to learn it so that they will be of assistance.

There was the question in regard to where responsibility lies for equipment. My note on that reads this way; that the general law is that the lessor of a machine and its operator remains the employer. The amendment to this section excepts logging operations from this general rule as legislated by section 52. This is an exception and this exception was required by the Labour Safety Council to preserve liability imposed on the logging operator, for those under his control. It is to try to retain the controls where we think it is best that that exception will be legislated; so that the responsibility can remain with the operator himself.

The note that I have underneath that section reads: “Certain activities in logging are subcontracted with the operator provided but no supervisor. Therefore, supervision is always the duty of employer in the case of logging operations.” We want to keep the responsibility with the employer where we think it properly belongs.

Those are the replies I have for the questions asked. I put it forward on the basis that it will help to improve safety in the logging industry.

Mr. Reid: I am not sure about section 4, unless that was just what the minister was explaining. It sure confuses me. Who is covered by subsection (3) of section 4?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I understand in case of a fire or things of that nature that if they can’t comply with all of the regulations that we would ordinarily want to comply with because of the emergency operations, they are therefore exempt. That’s my understanding on that one.

In other words, we set down rules for notification and standards, and if there is an emergency in the way of a forest fire, naturally we think it is more important to get this fire out than comply with all of the various regulations.

Mr. Stokes: Than safety?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think that we are in those cases suggesting that maybe putting the fire out is more important than complying with all of the safety regulations. Now that can be questioned, I suppose. I don’t know whether my staff have any more information for me. I think they are giving me signals that they have some further words on that point.

Mr. Reid: Maybe I could talk to the deputy minister.

Mr. Stokes: Could I ask the minister a question? He was talking about section 5, subsection (2) and I was asking about section 3, subsection (2). Is he saying in his explanation that wherever there is a lessee of equipment, that the responsibility for implementing the Industrial Safety Act remains with the licence holder rather than the lessor of logging equipment?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is my understanding.

The exemption under section 4 of the bill is in respect of notice only, otherwise the Act applies. I thought it went further than that, but I am corrected; so that I say in the case of an emergency all we are exempting are notices.

Mr. Stokes: That sounds better.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I thought it went further than that, but I have been corrected, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 163, An Act to amend the Industrial Safety Act, 1971.

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

DOG LICENSING AND LIVE STOCK AND POULTRY PROTECTION ACT

House in committee on Bill 143, An Act to amend the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the bill. It simply adds another section to the bill. I have copies here for the Clerk and the other parties.

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves that sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the bill be renumbered as sections 8, 9, 10 and 11, respectively, and that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

7. The said Act is amended by adding thereto the following part:

Part III: Damage to Honey-bee Colonies by Bears:

23 (1) Where a colony of honey-bees is damaged or destroyed by a bear, the commissioner, upon the application of the owner of the colony, may pay compensation to the owner in such amount as he considers reasonable.

23(2) For the purpose of determining the amount of compensation that may be paid under subsection (1), a commissioner may appoint a valuer to make an investigation, and the valuer so appointed shall make an investigation and shall make his report in writing within 10 days thereafter to the commission, together with his recommendation respecting compensation.

23(3) No payment in respect of a colony of honey-bees shall exceed (a) $50 for the hive equipment; and (b) $25 for the honey-bees.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this motion be carried?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Chairman, we will certainly support the new section that is being added to Bill 143. It is certainly very similar to the other sections, inasmuch as compensation is being paid now for livestock or poultry injured by wolves and dogs, and it’s simply been extended to include compensation for colonies of honey-bees that have been destroyed due to bears. Certainly we will support that amendment.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, I certainly approve of the amendment in regard to bears destroying honey-bees, and I must say that I’d like to ask a question in regard to poultry destroyed by dogs. In most of the townships they have to have 50 lb of dead poultry before a farmer or poultry producer receives any compensation for birds destroyed by dogs. I might say that this new breed of hens only weigh 2 to 3 lb, sometimes less, and it takes quite a few birds to make up 50 lb.

Also, in regard to Indian reserves, dogs come off reserves and they travel maybe two or three miles, and of course an evaluator is unable to go into the reserve if he can’t get the dog. I know that in a number of areas there are no sheep produced close to reserves. Of course it is going to be quite a problem to deal with this, because you’d have to deal with the federal government, I would expect. It is a hardship on some of those farmers who would like to produce sheep but on account of the dogs coming out of the reserves there is a great risk that they’d destroy a whole flock.

We have, in our area, one farmer who has $100,000 fire insurance on sheep. So this is quite a risk. It’s been brought to my attention, and I wonder if the minister has anything to say about coping with this situation.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate the problem referred to as far as dogs on reserves are concerned, but I think the problem also applies to dogs in urban municipalities. Many people are very critical of the fact that it is difficult to maintain a flock of sheep under normal circumstances close to large urban areas because of the number of dogs that are running at large in those areas.

