Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, earlier today some students from North Toronto Collegiate had a tour of the legislative buildings. They are in the west gallery now, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Batt. I know the members here would like to join with me in giving them a welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

RESTRUCTURING OF PUBLIC UTILITIES

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the approval of guidelines for the restructuring of electric utilities in areas or regions covered by restructured local government. The guidelines emanate from the report of the government committee on the restructuring of public utilities chaired by Mr. William Hogg, president of Great Lakes Power. The committee included representation from the Ontario Municipal Electric Association, the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee, the Association of Municipal Electric Utilities, the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs and Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, the committee is to be complimented on the resolution of many contentious issues which heretofore have hindered the restructuring of electrical distribution systems in areas now served by regional government.

In those regions where local authorities wish to proceed with the restructuring process, I intend to call meetings of representatives of the municipal governments involved, the electric utilities, Ontario Hydro and other interested bodies, with a view to expediting arrangements for the quickest possible resolution of the situation.

I wish to emphasize that the initiation of restructuring will be at the local level. We will only take part in restructuring studies and programmes when we are invited to do so by the local authorities. Recognizing that in the future other counties may wish to inaugurate studies leading towards overall restructuring, we will be available to participate at their invitation.

In some of the regions affected I understand that exhaustive, detailed studies have already been conducted, by Ontario Hydro and in some cases the local utilities. Much groundwork has therefore already been done which could simplify and expedite the process of restructuring.

The guidelines call for maximum input at the local level to ensure that any restructuring of utilities is carried out to best serve local interests. Equitable rate structures for all customers within the region would be a primary objective.

The guidelines allow for local discussion on the question of appointed or elected officials. I recognize that some of the guidelines suggested by the Hogg committee may indeed not receive local support. The government makes it clear that consideration will be given to alternative solutions put forward by local authorities in support of an early resolution of the problem.

I am assured by Ontario Hydro that the corporation stands ready to assist local utilities and municipalities with necessary technical advice and support.

I am tabling today a statement entitled “The Restructuring of Public Utilities” which describes in detail the guidelines related to restructuring of public utilities.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): When are we going to hear the minister on energy policy?

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I announce today the establishment of the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped; and it is with pride that I tell members that the chairmanship has been accepted by Mr. Edward Dunlop, the distinguished former member of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, more than half a million Ontario residents are physically handicapped and more than one third of them have a very severe disability. They are in every age group and in every income group.

The council, with its chairman and 18 members, will provide a direct voice to government. It is our intention to seek the advice of those, who through no fault of their own, encounter problems with many of the facets of life which the rest of us take for granted.

Some of those who will serve on the council are physically handicapped. All of them have worked on behalf of the handicapped and have shared in their heartaches and their victories.

Under the terms of reference, the Council for the Physically Handicapped has been asked:

1. To advise the government of Ontario on matters pertaining to the well-being of the physically handicapped.

2. To further promote the development and creation of opportunities for self help for the physically handicapped to their satisfaction and advantage.

3. To review current policies which have a bearing on handicaps involving the areas of education, employment, rehabilitation, income maintenance, health measures, services and facilities -- including government -- housing, transportation, recreation, guardianship and other related services.

This is the fourth advisory council appointed that reports through me as Provincial Secretary for Social Development. I am confident that the members of this council, like those on the Status of Women, Multiculturalism and Senior Citizen Advisory Councils, will help us to find solutions to their problems in their own way.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for York North.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Mr. Speaker, it has just been drawn to my attention we have a very distinguished guest in our galleries today. Present in the visitors gallery today, along with his fellow students from Earl Haig Secondary School in North York, is Howard Kotchie, who at the age of 13, in the year 1973, competed for and won both the Ontario provincial and Canadian national championship for singles 10-pin bowling in the bantam division.

Howard was born in North York on Sept. 4, 1959. He intends to compete this year for both championships and has already qualified in the preliminary competition. He is a fine example of our Canadian youth on the move.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, just while we are in the mood, I know you would like to welcome a former colleague and friend of us all, Mr. George Bukator, the mayor of Niagara Falls.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure we would.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mayor of all the people.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The leader of the Opposition.

SALES TAX ON AUTOMOBILES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Revenue. Is he prepared to change his policy statement yesterday which indicated he would not refund the sales tax on the cost reduction portion of the automobile sales, in view of the fact that recent statistics show that unemployment in this province has jumped from 4.6 per cent to six per cent in one month, twice as big an increase in unemployment as any other province?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, the application of the tax in cases like that, I would suggest, would have -- well, I suppose I would want to leave that perhaps to the judgement of others, such as the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), but I would expect it would have little if any impact on the transaction.

Mr. Roy: Ah, that’s wrong. It’s about $35.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That is as to whether the transaction is completed or is not completed.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): How would the minister know?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I have learned there is another way in which at least one company, I understand, has been able to accomplish the same end as suggested by the hon. member, namely by rebating the money through the dealer for the reduction in the sale price of the vehicle. On that basis then, the net cost of the vehicle is the amount upon which the tax is based, rather than the larger sum.

The companies that have taken the other route are of course dealing in a third-party relationship, and my ministry doesn’t have the audit facilities to get involved with determining whether in fact there has been a sale price at a lesser amount. By the terms of the Retail Sales Tax Act the sale has taken place at the larger price, and I don’t think I would be in a position to treat those any differently. There is a mechanism though, as I’ve indicated, which at least one company is following by way of that rebate.

I hasten to add that in doing it that way, it strikes me that it might be prejudicial to the purchaser if he is endeavouring to finance the purchase of that vehicle to the full extent. If, for example, the financing company behind the transaction is prepared to go to say, 80 per cent of the sale price, and if the sale price is reduced by the $400, $500 or $600 rebate, then the extent of the financing would also be reduced. However, if the transaction is completed in the other manner at the larger price, on which sales taxes of course then have to be calculated, but then the purchaser receives his rebate direct from the manufacturer, that rebate has not influenced his arrangements for financing. So it might be for that reason -- perhaps there are others -- that some of the manufacturers have chosen to take the direct route from manufacturer to customer rather than through their own dealers.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the minister and I and some others believe in the free enterprise system, and the car manufacturing companies are dipping into their profits to spur the sales of cars and therefore to spur employment in the auto industry, would not this imaginative minister

-- and he must be imaginative when we look at some of the legislation he has brought forward --

Mr. Roy: The Land Speculation Tax Act and things like that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- couldn’t he find some procedure whereby the $35 maximum payment, which in my view he is keeping unfairly, could be returned to the purchaser? I would think that even the publicity associated with it would be a spur to car buying.