But it’s not quite confined to either urban areas or Indian reserves; it’s also a matter that there are hybrids or wild dogs, that are also causing some real problems in certain areas of the province.

So, when one looks at the amount of money that is collected by the municipalities under the dog tax Act and then looks at the amount that has been paid out for damages to livestock or poultry, in some of the municipalities at least, it wouldn’t appear that it’s a burden that is unbearable as far as dollars are concerned. But it certainly is a problem to the farmers involved. I don’t really know how one controls the dogs on a reserve any more than one does in an urban area.

I suppose the amendments that have been made to the Act, which are included in section 1 of this Act before us today, vastly increase the authority of the local dogcatcher insofar as enforcing the dog control legislation is concerned. But I haven’t any comment to offer other than that.

The 50 lb minimum on poultry lost is of concern, but I think that most of the laying flocks in this country are under confinement now. The losses that we have heard about have been in connection with ducks or geese or wild fowl that are being raised for commercial purposes of one kind or another. So there is a little difference in the value of those kinds of birds rather than in the value of a straight laying bird of the hybrid species, which admittedly is not very heavy and yet is of pretty substantial value as far as a producer is concerned.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): I have a question that maybe the minister would answer for clarification; it would apply also to this amendment. When damage was paid under the old Wolf Damage to Live Stock Compensation Act, I understood the province reimbursed the municipality for payment made. The province paid direct.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, under the old Act, the Wolf Damage to Live Stock Compensation Act, the province paid direct to the producer for the loss. The loss was estimated or valued by the local Natural Resources officer in the respective area. Under this legislation, the local valuer under the dog tax and livestock Act will do the valuating, the municipality will pay the farmer’s claim, and then we will reimburse the municipality from our ministry for the claim paid for wolves or coyotes or for a hybrid dog.

Mr. Good: Will this reimbursement by the province apply to damage either by wolves or dogs or bears, as well, in this amendment? Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, not by dogs.

Mr. Good: Well, this was the point I wanted clarified and I don’t think that’s been made clear.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, it’s as clear as it can be. The old Act has not been changed in that regard. All this does, and all we have added in these amendments, is to cover a wolf or a hybrid cross between a wolf and a dog. That’s what we will pay for; the dog damage will still be paid for by the municipality. But if the valuer says the damage was caused by a wolf, then the clerk of the municipality submits an account to the livestock commissioner and we reimburse him. That’s how it’s done.

Mr. Good: If it’s bear damage, do you pay that too?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Under the bear damage, we pay it direct. The municipality doesn’t pay it. In this case the amendment reads: “The commissioner, on the application of the owner of the colony, may pay compensation to the owner in such an amount as he considers reasonable.”

So the municipality won’t have anything to do with this. But my guess is it will be the same value; I would say it would be, anyway, the same value for both cases, because these will be so rare that we think the same person can do it.

Bill 143, as amended, reported.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 143, An Act to amend the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR
MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES ACT

Mr. Burr moves second reading of Bill 94, An Act to amend the Ministry of Government Services Act, 1973.

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

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill is to ensure that handicapped persons are employed by all persons with whom the government of Ontario enters into contracts or agreements in excess of $2,500.

A few remarks on the background of this Bill 94 may be useful. Every member of this Legislature knows of cases of handicapped or disabled persons who simply cannot obtain employment unless they are lucky enough to have a friend or a relative in the position of an employer, or fortunate enough to catch the eye or the attention of some compassionate employer.

These handicapped or disabled persons have not only their handicap or their disability to overcome, but also the hurdle presented by an employer’s fear of taking on a poor risk who may very well increase the costs of his Workmen’s Compensation Board payments. Persons with congenital deformities usually have even greater difficulties in finding employment. It is true that many employers have made provision for giving employment to the handicapped; efforts that are much appreciated by those who are aware of their attitudes and their actions. But the time has come -- in fact it’s long past due -- to insist that employable handicapped or disabled persons be given an opportunity to enjoy the dignity of performing useful labour.

With all this in mmd, Mr. Speaker, last year I introduced a private member’s Bill, Bill 123, a bill to amend the Employment Standards Act, which would have required an employer of 20 or more persons to hire one handicapped person for every 30 employees on his payroll -- that is, the 20th, 50th, the 80th, the 110th and so on. Bill 123 did not reach private members’ hour last year, but many people heard about it in different parts of the province and I received some very pathetic letters from handicapped persons.

In my annual report to my riding I described the bill and, among other questions, I asked for the opinion of my constituents on this bill. Seventy-five per cent of those replying favoured it, 15 per cent opposed it and 10 per cent did not express an opinion.

Last year’s Bill 123 was based on the Disabled Persons Employment Acts of 1944 and 1958 in Great Britain. There it was recognized that experience has shown that the great majority of the disabled can take their place with others in ordinary work, provided that their occupations are chosen carefully. Consequently, these Disabled Persons Employment Acts in Great Britain were introduced to assist men and women who were handicapped by disablement to get employment or work which is suitable for them, and which makes the best use of their skills.

To ensure that the disabled get their fair share of opportunities for employment, those Acts provide for the registration of disabled persons, placing upon employers an obligation to employ a quota of registered disabled persons and to reserve vacancies in certain occupations for those registered as disabled. Ontario’s then Minister of Labour, the hon. Fern Guindon, was sympathetic to the purpose of Bill 123 last year and expressed his intention of making inquiries into the workings of the British system on his next trip to the United Kingdom, which he expected to be making soon. Unfortunately, the minster resigned before he was able to carry out his intentions.

A few months ago I met Mr. Bernard Posner, executive director of the President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped, located in Washington, DC. He told me about section 504 of the United States Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which approached this problem from a slightly different angle. According to this legislation, which was being implemented in the United States, any company receiving a federal government contract must prove that it has a positive programme for employment of handicapped persons.

Since the Ministry of Labour has made no move as yet to increase the opportunities for the handicapped to gain meaningful employment by amending the Employment Standards Act, I have introduced Bill 94 this year in the hope of appealing to the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow) to give consideration to this problem. In this way two members of the cabinet may have this matter on their minds and on their consciences.

Discrimination against those who do not enjoy excellent health shows signs of increasing rather than abating. A recent example of this involved a woman in her forties who had worked for 18 years as an efficient, highly skilled secretary with a large company. By chance her employers learned that she was an epileptic. She was told that despite her excellent record she could continue with the company but only on a temporary basis, without such fringe benefits as group insurance or the company pension plan. Other epileptics have similar stories to tell: Even though they have never had a seizure at work they are fired when their employer learns of their ailment.

Not so long ago a Windsor girl, whose epilepsy is apparently under control, was refused employment because she was honest enough to volunteer the information about her epilepsy. As it turned out, the job for which she was applying did have an element of danger. In this case the prospective employer helped her to find another field of employment, but this case seems to be an exception to the trend towards discrimination.

Just this weekend, Mr. Speaker, I heard from another epileptic, a young man who had been working for a large company for 10 months. Someone informed the manager that he was an epileptic. Although he had never had a seizure at work he was called into the office and told -- and I quote: “What you have is bad for business.” He was laid off and has had difficulty gaining employment ever since.

Dr. Keith Meloff, vice-president of the Toronto branch of the Ontario Epilepsy Association, calls such treatment of epileptics “discrimination” and urges that it be made illegal. The Toronto Star supports Dr. Meloff, pointing out that the Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination in employment on several grounds, including age, colour, creed and marital status, but does not mention physical disability.

Handicapped persons do not want charity. In fact, it is charity that they are seeking to avoid. What they want is an opportunity to participate in the useful work of the community. Nor do they expect to be paid a full day’s pay for a half a day’s work. They want equal opportunity, not special favours.

Perhaps one reason that there are not more employers interested in giving handicapped persons job opportunities is the fact that very few employers are aware that they may hire a handicapped person functioning below the standard for a job and, with the minister’s approval under the Employment Standards Act, may pay the handicapped employee a percentage of the wage equal to the percentage of the normal productive standard at which the handicapped employee is functioning.

It is also possible for a handicapped person to be hired for training on the job for one year and the employer may receive up to 50 per cent of the wages for that person.

The former Minister of Labour, officials in his department, and our present minister all have some concern about this problem. I’m aware, of course, that there are difficulties in defining who are the disabled and who are the handicapped. There are problems in determining whether various jobs would present hazards to the handicapped persons themselves and whether the handicapped persons might cause any hazard to other employees. There are of course difficulties, but they can be overcome.

What is the size of the problem that we are discussing today? Unfortunately, there are no accurate or even estimated statistics on the number of disabled, employable disabled, or those disabled already employed in the Province of Ontario.

The rehabilitation branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services has made no research attempt to estimate the number of disabled persons in the general population and can only give us statistics on the number that they are dealing with annually. At present, approximately 9,000 persons are being handled by the rehabilitation branch each year in Ontario. There are approximately 4,400 new referrals each year. Of these, the rehabilitation branch succeeds in placing approximately 1,700 in some kind of employment, depending upon their disability.

There have been two major studies of which I’m aware that have tried to locate the disabled in a national population. One, in the United States, for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, called “Analysis of Statewide Planning Reports for Rehabilitation.” This study found that 3.43 per cent of the national population could use some kind of vocational rehabilitation, meaning that they were potential employables. However, the study included the culturally deprived in their definition of disability Although this is an interesting inclusion, I don’t think that the percentage figure is readily applicable to Ontario for our purposes.

The British study by Emelia I. Harris entitled “Handicapped and Impaired in Great Britain,” found that of the adult population between the ages of 16 and 64, 3.22 per cent of the population had some kind of disability or handicap; 2.24 per cent of these were actually employed; and 0.75 per cent were virtually unemployed because of severe disability. This would mean that in Britain only 0.23 per cent are employable but unemployed, and this, Mr. Speaker, may be a mark of the merit of the United Kingdom’s legislation in this respect.