Mr. Roy: He could put his name on the rebate cheques.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, we have investigated the possibility of some kind of approach like that, but the hon. member must remember that the Act has certain definitions in it as to what constitutes a contract. This is a transaction tax, and I am afraid that living within that Act, I have not tried to find a way around it so much as to try to indicate to the manufacturers and the dealers that there is a way in which their transaction could be exempt with respect to the discount inasmuch as it could be sent back through the dealer if they wished to do it that way.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Singer: Wouldn’t the minister agree there are sufficient discretions in the statute to allow him to exercise his discretions which are really designed to allow the minister to get at the real intent, the real essence and the real thrust of the transaction? Couldn’t he use those discretions, which he insisted that the Legislature give him when those statutes went through the House?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced there is a discretion that is reposed in me as the minister with respect to that kind of provision. There is discretion in section 8 of the Ministry of Revenue Act itself to do that by way of order in council, but each one of those would have to be a specific decision.

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

NORTH PICKERING AIRPORT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of the Environment: Has he recommended to his cabinet colleagues that communication be sent to the government of Canada recommending the abandonment of the programme to build an airport at Pickering, or has he personally contacted the federal Minister of Transport in this regard?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, if I heard the question correctly, I have made the responses that are necessary as the member representing the riding of Ontario South; if the member cares to read the news media, he will see exactly what I have done.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the news media prompted the question, what has the minister done in response to a quote in his personal report from the Legislature in the Pickering Post, Feb. 6, where he says, and I quote:

“That is why I strongly urge everyone in opposition to the plan to get in touch immediately with the federal Minister of Transport. It may be our last chance to express opposition.”

If that is so, wouldn’t he consider that he, as a minister of the Crown, has a responsibility, speaking for this cabinet, to express that view; that surely this cabinet could stop that airport with a phone call, if in fact it wanted to?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition party has asked me a question as far as the cabinet is concerned --

Mr. Roy: Answer the question.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Just wait a minute!

Hon. W. Newman: I will tell the member this much, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Jean Marchand and his cabinet colleagues are sitting down there waffling, sitting on their fannies; they have gone through two sets of hearings. The member knows it’s a political decision that has to be made in Ottawa and don’t try to pin it on anybody else.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: By God, I didn’t mean to turn him on that way. I would simply put a question to the minister as another supplementary.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Don’t try that again.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Certainly our policy is clear in this; what is the policy of the government? Do they want the airport to continue or not? What is the government’s policy? What is the minister’s policy?

Hon. W. Newman: We just told the member what we did.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Surely we can ask questions with a little less noise. I don’t mean the noise from the members asking questions, but the surrounding noise. Is there in answer?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): This is a rowdy place.

Hon. W. Newman: I don’t really know what their policy is over there. I don’t think they can ever really sort it out.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Our policy is that it should not go forward, and we have expressed it clearly. What’s the government’s policy? The minister is part of the government. What’s his policy?

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a non-controversial subject -- since he really doesn’t know what their policy is -- and this is to the Attorney General --

Interjections by hon. members.

PINBALL MACHINES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This is non-controversial and perhaps almost as important. In a visit to Ryerson a week ago, it was brought to my attention that there seems to be an uneven application of the enforcement of the federal law prohibiting the use of pinball machines. Can the Attorney General tell us the status of that law as far as the application in Ontario is concerned; and why pinball machines seem to be used in many parts of the province without any problem, but we have raiding squads going down to Ryerson saying that if they are continued in use it will be designated a common gaming house or something like that?

Mr. Roy: Don’t they have anything better to do?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): I will be glad to tell the Leader of the Opposition; as long as I don’t turn him on again, that’s all. Under the Criminal Code, pinball machines fall within the definition of slot machines and are forbidden.

Mr. Roy: That’s not what the judges say.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am telling the member what the Criminal Code says. In some jurisdictions the police have been directed by the provincial authorities, who have the responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the Criminal Code, not to prosecute or lay charges under those sections.

It was drawn to my attention yesterday by a member of the House that the federal Minister of Justice had written to someone at Ryerson, I believe, positively indicating, at least from my reading of the letter, that he intended to introduce legislation very shortly to amend the Criminal Code to permit the keeping and using of pinball machines. On the strength of that letter, I wrote this morning to the federal Minister of Justice -- I have had no communication directly with him on it -- asking for his confirmation of that and when we might anticipate that type of legislation.

Until the legislation is amended there is no way we can preclude any law officer from going out and enforcing those sections of the Code which are still the law of the land. Therefore, we find ourselves being placed in the position of having legislation that apparently is going to be changed, but until it is changed it is there and must be enforced by the police officers of this province.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: I think that the answer is an important one. The thing that concerns me is why there is an uneven enforcement across the province. Certainly I can go and play a game of pinball in certain areas that I know of in my constituency, or perhaps in Ottawa itself as somebody has suggested.

Mr. Roy: Not so much in Ottawa.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why is there this uneven enforcement, if in fact the minister feels that he is compelled to enforce the letter of the law, even though it seems to be an ass?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I can only speak from the administration of justice side. I must say that if the law is there then I presume police forces take different views. Some feel that they won’t bother, and that they can turn their efforts to other activities of law enforcement. Others feel that while it’s there it should be enforced. Until such time as the federal legislation is amended, as I stated earlier, it is a prohibition within the entire country and it’s up to the individual police forces to take whatever attitude they must. I am not going to place myself in any position, and I’m not going to speak for the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr), but I’m not going to direct the Crown Attorneys of this province not to prosecute it because eventually the federal law might well be changed.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary.

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

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this has been an ongoing problem for a couple of years and that there are conflicting court decisions about interpreting the Criminal Code, doesn’t the minister have anything better to do than to go and seize pinball machines? In fact if he is going to enforce the law --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Ask your supplementary question.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Let the member see his boys in Ottawa.

Mr. Roy: I ask the minister, if he is going to enforce the law, is he going to seize all machines including the one in the basement of my colleague the hon. member for York-Forest Hill (Mr. Givens)?

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): And the Albany Club.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I didn’t catch the address there. It’s not a matter of having nothing better to do, it’s a matter of this province being seized with a responsibility, as the member knows full well, carrying out the provisions of the Criminal Code.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about Sunday closing laws?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Clement: If the member finds that section of the Criminal Code so offensive, why doesn’t he put pressure on his colleagues at Ottawa to bring it into abeyance?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s what we’re doing. We’re raising it in this forum. The minister is our Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: What’s the Liberal policy?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Downsview wishes to ask a supplementary. This will be the last supplementary on this question.

Mr. Singer: Would the Attorney General not agree that the pertinent section of the Code which relies on the judicial interpretation as to whether the particular device is a game of skill or a game of chance is open to different interpretations? Would he not be impressed by the fact that the Province of Nova Scotia not only says that that section of the Code does not apply to pinball machines, but licenses them; that the Province of British Columbia presently has declared a moratorium because its Attorney General does not believe the section can be reasonably interpreted against pinball machines; that in Ottawa there is at least one court decision which has indicated that these machines do not come under the Code; and that in Toronto there’s apparently a different view? Wouldn’t the Attorney General believe there should be some consistency, and at least pause in the present enforcement of this section until there’s a definitive court decision or until the section is changed?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, at this moment I’m just not aware whether any of these have gone to the court of appeal --

Mr. Singer: Why doesn’t the Attorney General take one there then?

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- to determine if they fall within the interpretation or definition of a slot machine. That is the key to this section. Until such time as such a decision is available, then I presume they will be interpreted in different ways by various members of the criminal branch here in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Roy: Which the government has never heeded.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I must say that I find it somewhat difficult to accept the proposition recited by the hon. member for Downsview that the Attorney General from British Columbia has in his wisdom said: “Let’s not impose the provisions of the Criminal Code because we’re not sure what it means.”

Mr. Singer: That’s what our Attorney General is doing, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The police of this province and the courts of this province have obviously taken different interpretations.

Mr. Singer: Nova Scotia too.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Until the Code is changed we’re not going to place ourselves in the position of suspending any provisions of any federal statute.

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

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): How does the minister know if it relates or not?

Mr. Lewis: Is that Joe Dupuis in the gallery? The greatest pinball player of all time is with us today. How is that for notoriety on your first day back?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Lewis: May I begin by asking the Chairman of Management Board: Is it the intention on the part of his government to say anything, to make any economic policy statement today, on the extraordinary rise in the unemployment rate in the Province of Ontario in the figures divulged this morning?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, those are questions that concern the Treasurer more than myself. I will consult with him, but I would say not this afternoon.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): What a legacy the former Treasurer has left.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask, by way of supplementary -- or perhaps I could redirect the question to the chairman of the cabinet --

Mr. Speaker: If you want to ask a new question of anyone it is your turn.

Mr. Lewis: -- the Minister without Portfolio.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): The portly Minister without Portfolio.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister without Portfolio indicate what the intention of his government is, given the jump of 54,000 in one month in the unemployment rate in the Province of Ontario? What will the minister do in terms of the automobile industry, or perhaps in terms of job creation?

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Ontario continues to be the most prosperous jurisdiction in North America.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): For those who are working; for those who work.

Mr. Roy: He should tax the rebate.

Hon. Mr. White: But these particular questions must be put to the Treasurer.

Mr. Lewis: Is that the answer he is going to give to the 54,000 who are out of jobs.

Hon. Mr. White: They must be put to the Treasurer.

Mr. Roy: Why? Doesn’t the minister know the answer?

Hon. Mr. White: Does the member?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): He passed that buck pretty fast.

ATHABASCA TAR SANDS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a question of the Minister of Energy? On the basis of the various press reports that are now emerging about the Syncrude deal -- I don’t know how else to characterize it -- what in the minister’s mind is a fair rate of return on investment which the private companies in the consortium should expect? What did Ontario enter into?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the discussions there was no specific figure referred to. We recognized that, when one tries to pinpoint what the return will be four or five years from now when the oil is coming through the pipes, it is something of an academic question at this point, not knowing a number of the variables -- the price of world crude among them. So it is difficult to pinpoint it at this point.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since the Premier (Mr. Davis) said he had the statements, surely he had the Foster Research Ltd. study, which showed that the breakeven point is $7.80 a barrel, but that the commercial feasibility level, the world level, is $13.45 a barrel, so that the profits of the oil companies, whether measured on rate of return or measured on the difference, will be something in the vicinity of $200 million a year or better? Did Ontario enter into that arrangement knowingly?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would have to check those figures, Mr. Speaker, to verify them, but I recall a number of figures being discussed during that day.

Mr. Roy: Was the minister there during the discussion?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): He was out getting sandwiches at that time.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member must understand that our major concern, both in going to Winnipeg in the first place, and in all the meetings we had beforehand, was to ensure that the overall Syncrude project and the development of the Athabasca tar sands kept on stream.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Even if he lost his shirt in the process?

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary --

Mr. Lewis: Go ahead. I will follow.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia with his supplementary.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes. Concurrent with those discussions, was any assurance requested or given for the continued provision of sweet crude to the petrochemical industry in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that is really covered by the letter of, I think March 29, 1974, from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources of Canada to Mr. Ian --

Mr. Bullbrook: That isn’t what I asked. Concurrent with the discussions that took place, I believe a week ago today, was there, as a result of Ontario’s participation, any assurance requested from the Alberta government for the continued provision of adequate supplies of sweet crude to the petrochemical industry in Ontario? I am not talking about what happened last March.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think we all went into the discussions with the assumption that that provision, as laid down by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, would continue to prevail.

Mr. Bullbrook: So there was no assurance.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have the assurance of the federal government.

Mr. Bullbrook: We have no assurance; we have no assurance.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West with a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: How did the minister manage to arrive at what the studies are now showing -- a guaranteed rate of return to the oil companies of between 20 per cent and 23 per cent -- which works out to an annual profit of somewhere between $257 million and $317 million; and why did Ontario engage in that kind of underwriting of the oil companies?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the rate of return will basically result from the relationship of the project to the world price, whatever that will be. I can’t stand here today, nor can the hon. member for Scarborough West, and predict with any certainty at all what that world price will be in four or five years, any more than either of us could have stood here two years ago and predicted what it will be today.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister think it will come down?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s a possibility.

Mr. Havrot: That’s a ridiculous assumption.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I understand there are certain documents being passed around and put on desks. I was asked whether this was proper. I glanced at it, and it’s rather difficult to make a decision on.

But it was not proper, in my opinion, to have this material placed on the desks. If the sender, whoever it is, wished it to go to the members, it should be done through ordinary mail. However, I don’t know who is passing it around. I ask him to cease and desist.