If these percentages were applied to the Ontario population between the ages of 15 and 64 contained in the Ontario Statistical Review, 1971, the following figures would result:

The total population of 1971 between 15 and 64 was 4,850,600. The total population estimated to have some disability -- that is, using the figure of 3.22 per cent -- would be 156,190. The total population, severely disabled and unemployable, 36,380. The total population with some disability, but employable, 119,810. And the total population with some disability who are employed, 108,653. This leaves us, Mr. Speaker, with approximately 11,000 employable disabled who are unemployed.

These figures must be considered as very tentative since there is a vagueness in the British definitions of disability and employment and it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to apply figures from one country to another. Britain also poses additional problems in this way, since its wartime casualties with lifelong disabilities are much more numerous.

Bill 94 stipulates that any employer who has a contract exceeding $2,500 with the provincial government must have a positive programme that shows an interest in helping the handicapped by providing job opportunities. The Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Government Services and the Human Rights Code may all provide avenues of approach for helping to provide meaningful work for the handicapped and the disabled.

Legislation by itself cannot solve the problem. But it can certainly help to draw the problem to the attention of managers, personnel directors and employers. Public discussion, such as we are having in this private members’ hour today, may be of assistance too.

Whatever the most effective method turns out to be, I urge those members now present in the House to support Bill 94 as a means of commending to the government of Ontario and to employers in this province, both large and small, the urgent need to give the handicapped and disabled citizens of this province opportunities to obtain and enjoy independence, dignity and self-esteem through useful employment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Oshawa.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, I can’t support the bill the way it is now written, although the general purpose of the bill of helping handicapped is certainly laudable.

The vast majority of handicapped people want to work their way through life and not be a burden in terms of public welfare, and they want to contribute their fair way to society. But I can’t help but think that if we put through a bill of this type that we tie the handicapped up in such red tape that rather than help them, we would do a great deal to hinder them.

This afternoon, I want to tell about an experience of our own select committee on utilization, of educational facilities with the handicapped at the first public meeting that we held in Thunder Bay. It was a cold night in the middle of February when we arrived at a high school for a public meeting that we had publicized.

When we got off the bus there were 21 people in wheelchairs at the foot of the stairs. They wouldn’t hear of anybody carrying them up the stairs except members of the select committee.

I can remember the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) was there that night, and so was the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson). The biggest handicapped person waited for the member for Lambton and myself. I guess he weighed about 240 lb. There were 53 stairs, I remember, to go up. At the top of the stairs, we had to go down 17 stairs, along a hall and up 12 more stairs to where we were meeting.

When the person who was speaking for the handicapped got up to talk about his brief, the chairman said, “You don’t need to read your brief. We’ll recommend that facilities be put in for the handicapped.” We came back and made that recommendation to the Legislature; following that, the government picked up the recommendation. I don’t know whether our committee had anything to do with the recommendation coming into force, but certainly it helped.

Regarding this particular bill, how are we going to judge the handicapped? How are we going to express the percentages that we want? What type of handicaps is he going to consider? The types that I find fall into two categories. One is the mentally handicapped, who are every bit as important as the physically handicapped. The physically handicapped also fall into a lot of other subgroups. Most certainly a person who is hard of hearing or aurally handicapped has to he taken into consideration. Then there are the visually handicapped. One would have to scale all these.

The member for Sandwich-Riverside made a point about the epileptic being handicapped. I can think of a number of other diseases. Even the diabetic could be discriminated against by certain employers because of his medical condition. I can think of lots of the arthritides that could be certainly discriminated against because of their handicap. How are you going to judge these handicaps, Mr. Speaker? Are you going to put them in a five, 10 or 15 per cent category? We’d have the same problems as the compensation board only multiplied many times over.

I feel that we should develop a much more positive approach and work through the Ministry of Labour and through the Ontario Human Rights Commission and make sure that it is written out in the legislation that these people can’t be discriminated against, the same as by age and sex. I was talking to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Youth Secretariat (Mr. Timbrell), before the meeting. He said that in the member’s own riding of Sandwich-Riverside one of his own people who is a handicapped person was quite active -- and that’s Rosemarie Commisso -- in his ministry last summer as one of his help.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): She lives in my riding. She lives in Windsor-Walkerville and is a very capable young lady.

Mr. McIlveen: Yes. This is the type of person we should be encouraging to get to come along, but we should offer them opportunities and not to try to force something down somebody’s throat.

He also tells me he had a very active programme where he had four handicapped people acting as a task force last summer to report back to his secretariat. The report is now in and his secretariat is pursuing the recommendations through all government ministries. This is the type of positive approach that I would like to see. He also tells me that in Experience ‘75 they removed the “handicapped” title in the application form and the jobs will be on the ability to do the jobs.