Mr. Lewis: What is it?

Mr. Speaker: I don’t know the contents, but it would seem to me more appropriate to be sent through the mail because it’s a private document. It has nothing to do with this particular House as far as the sender is concerned.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Put it in the mail box, right.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. P. Taylor: I wonder if the Minister of Energy could confirm whether or not Ontario’s initial position was to offer equity of $20 million or $50 million?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, our initial position, going back I guess two weeks when we met with the government of Alberta, the government of Canada, various of the members of the consortium and other potential partners, was that we would rather not be in at all if a large enough investor could be found in the private sector.

Mr. P. Taylor: What was the minister’s initial offer in Winnipeg?

Mr. T. F. Reid (Rainy River): What did the minister put up for Ontario’s ante?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We have spent quite a bit of time on this question. Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) anywhere in the precincts of the House?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I just mentioned that we’ve spent quite a bit of time on this particular question.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We will allow the member for Grey-Bruce one supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact that Ottawa is going to lose many hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue because of depletion and write-offs, did the Minister of Energy in his discussions get to the point of how much Ontario is going to lose in a similar way?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that in fact Ontario is going to gain on all fronts. No. 1, we are in consort with the governments of Alberta and Canada working to ensure that the development of the tar sands proceeds, which the Liberal Party supports.

No. 2, we are ensuring that the contracts which have been let in Ontario will proceed, thereby safeguarding jobs; and we are ensuring that further contracts will be let in Ontario to produce more jobs in Ontario. So we gain all round.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: I have one other question of the Minister of Energy on this subject. What contracts have been let and will be let in Ontario? What is the exact amount and can the minister tell us the number of jobs which he predicts will be created within this province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I believe the figure let to date is about $105 million or $110 million, projected to go to $248 million.

Mr. Lewis: And what about the number of jobs?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can get that for the hon. member. I haven’t it readily at hand.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Revenue has the answer to a question previously asked.

CUT IN MINISTERS’ SALARIES

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, Feb. 4 last, the hon. member for Sarnia asked me whether a gift to the Crown is a taxable exemption and whether, therefore, ministers will get the benefit of at least 50 per cent of the donation to the Treasury with respect to their federal income tax.

Mr. Roy: We can’t hear the minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In confirmation of the view I expressed at that time, Mr. Speaker, I’ve been advised that under section 110(1)(b) of the Federal Income Tax Act, gifts to the Crown are deductible from taxable income for purposes of calculating income tax. In this regard, I refer the hon. member to the precise wording of the Act for determination of how this provision might apply in any given case.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of a supplementary, am I correct then in assuming that although the Treasury, in right of Ontario, secures some benefit, the federal Treasury will suffer concurrent loss?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, the way in which you calculate your income tax is that you work your way down to the point where, after your allowable deductions, you wind up with a net income and then you make deductions such as this, gifts to charity and the like; and then you have a net amount that is subject to tax. The tax is calculated; then you apply 30.5 per cent, if my memory serves me correctly, with respect to Ontario tax. You wind up with the net amount of tax payable to the two jurisdictions, the 30.5 per cent being collected on behalf of my ministry by the federal Department of National Revenue and remitted to us. So in the sense that it is a deductible item, it has the same net effect as a reduction in one’s salary of the amount of that gift.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of one final supplementary, may we not readily presume, having regard to the integrity of purpose and intent of the government, that the cabinet ministers collectively wouldn’t possibly regard it as a gift and seek a deduction from their income tax?

Mr. Speaker: The member for --

Mr. Bullbrook: Can we presume that?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well, why not? I think it is a perfectly appropriate arrangement; it is exactly the same as reducing one’s salary by roughly $2,025.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the minister do it officially? Why doesn’t he amend the statute?

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

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question raised by the leader of the Liberal Party, I would say, why did he hustle in so quickly with his own?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Then why won’t the government accept my private bill and reduce the ministers’ salaries? Why won’t they reduce their salaries officially?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: If they put it in legislation, I will participate. Now there is an incentive for them.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Both the interjection and the answer were out of order.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): “Tiger Bob,” the federal pinball.

Mr. Good: He called the government’s bluff.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

ROSS SHOULDICE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Attorney General.

Last week I asked the Attorney General a question dealing with the possible charges against Mr. Shouldice under section 110 of the Criminal Code. I recall at that time he made a commitment to the House about filing a written opinion from his law officers. In light of the fact, as I understand it, that he will not be filing that opinion, will he give us a fuller and more legal explanation as to why charges will not be laid against Mr. Shouldice in view of the evidence?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa East correctly describes some dialogue which we exchanged perhaps a week ago yesterday. I advised the member at that time that I did have an opinion from senior law officers of my ministry that in their opinion there was no evidence in which to frame a charge under section 110(2) of the Criminal Code against one Ross Shouldice. He asked me if I would table that opinion. I said it was not in writing; it was an oral opinion expressed by two senior members of my ministry. He asked, in effect, would I get it in writing and produce it? I indicated in my answer that I would.

I then found, Mr. Speaker, that I misdirected myself and I conveyed that to the member the next day, because I am advised -- I wasn’t aware of this -- that it is improper to file written legal opinions dealing with criminal proceedings by law officers of the Crown. It has been pointed out to me by my deputy minister that under May’s Parliamentary Procedure, volume 18, that law officers’ opinions in writing are not to be tabled in the House --

An hon. member: Isn’t that lucky?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Lucky, lucky, lucky -- which reminds me of something else.

Mr. Sargent: Tell us after.

Mr. Deans: It could have been embarrassing.

Hon. Mr. Clement: In any event, I did indicate to the hon. member that the law officers were of the opinion that no criminal charges should be laid in this matter; that there was not sufficient evidence by the unilateral finding or observing of a letter, the receipt of which has been expressly denied; and that the unilateral making of any offer would not give rise to a successful prosecution under section 110(2) of the Criminal Code.

I apologize to the hon. member for Ottawa East if I misled him, but I wish to point out that I did convey that to him the very next day when we had a private discussion about this particular matter. I was not aware of that parliamentary principle.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Roy: In the light of the confusing answer that was given by the minister last week on this question -- the talk of conspiracy and so on, which is certainly not obvious as pertaining to section 110, subsection 2 of the Criminal Code -- and in light of the fact of the minister’s answer here again today that an opinion will not be filed, and that cannot be challenged, does he not feel, as chief law officer for the Crown, that to satisfy all doubts about the political ramifications and so on, a fuller explanation or a statement should emanate from him as to why charges will not be laid in view of the evidence that exists against Mr. Shouldice?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the opinion of my law officers is that sufficient evidence does not exist. Therefore, we will not use the criminal process to commence some type of an inquiry for political reasons. May I point out to my friend that if he feels evidence exists, there is nothing to preclude him from laying a private complaint against Mr. Shouldice under that section and letting the courts scrutinize it?