Most certainly the people that I have seen in my practice who are handicapped, and physically handicapped, have no end of ability. They have all sorts of ability in the world. They have the time to learn special things. They develop other senses to a very, very high degree. All we have to do is present the opportunities. I would far sooner take the carrot approach rather than a hammer to the head of any employer.

For instance, a single lawyer could easily do $2,500 worth of business with the government a year. How could one actually get that type of person to develop the skills that we want developed for these people?

There is work around for them. We have to work harder to find them work. We have to work harder to find them opportunities. I think that is going forth in the Youth Secretariat. I hope it’s going forth in all ministries. I can’t support the bill the way it is presently constituted but most certainly I do support the idea behind it. I think we as government should be doing much more for the handicapped than we are even at present.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to rise to support the principle of the bill, that is: to provide employment opportunities for those who are physically and/or mentally handicapped -- regardless of the type of handicap. As long as they can do certain types of operations, we should not discriminate against them one iota.

However, I do not agree with the member as far as the amount of an agreement is concerned. I don’t think there should be any limit whatsoever -- even if the job is only a $10 job that is tendered out. If it can be performed by a physically handicapped or a mentally retarded individual, I think that that individual should have the opportunity to perform that job.

In the first instance, Mr. Speaker, I think it’s up to government to set the example. The employers always hesitate to get involved. They look and say: “Well, why should I come along and perform this job. It is essentially the responsibility of government to set an example.” If government were to set an example, then I think it would find the employers would readily follow suit. They would find that the people they are employing are, in many instances, more capable of performing the work than are those who are mentally and physically alert and capable.

Any of us who have ever visited one of the A-R-C Industries in a community find that we couldn’t perform the jobs that these mentally retarded people do. We couldn’t come along and do it as efficiently, as accurately and as well as they are doing it -- simply because we would find it a little too monotonous, too dreary for us to perform those operations.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the government in the first instance could come along and take the recommendations of the select committee on the utilization of educational facilities and implement the recommendations of that committee as far as making opportunities available for the physically handicapped. I am referring to furthering opportunities as a result of physical construction of various types of governmental facilities. For example, recommendation No. 24 of the committee states:

“The government of Ontario should assure access for the physically handicapped to all community facilities through the adoption of the National Building Code, supplement 5.”

I think that is the kind of thing that should be implemented. I know it is in the building code now. I made mention of it to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) when we were discussing one part of his legislation.

Now, the select committee on the use of schools also concerned itself with present facilities that are not readily accessible to the handicapped. Recommendation No. 25 says:

“The government of Ontario should provide special funds to school boards and municipalities for the adaptation of all existing community facilities to make them accessible to the physically handicapped.”

The recommendation is for government to provide 80 per cent of the funding and the municipal organization to provide the other 20 per cent. Were we to come along and implement those two recommendations, we would find that many physically handicapped today could at least enter some of the buildings so that they could be gainfully employed at some of the tasks that are being performed in those buildings. But when government hesitates to come along and at least allow access to facilities to the handicapped, I think they are not acting with justice.

Mr. Speaker, just this past week -- that is, one week today -- elections took place throughout the Province of Ontario. In some areas the snowfall was the heaviest it had been in approximately 100 years. Yet government hasn’t made provision for the physically handicapped to be able to vote in a general area or to have drive-in voting; or at least make the voting much easier for the physically handicapped. That also is an essential part of life as far as the physically handicapped are concerned.

Not all governments, Mr. Speaker, disregard the physically handicapped. For example, I think in the United States they have gone a little further than we have here and they have sort of set the example. Wherever the example is good in the United States I think we should copy it. I think we should forget about their bad features and adopt what we find can be adopted and is meritorious as far as we in Canada are concerned.

For nine years, the physically and emotionally disabled have been faced with a nearly impenetrable series of barriers when looking for a job: prejudice, insensitivity, misguided pity. Even in the design of architecture we have neglected the physically handicapped. Using their statistics and rerouting them into Canada, we would find that approximately one million Canadians have disabilities serious enough to affect them in getting a job or holding it, if we use our present criteria.

The handicapped claim that they are the invisible minority. But they shouldn’t be invisible. They should be an extremely active minority and they should pressure governments at all levels and continue to apply pressure up until the time at least equal job opportunities are available to them. Their physical handicap, or their mental retardation and other types of handicaps that they may suffer, should not bar them from job opportunities.

As the member for Sandwich-Riverside did mention, the US government requires three million firms that do business with it to include disabled in their mandatory affirmative action employment programmes. They have got to have programmes to accommodate the physically handicapped. California and several other states recently included the disabled under fair employment practices laws, giving them the same protection now enjoyed by ethnic and religious minorities, women and older workers.

The disabled, Mr. Speaker, now are becoming more and more vocal. Individually and in activist groups you find them throughout the length and breadth of all countries and legislators are slowly paying attention to their special needs. Industry today is doing much more than it has in the past but it still has a very long way to go.