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, that was the last supplementary. There are many people who wish to ask questions and they have to be given an opportunity. The member for York South has been seeking an opportunity for a question.

Mr. MacDonald: A question of the Minister of Energy.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order --

Mr. Yakabuski: Sit down. The gallery isn’t watching.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So the member for Renfrew South is here for once.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr. Roy: I just want to advise you, Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the Chair, that I am not satisfied with the minister’s answer and I intend to raise it under standing order 27(g) at the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: You may do so.

GAS PIPELINES

Mr. MacDonald: A question of the Minister of Energy: Now that Exxon Corp. of New York represents the third major withdrawal from the Canadian Arctic natural gas pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley, and since the Exxon share has been distributed among American gas companies whose objective will be to take the gas to the United States, what is the position at this point in time of the Ontario government with regard to support of the so-called Maple Leaf consortium -- a Canadian consortium of smaller proportions but directed to meeting Canadian needs alone?

Mr. Roy: Is John here?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member for York South knows, there has yet to be an application filed before the National Energy Board for the project known as Maple Leaf or Foothills or whatever you want to call it. Until they do make such an application and we know exactly the economics of the project, the environmental considerations, I don’t think it would be wise for me at this point to take a position in favour of one or the other.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary question: Since there have been previous expressions of support for the major American-dominated line, is it not appropriate for the minister to express public support for the development of a Canadian consortium -- particularly since there is going to be some delay before they can proceed with a pipeline, because a federal investigation, presided over by a judge, is to look into environmental considerations and that will take some time?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the expressions referred to by my colleague, I think would still stand. It’s the only one that is presently before any official body. Mr. Justice Berger will begin his study, I think within the month or within two months. In addition, the Federal Power Commission of the United States begins a hearing on May 5 comparing the El Paso project and its competitor. At this time, really, Canadian Arctic is the only one before the people, and until we are given an alternative I think we have to support that.

Mr. MacDonald: Help it into existence. That’s all I ask.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

PUBLIC RELATIONS STAFF

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Chairman of Management Board in relation to my question about public relations officers in the government.

Has the minister had the opportunity to check the answer he filed in the House last week in regard to my question, which indicates that the 11 public relations officers in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food are earning an average salary of $60,000; the five in Colleges and Universities are making an average of $20,000; the one at the Ontario Science Centre an average of $51,000? Can he inform me why there is no budget shown f or advertising in the Ministry of industry and Tourism, which I understand has a budget for advertising of roughly $4 million?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am absolutely sure, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I know, that the inference in the hon. member’s question is wrong. If he wants further detailed information, he might place another question on the order paper and I would be pleased to supply it to him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) want to say something?

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I --

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Reid: No, I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The inference in the question was wrong.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question --

Mr. Breithaupt: But they were the correct figures.

Mr. Reid: I placed a question on the order paper on May 16 relating to the number of public relations officers and information officers and their salaries in the various government ministries.

Mr. Good: The member should ask the Minister of Energy. He’ll tell him.

Mr. Reid: I asked each ministry to provide the information. The information I got, sir, did not come from each minister. It came from the Civil Service Commission. It’s completely inaccurate and completely misleading.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Speaker can’t rule on that. That’s a matter of opinion.

Mr. Reid: My point of order is this, sir: Are we not as members of the Legislature entitled to complete and accurate information about questions placed on the order paper?

Mr. Good: That’s right.

Mr. Speaker: Actually, a member has a right to ask a question and the appropriate minister has a duty or an obligation to answer it as he sees fit. I can’t rule on the answers so your comments are out of order as far as I am concerned here.

The member for Nickel Belt.

SEX DISCRIMINATION

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. In view of the fact that it is International Women’s Year as declared by the United Nations, is it the intention of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet to introduce specific legislation in the Province of Ontario that will ease the more onerous aspects of sex discrimination in this province such as a requirement that there be equal pay for work of equal value and that there be a proper network of daycare centres established in the province?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the first half of the question, the hon. member may be sure we are actively looking at that question at this particular point in time. The second one is not my responsibility.

Mr. Cassidy: That is a cop-out.

Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor General has the answer to a question asked previously.

DEATHS IN THUNDER BAY JAILS

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) asked me on Jan. 31 last regarding a death in the Thunder Bay district jail. The deceased, Vernon Nokonogas, was serving a three-day sentence on an outstanding bench warrant and the unfortunate death occurred during the second day of that sentence. Following the inquest on Jan. 16, another inmate wrote to a local radio station alleging that a request for psychiatric help by the deceased had been refused by the staff of the jail. This information was not known by the coroner before the inquest into this unfortunate matter.

The question here is whether this information which has now been revealed would have made the jury come to any different decision. I have asked the chief coroner’s office to consider this particular aspect of the case and make a determination whether or not the inquest should be reopened.

Mr. Sneaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

SUN TOOL AND STAMPING GO.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Has the minister, in co-operation with his colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth), looked into the situation of the $55,000 or so that is owing as vacation pay to the employees of Sun Tool? These funds are apparently being held up by one of the ministry agencies, Ontario Development Corp.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the funds are being held up by one of the corporations reporting to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. To put it into its very proper sequence, sir, la Banque Provinciale has the first lien on all assets of Sun Tool. Ontario Development Corp. gave them an $800,000 guarantee on the payments.

Secondly, the federal government’s agency has a first right to accounts receivable. It is my understanding that in the discussions with people of my ministry and the receiver there has been no relenting by the federal agency to give up its position in relationship to any of the funds that may come into the treasury of Sun Tool over the next short period of time to meet the holiday pay requirements. It is not the responsibility of ODC, although we have been negotiating with GAAP and its operation to see what compromises we can get from them.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that in checking with the federal agencies they are willing to release the funds, but it is the minister’s agency that is withholding the funds? Let’s stop playing games with the $55,000 in vacation pay that is due.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member has asked his supplementary. Does the minister now have an answer to that? All right, the member for Sudbury.

SUDBURY HOSPITAL EMPLOYMENT

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health. I am sure the minister is aware that layoff notices went out to all employees of St. Joseph’s hospital in Sudbury, and I think the minister is aware that this layoff and closing of the hospital dues not coincide with the opening of the new Laurentian Hospital. Will he intervene to ensure that there is no curtailment of service or employment in regard to the opening and closing of these two hospitals in the city?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have already done so; there will be no interruptions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

AUTOMOBILE EMISSION CONTROL STANDARDS

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker I have a question of the Minister of the Environment: In view of the fact that a year-long study by the consulting firm of Arthur D. Little Inc., of Cambridge, Mass., found that car manufacturers could give almost 50 per cent better fuel mileage with the technology they already have through redesigning automatic transmissions, by manufacturing smaller cars and be employing alternative engine designs; and in view of the renewed emphasis on energy conservation, wouldn’t the minister feel that this would be a better approach, rather than trying to enforce the emission control standards which are already really unenforceable and which in all cases increase gas consumption by up to 50 per cent?

Mr. Roy: A good question.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, that’s a very good question and a very good point that has been brought up. It comes completely under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada related to the manufacture of the vehicles. I think the member should take it to them. We are quite prepared to look at the material and if the member wants us to talk to our counterparts in Ottawa to move along with some of these good ideas, we would be glad to do it.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: First of all, has the minister got the report to which I made reference -- and if not, will he get it? Secondly, will the minister, in concert with his colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism, pursue this matter with the government of Canada to see that this is done?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have the report in my hands. It may be possible that our staff has it. We will certainly get it. We will have a look at it and certainly do anything we can to improve abatement equipment as far as automobiles are concerned in the Province of Ontario. We are only too glad to try to talk to our counterparts in Ottawa, if it comes at the manufacturing level.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

HOMES FOR THE AGED

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: When does he expect the new regulations pertaining to the make-up of the boards of management for homes for the aged to take effect, so that these boards of management will be made up of a majority of elected officials from the areas concerned?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): The date they will take effect, Mr. Speaker, is April 1.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

COST OF EDUCATION REPORT

Mr. Bullbrook: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Education, if we can get him to light for a while.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: It is so difficult to get him to light.

Mr. Speaker: I think he can hear you while he is talking, if you proceed.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is it a fact that his ministry has had the final Hay and Associates report on the cost of education for some months now? Why has he not released it?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): I am sorry, I don’t know what report the hon. member is talking about.

Mr. Bullbrook: The report of Hay and Associates in connection with the remuneration paid to the directors of education in the Province of Ontario, amongst other people.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I must say I am not familiar with that report at all.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister does take care of education?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I take care of education and there are not many reports that I am not familiar with. There’s a committee on the costs of education headed by Jack McCarthy, who is the executive secretary. I haven’t got that report yet. We have had four interim reports, but there is still another one.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If the member, Mr. Speaker, could identify in a proper manner the full title of the report and who commissioned it, I would be happy to tell him about it.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister hasn’t made it public yet; how can I identify it in proper form?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Lewis: Could I ask the Treasurer, now that he’s here, what public statement does he have to make on the dramatic rise in unemployment in the Province of Ontario within the last month? What initiatives, specifically, will he be taking in reference to the autopact in the automobile industry in this province? What jobs does he intend to generate? What does he see as the future, given the current trend?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there’s no question that the rise today, both in the country and in Ontario, is disturbing to say the least. The hon. member has pinpointed one of the problems, of course, which is the drastic layoffs which occurred in January in the automobile industry, and which we estimate would account for a least one per cent of the total figures.

Mr. Lewis: They are continuing.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, there have been some call-backs, thankfully. In Windsor there have been some at Chrysler. General Motors called back something like 14,000 in Oshawa, Windsor and St. Catharines. So, those figures will change somewhat. Nevertheless, the situation is disturbing, although I said the other day that those in the automobile industry are more fortunate than many other members of our society, in that they do enjoy a very high rate of unemployment benefit, which is not the answer to the problem, but I simply point it out.

Mr. Lewis: What is the answer?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What measures we will be taking, if any, will of course he a matter for the provincial budget.

Mr. Deans: Why? That’s too far away.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired, I might just point out.

Mr. Lewis: That’s too great a time.

Mr. Cassidy: Nothing until April?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: There’ll be nothing until April?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I point out to the House, as was indicated earlier by the hon. member for Ottawa East, he was not satisfied with the answer that was given to one of his questions, and he has given the necessary written notice to the Speaker and the matter will be dealt with at 10:30 this evening.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Reid presented the final report of the standing public accounts committee.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ACT

Mr. Lewis, on behalf of Mr. Martel, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act for the Promotion and Protection of the Health and Safety of Persons engaged in Occupations.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to consolidate matters dealing with the health and safety of workers, and place them under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour. The bill also establishes a department to be part of the Ministry of Labour, which is responsible for research in the setting and enforcing of standards to protect workers. And is this bill necessary, Mr. Speaker, in light of Johns-Manville and Elliot Lake!

RETAIL SALES TAX ACT

Mr. Edighoffer moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to reinstitute section 11 of the Act, which was repealed in 1972. Remuneration from the collection of tax should not be less than $12 and not more than $1,200 per annum for each collector.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day may I put a proposition to the government House leader with respect to the possibility of considering that the Legislature sit tomorrow afternoon for the sole purpose of having private members make their contribution to the budget debate?

It would seem that if that could be arranged, perhaps six or eight members of the House could be accommodated and this would, therefore, work toward the completion of the business of the House along the schedule that the government House leader had suggested. If we had tomorrow afternoon available, it might accommodate a number of the members, especially those from out of town who would be in the city in any event.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that sounds like kind of a useful suggestion, other things being dispensed with; then the relative object of proroguing on Thursday might be reachable.

Mr. Breithaupt: I might add, Mr. Speaker, the windup of the debate could be held at a time convenient to the ministry, of course.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I think that is a very good suggestion. I will have to inquire into the feasibility of having it done and report back later this afternoon, but I shall certainly do it.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The sixth order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 111, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act, 1972.

MINING TAX ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay may complete his remarks.

Mr. J. B. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we were dealing with this piece of legislation last night, we in this party were trying to establish and to convince the portly Minister without Portfolio (Mr. White) that this was, indeed, a bad piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that didn’t assure the people of northern Ontario --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Accent on portly. Actually it is kind of affectionate, you know, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Stokes: I am always affectionate with the former Treasurer.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): It is the double entendre that I worry about.