The human resources centre in Albertson, NY, is one of the leading rehabilitation organizations in the US. It alone has placed 200 severely disabled workers with 33 major corporations. The centre is funded by the federal authorities. It has a placement bureau and in addition to training individuals, it goes around actually finding job opportunities for them. They follow up on the individual to see if the individual is fulfilling his responsibilities, and to date they have found very few failures.

In their approach to industry, they attempt to point out to the companies that they don’t look for pity. They simply want them to hire the individual on his ability to perform the services required. They are finding now in the States that the attitude toward the handicapped is gradually changing.

We hope that it could change at a much more rapid pace, so that no longer would we find those who are disadvantaged having others taking advantage of their disability.

The rehabilitation centre in a Los Amigos, Calif., hospital has placed over 100 severely disabled persons every year since its operation. In the types of people it has helped it includes paraplegics, persons who have suffered brain injuries resulting in partial paralysis or loss of speech, multiple amputees, and those with more than one type of disability. Even individuals with emotional disabilities have been taken care of and placed by the hospital in Los Amigos, Calif.

Generally, they find it depends on how an individual presents his case to an employer before he’s hired. If a person comes to an employer and says, “I’m a schizophrenic,” then the employer hesitates to employ him. But if the individual presents his case normally, in a straight fashion, explaining the situation and not going into the long medical terms, he finds no difficulty in getting employment.

One of the corporations in the US that really surprised me in its approach to the handicapped is Hughes Aircraft Co. in Culver City, Calif. Of the 38,000 workers that they have, 12 per cent of them -- 12 per cent, Mr. Speaker -- have some form of serious disability. Twelve per cent of their work force is handicapped. They studied the handicapped very carefully, and it’s not a cost item to them in group insurance, in workmen’s compensation or in any other way. There is literally no impact on their insurance rates. Moreover, they’ve looked very carefully at some of the studies that suggest the opposite and they’ve found that all of those studies are inaccurate as far as their own employment of the handicapped is concerned.

Sears, Roebuck in the United States has a quota of five per cent of its 400,000 employees who are disabled They say of their studies:

“We are unable to determine that our affirmative action programme of hiring the disabled has affected our overall insurance costs. We tried to develop the data, but we found there just wasn’t any.”

So we can see there is no statistical evidence to indicate that those who have employed the physically handicapped have to suffer as a result of increased premium charges for insurance or workmen’s compensation. In fact, they find that the safety record of those who are handicapped is better by far than those who are normal in every respect.

In conclusion, I would like to say that one of the things that does disturb me is that in our province, the banner province in Canada, we still don’t have any formal rehabilitation training -- training to develop rehab officers. There is no community college. There is no university. There is no facility that trains rehabilitation officers who can take the handicapped and assist them in becoming gainfully employed. Anyone who is a rehab officer has learned rehabilitation by the hit-or-miss method, by applying his own mental abilities to develop programmes or methods or approaches to enable the handicapped to get employment.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside as far as the legislation is concerned, that we should do everything we possibly can to hire the handicapped. But I don’t agree that there should be any financial limitation as to the size of the contract and saying that once it’s over that contract amount we must employ them. We should employ the handicapped all the time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. Before the hon. member starts, there are still three speakers on my list here; one from each of the parties. We have about 21 minutes left, so try to divide the time equally.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): The member for Windsor West, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, what did I say?

Mr. Bounsall: Walkerville.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, I am sorry. My apologies.

Mr. Bounsall: With the three Windsor members speaking on this bill, I’m sure that you can be forgiven.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): It’s a Windsor bill.

Mr. Bounsall: Right. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pleasure to speak to this bill presented by the hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside, and to strongly support it.

I think the thrust of his bill is exactly correct. It is a bill which the government should be able to adopt. I say the thrust is correct because this would be the first stage of a series of three stages that should be taken by the government in establishing employment for the handicapped and the disabled in this province, be they physically, mentally or emotionally disabled.

I can see that the government may well think that it should proceed in stages, and this would be a reasonable stage. We’re not saying to the government to pass a law which requires companies in this province to hire the handicapped and the disabled on a percentage basis. We’re not saying that companies should hire the handicapped and disabled if they have the slightest amount of business with the government. We are saying here is a figure, to which I am sure the mover of this bill is not specifically tied, and any company or group of people doing more than $2,500 business under contract with the government should hire disabled and handicapped people. It would be the first stage.

Not every company doing business with the government would therefore need to have this provision applied to them particularly, but many companies would. Then, over a period of some months, the government would determine if there are any problems and get the facts as to the employment performance of the disabled and handicapped so employed.