Mr. Stokes: We were trying to say on this side of the House, at least in this party, Mr. Speaker, that we felt the amendments to the Mining Tax Act in the Province of Ontario didn’t return to the people in northern Ontario the kind of dollars that we felt were necessary to assure the quality of life.

I had made reference to several communities that I thought had been shortchanged in the past as a result of the inability, or the unwillingness, of this government to come to grips with the hard services that are required by many northern communities that owe their existence to the mining industry. I tried to convince ministers of the Crown over there that much more needed to be done to assure that an adequate amount of money go back to those people who are responsible for creating this new wealth, in order to provide a quality of life that everybody in this province should be entitled to regardless of where they may live.

I had spoken briefly on the inadequacy of this bill as it pertains to small mining companies. And, of course, the minister did try to convince me that there were provisions within the Act to provide for allowances, whether they be development allowances or depletion allowances, for all companies within the mining sector. When I talk to people in the mining sector, particularly those who represent that segment of the industry primarily concerned with small mines, and those are the very junior mining companies, I am told that there is nothing in the statutes at either the federal or provincial level that will provide them with the kind of economic stimulus, the kind of incentives, that will allow them to go forward and produce a viable operation.

I think it’s common knowledge, Mr. Speaker, that most of the successful mining ventures in the province are brought into production by large corporations with a lot of wealth behind them. Those that are well established can afford to take the thick with the thin, the good with the bad, and survive the vagaries of the marketplace. This isn’t so with the very junior mining companies, Mr. Speaker, and we think that this bill is deficient for that reason also.

In talking to individual prospectors and grubstakers, I’m told that there is nothing in this Act, or in any other kind of legislation, that will provide them with an opportunity to go out as they have done for decades and outline good mining chances and to provide them with the necessary financial ability in order to make accurate surveys.

It’s well known that exploration and initial development with regard to outlining and defining of ore bodies requires very sophisticated equipment, some of it in the electromagnetic field, some of it in the magnetometer field -- a lot of highly technical apparatus and gadgets that the small companies and the individual prospectors can’t afford.

Anybody who has talked to individual prospectors or groups of prospectors will quickly come to the conclusion that this aspect of development in the mining industry has just about had its day. It’s something that I think this government and this ministry should be looking into because it is a way of life for people in the north.

A good many of the major finds that have been developed and have sustained the mining industry for a number of years were as a direct result of the activities of small prospectors and small grubstaking groups. I think they are to be commended for the work they have done in pioneering in the north, particularly in the mining field, and I think every opportunity should be afforded to them to continue in that role. I think the economy of northern Ontario in the mining industry would be much better for it.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we’ve been so preoccupied with bigness -- by giving allowances, concessions and exemptions to the large companies -- that we have failed to recognize the important role that individual prospectors and small groups have played in the development of the mining industry that we consider so important, not only to the economy of the northern part of the province, but to the economy of the entire Province of Ontario and, indeed, of Canada as a whole.

One other aspect of this bill that I think needs some consideration is sort of ancillary to the mining industry as we know it, where we are exploiting gold, iron ore and base metals. I refer to the gemstone industry. Some might equate that to quarrying rather than open-pit mining or mining by underground operations. But it seems to me, in my travels, that there is a wonderful opportunity for people throughout the province to foster and develop a gemstone industry in the Province of Ontario.

It’s common knowledge that tourists, in ever-increasing numbers, are becoming interested in the rockhound hobby. We have a good deal of opportunity to assist small businesses to get started, whose basis for operation could be the gemstone industry. We know that there is a wonderful potential for that in the Bancroft area and I’m sure my friend from Hastings (Mr. Rollins), were he here, would have something to say about that. Having visited the Bancroft industry a year ago last winter, I was made aware of the quite considerable income that accrues to the people of the province as a result of the gemstone industry.

In the area that I represent in northwestern Ontario, people in ever increasing numbers are becoming interested in the gemstones that are available -- amethysts, agates, gemstones of a good many kinds and varieties -- that could be developed into the kind of an industry that would provide the kind of diversification and the kind of balance that we need in northern Ontario, since we have primarily a resource-based economy.

I know that our friend the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) agrees with me on this and I think that he’s trying to do something to foster this kind of thing. I’m thinking in terms of the cottage industry in Switzerland, where they ship components out to the homes of people who are competent and skilled in the assembling of watches, and I’m thinking of doing this for our gemstone industry; where we have the components and we ship them out and we have something that is uniquely Canadian, something that is crafted by Canadians, something that we can call our own, rather than importing stuff from the orient, such as from Taiwan, mainland China, Korea, Japan, all of this two-bit handicraft that we’ve got on far too many of our gift shop shelves today.

I think it is high time that we should be fostering something that we have here, something we can be proud of, something that can be developed to provide a good deal of viability to many small communities, not only in northern Ontario but in eastern Ontario as well. So I would have hoped that there would have been something in here to act as an incentive to fostering this kind of thing.

As I say, in most instances it’s a quarry operation rather than an underground mining operation. But, when dealing with the Mining Tax Act in the future, I hope the minister will pass this on to his successor and I hope they will take this into consideration. It’s these kinds of things my colleagues and I have been speaking about when addressing our comments to this bill that I think will bring great benefit to that segment of our population and to that region of Ontario that is primarily interested and concerned about the orderly development of the mining industry in the province, and assuring that a just amount of the economic rent and a just amount of the dollars that accrue to mining companies comes back to the people who are responsible for creating that great wealth, and hopefully we can even out the social and economic benefits that we are capable of providing to all people in the Province of Ontario regardless of where they may live.

I’m not totally opposed to this bill, but I think that the minister could have gone quite a bit farther in order to get the kind of dollars that we think are available to those people who are responsible for creating that wealth. With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and allow somebody else to engage in the debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to engage in this debate with my hon. friend, for one reason among many, many others, but one reason only, as this becomes, I would suspect, perhaps the last opportunity in which we may cross swords, lock horns, trade punches or whatever it is that we do.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): There are going to be a lot more opportunities.

Mr. Lawlor: And far be it from me -- a worthy foil too, a worthy foil; pace over there. He may not be as worthy as his predecessor on a large number of terms. He may have smoothed the path for him so that he just becomes partially palatable.

In the course of my few remarks on this matter before I go back downstairs to handle condominiums, the --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There is going to be a lot more.

Mr. Lawlor: Is the Treasurer moving out of his condominium? Can’t he afford it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can’t take it.