The next logical step would be to having all companies or groups under contract with the government, including the government itself, taking on a prescribed percentage of disabled or handicapped; then, fairly quickly after that, requiring that industry employ the handicapped on a percentage basis. But in the initial stages the government would be, as they should be doing, taking the lead and setting the example in this area.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board report for the year 1973-1974 reported an increase in compensable accidents of 18 per cent over the previous year, which means that there are no doubt more disabled in our population of Ontario seeking employment and no doubt finding what they have always found when they have a disablement pension from the Workmen’s Compensation Board, that as soon as they mention that they are on a pension or that they are available for light work, not a company in this province will touch them or will hire them only with great reluctance.

I see this as an opportunity where those companies, particularly those companies with which the worker was injured, would be required and encouraged by this type of legislation to re-employ their own employees who have become disabled and to find -- in fact, to devise if necessary -- light work around their particular plant or operation to employ the physically disabled who have become disabled because of an injury in the work place. As I have already mentioned, those injuries are on the increase. This type of bill would assist in that area.

I am also interested and concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the situation in the industrial workshops that exist in our psychiatric hospitals around the province. In those institutions the mentally and emotionally disabled, particularly the emotionally disabled, are employed at a rate which is much below their actual productivity. Normal working rates surely would then start to apply if handicapped and disabled persons were employed, and those emotionally disabled persons getting employment through industrial workshops in our psychiatric hospitals would therefore be performing work that was both a therapy and somewhat of a training, although the training aspect in our industrial workshops, leaves something to be desired, and those persons would be getting their fair wage.

Studies done on the employment of disabled and handicapped show that the handicapped workers -- and the more handicapped, the greater the effect -- try harder, work harder, are more loyal to their employers and are more settled in their employment than are non-handicapped and non-disabled persons. These facts are clear for us to see. All we need is a lead to be taken by this government so that they can take those facts from many locations in the Province of Ontario to those other employers in Ontario who are not required to participate in the programme when the second or third stage of this planned phase-in becomes applicable.

Mr. Speaker, with an eye to the time and the restrictions, I will end my remarks and urge the government to very seriously consider adopting this Act to amend the Ministry of Government Services Act introduced by the member for Sandwich-Riverside, the thrust of which, of course, is to see that our handicapped and our disabled in this province receive employment.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. The member for Peel South.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to have an opportunity to speak briefly on this bill. I certainly support the thoughts and sentiments expressed in it by the member for Sandwich-Riverside in bringing it forward. He displayed considerable research; he’s done some work on the subject and I commend him for it.

I came across a news clipping, Mr. Speaker, and I think it’s a couple of years old. The “Star Forum” had a meeting on transportation in Toronto, and in answer to a question one of the spokesmen said there are 200,000 people in Metro with physical disabilities, which is certainly a considerable number. I didn’t appreciate that there were that many. I suppose it runs the range from very minor disabilities to significant, substantial and very serious ones. But that is a large number within Metropolitan Toronto alone, and perhaps with the population as it is there might be double that or even more across the province.

I’m not sure of the categories with which we’re dealing with respect to this bill. The member for Oshawa touched on this. We know of people who are on compensation; people who are convalescing from illnesses. They’re handicapped. There are those who are physically and permanently handicapped and a whole range, a great variety of disabilities. This, as I see it, would be one of the difficulties.

Actually, most of the inquiries I get from the handicapped, for some reason which I don’t understand, are not so much with respect to employment as they are regarding transportation and other services. The handicapped, to quite an extent, are for all intents and purposes shut-ins. So they inquire as to the facilities that are available whereby they can have a fuller life by being provided with such things as transportation and whatever the transportation can take them to in the way of entertainment or, indeed, significant social discussions and political discussions or suchlike.

We have in our county the Peel Association for Handicapped Adults. I might say, too, that this is just one group that points out the increased awareness among the public of the needs of these people. There are other groups such as this. There is the Etobicoke Association for the Handicapped. I’ve had considerable correspondence from Mrs. Jane Plumb on the same topic. We have the A-R-C Industries programme, which the member for Windsor-Walkerville referred to. We have retail stores: if I can name one, Simpsons-Sears makes provision whereby their employees, on their time, make available their services to help the handicapped with their shopping. This is a commendable and tremendous idea. All these things are helpful in bringing this need forward.

The Peel Association for the Handicapped, in a newsletter they put out last April, mentioned Michael Yale, a 30-year-old blind lawyer who is compiling research in the areas of employment possibilities for the physically handicapped. It goes on and speaks of this. Though they mention this is a Metro Toronto study, it should be of interest to all handicapped people who have something to offer in the job market. This is so true. I’m not sure what has come of that. I know the ministry is conscious of the problem and they’re working on it.

I have a recent letter from a Mr. Todd, an accountant, with respect to the sightless, in which he explains that the CNIB has made arrangements for employment on the telephone service of the Toronto office of Revenue Canada. They’ve agreed to employ four sightless people. Following an examination given by their officials, it was decided by them that they were qualified to do this work. This again is some indication of the interest associated with this need.

Mr. Speaker, I touched on this. In the bill I see some practical difficulties in applying it. Again I agree with the member who said he didn’t particularly see the need for the $2,500 figure. I suppose it’s a target. I don’t know why he needs one at all. You could have a lesser figure or contract where the handicapped might do the whole thing, Mr. Speaker. We don’t know. The bill calls for the minister not to enter into a contract or an agreement with a contractor unless he has in his employ a percentage of handicapped persons. I don’t wish to pick any nits in regard to this, but some contractors may not employ anyone. Everything is sublet, so it has to filter down to whoever is doing the work presumably. I see all kinds of problems in identifying people who are capable of doing what might be appropriate to them. Perhaps in searching around, it would take such a period whereby it would bog down the contract. Possibly a system of registration or a categorization where the degree of handicap is noted or the capacity, where the qualifications are noted and where they could go through some service organization, whereby one would just pick out the people that are suitable for whatever the job is, would be a suitable way of handling this.

I see these problems, but I think that they are not insurmountable, though they possibly aren’t easy. I mentioned a few blind people who are working, but there are many, many areas, in government where there are people who are handicapped who are working and, as was said earlier, doing just an excellent job. I think what we need to do is two things: categorize the people and know their qualifications and abilities and, secondly, do what we can to ensure the awareness of the capacity and what these people have to offer and that the job market is known to industry and to government, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Haggerty: I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on Bill 94. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the handicapped persons are employed when government enters into contracts or agreement with the agencies. I support the principle of the bill with perhaps one reservation that no monetary limits should be set on the contracts or agreements.

I believe the member for Sandwich-Riverside has been trying to convey to the government that more direction and input by the many government departments are necessary and that there is a lack of leadership in the field to assist the handicapped citizens in employment in Ontario. Perhaps the hiring policy in Ontario or in the government here has neglected the handicapped persons.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long road for many individuals and organizations such as the Canadian Rehabilitation Council, the mentally retarded associations in Ontario and the many service clubs which have entered upon programmes to upgrade the public image and the social status of the disabled. These special groups of citizens have provided funds to tackle the social issue and through their effects have shown that the government of the past two or three decades was moving in the wrong direction.

It is not until the last decade that the government agencies actually have taken an active part in many rehabilitation programmes in Ontario. My remarks are perhaps directed more to the retarded handicapped persons and the emotionally disturbed youth of Ontario. Not too long ago retarded children were discarded children, perhaps placed in some institution and forgotten.

But I have seen, Mr. Speaker, the results of many concerned citizens in developing in a short period of time an effective delivery system in rehabilitation centres within the Niagara region. The associations have assisted the afflicted person to make the most of his life; the opportunity to participate and to contribute to a state of self-fulfillment and independence.

Mr. Speaker, I speak particularly of the Niagara Training and Employment Agency Inc. -- NTEC -- located in Port Robinson. It’s too bad I don’t have more time to get into the details of the programme, but they have educated many to a point of self-care and semi-independence. In fact, a number of those in this particular type of training programme have become self-supporting. I wish that members of the Legislature could go down and see this programme that is available for the handicapped persons in the region.

They are taught to look after the care and maintenance of greenhouses. They are taught the care and maintenance of parks. They are taught the care and maintenance -- particularly the pruning -- of the fruit orchards in the Niagara Peninsula.

I often wonder, as close as we are to the Niagara Parks Commission -- if these people could be employed along the Niagara parks system, with little, if any, direction. I think they could go out and do a job by themselves, such as mowing the lawns, doing the gardening work -- say in the flower beds along the whole frontier of the Niagara River. I believe that there is ample opportunity for these persons, if we give them the opportunity to be employed.

Last Friday, a group of men were parading -- I shouldn’t say parading, but perhaps showing their dissatisfaction with the government’s present disabled workmen’s compensation programmes. We’ve seen it down here for the past couple of weeks. You look at the rehabilitation under the Workmen’s Compensation Board -- the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) is not here -- but it is perhaps one of the weakest rehabilitation programmes there is in the Province of Ontario. If the government had a sound rehabilitation programme, those persons wouldn’t be marching in protest down below in the main corridor of this building.

If the government had a good programme, they wouldn’t be there. And I think that this is what is lacking with the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I should say, perhaps, in winding up, Mr. Speaker, all levels of government and their agencies should be developing a programme of creating equality of opportunity for the many handicapped citizens in Ontario. I strongly support the bill.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I think I have informed the other two parties that we have determined that the House will not sit this evening. I would ask the members opposite to be prepared tomorrow for whatever remains on the order paper for those ministers who I can get my hands on. And then we would revert, of course, to the first item on the order paper.

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

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House and I think it is very fitting that our former Speaker, the member for Waterloo South (Mr. Reuter), who I believe is going to be honoured tonight, and our present Speaker (Mr. Rowe) have a full evening devoted to their attention by the members of the House. I advise you all to attend; I’m sure you will enjoy yourselves.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6 o’clock, p.m.