Mr. Lawlor: The way housing is going in the province these days, I don’t doubt he can’t afford it. I don’t understand why he is -- although I am gratified that he is -- why he is sitting over there handling this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Stokes: All alone.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, all alone. It’s been deputized to him. The Minister of Natural Resources would be the obvious one to be central to it.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): He is the handmaiden of the mining industry. No independence of thought over there.

Mr. Lawlor: He doesn’t know anything about mining tax. Is he putting on airs? Wherefore this pretensiveness? He was as exposed as I was over a period of months there some years ago when we first became acquainted and friends --

Mr. Stokes: His claim to fame is he followed Smith.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Lakeshore get back to the principle of Bill 111?

Mr. Lawlor: I beg your pardon.

Mr. Stokes: He’s just bidding adieu to a friend over there.

Mr. Speaker: I see.

Mr. Lawlor: Can’t I give him his valedictory? The poor beggar has suffered cost enough. He did have a kind of a stormy petrel regime and regimen over there for the short time he lasted, didn’t he?

As I say, why would he be handling this matter, considering the really suspect role that he performed as Treasurer? Is he performing it in a Treasurer’s capacity? And do those various albatrosses that he generated still hang around his neck? No doubt they hang with that particular flair that is possessed of hanged medallions. But the bird is dead. He goes out, anyhow, with some splendour -- more than he came in with, I suspect. And some of us, at least, will sorely miss him as he leaves the House.

He made a speech in New York on this one, puffing and panting and blowing himself up, so that they could see him just off the port there, from the top of the Empire State Building.

Mr. Stokes: Was that before or after Newfoundland?

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): The statue of Liberty is dead.

Mr. Lawlor: Unlike the speech to the Canadian Club of New York on Sept. 10, 1974, this is the good part of my speech -- this is the accolade part. He cites that we don’t adopt, in this particular form of taxation, a royalty system. He gives the reasons therefor, because of highgrading that may take place if the government so adopts the royalty system in taxation. I think one will agree it has a fair amount of worth in terms of oil and natural gas, and that type of revenue, because there is basically a uniformity of product. Whereas, in nickel or in gold mining or in the whole range of minerals, you get the second, third, fourth rate minerals in order to give the greatest benefit. If you do it on a royalty basis, you force them just to highgrade all the way through. And you want to encourage the mining of low grade ore in this province.

That was one of the remarks that he made with which I think this party would find itself in accord. He then gets to the benefits conferred upon small companies, which my friend has ably pointed out are not all that great. Then he turns to the large companies and says this is not so; the large companies aren’t going to get any benefit.

Well, I suppose that it is palatable to the Canadian Club in New York. But we over here find that this particular form of pushing doesn’t quite go down. It is not so that large companies aren’t going to derive considerable benefit.

Our point over here is that the government is telling us to determine what impact our new measures might have on large integrated mining companies. We analysed one company’s situation and found that the processing allowance alone reduced its tax this year by more than 15 percentage points bringing its rate down to about 20 per cent. The thrust of the remarks being made over here is that, whereas the government has increased by a graduated scale certain rates with respect to the tax itself, and therefore brought in added revenues to the province, the Treasurer knows that he is pinched for money and that the expense of contemporary government is so great and omnivorous as to eat up every piece of sagacity and every turn of the tail that he possibly can wangle.

No wonder we introduce energy taxes. The minister is practically out of his mind with being distraught with respect to finding the revenues whereby to gain even a partially responsible picture of the handling of the revenues of the province to being anywhere close to the notion of balancing out accounts. That simply cannot be done and it won’t be done under contemporary government in this province through the next 20 or 30 years.

This is the way the cookie crumbles in regard to taxation. And so they introduced taxes with respect to lotteries to pick up another $40 million as any measure, however desperate, to forfend against economic disaster and the failures of which the Smith committee spoke many, many years ago which are now, in effect, coming home to roost.

The government gives very great largesse indeed, as I hope to point out in the course ci this debate, to the great oil companies of the province. I want to arrange my remarks, Mr. Speaker, under about five headings. The first has to do with the effective rate of the tax; the second, the area of depreciation; third, the area of exploration and development expenses, and the nodding of heads of governments in the particular area of processing allowances, which are the real crunch of the affair; and depletion allowances which are an extra piece of government giveaway and which certainly takes very little into cognizance the recommendations which are now dead and interred -- not under six feet but probably under 12 ft of earth -- of, namely, the Carter committee on taxation.

Touching depletion, taking the last first, if the government’s intention had been to set up through taxation policy a more equitable distribution of wealth in this province, to that extent to have an enormous impact upon the people of the country as a whole, then it missed its opportunity in many regards. The spread between rich and poor, between the 20 per cent at the top and the 20 per cent at the bottom of our economic structure, remains identical.

Carter would not have done so. There would have been some form of shifting of income back and forth so that the equitabilities would have been set up and this country would have become a more just society. As the Treasurer has arranged it with his tax credits and everything else, he has simply been able to mark time. It’s a status quo situation that he has achieved.

And, really, if one takes real income, the spread grows. It grows in this jurisdiction and it grows between the first and the third worlds, and we are part of the first. I see the same modalities operating in both areas and nothing is being done about it. The opportunity has come and gone and the Treasurer and the government’s actions are really a damnation of what Carter sought to do. One of the areas in which he sought most to do it was in depletion; he would wipe out depletion.

I am not going to make a long speech here, which I very well might do or could do on economic rent. We spent days talking about the theory of economic rent and how out of natural resources produced in a geographical area -- the heritage of the whole people -- the whole people ought to participate in the benefice and that they should not be the private preserves of a very few, mostly foreigners. We talked about that. It has never come to pass. The government still retains the full depletion thing. There are roars in the United States coming from Congress -- and that isn’t particularly an enlightened body, by and large -- with respect to depletion allowances touching the oil companies and the offshore oil of the Mexican Gulf.

It is a scandal to behold. The government perpetuates that particular theory in this province in face of the enormous studies that have been made and the best wisdom on the matter that has been thus far achieved, In this particular regard, it is not under this particular Act, but under the Income Tax Act of Ontario a 33⅓ per cent depletion allowance is still perpetuated in force.

And then we come to the processing allowances. The processing allowances bother me enormously for several reasons -- one has to do with the way in which the processing is arrived at.

The minister may recall from the old days what was said in this report -- which we went over with a fine-tooth comb. At 306, vol. III of the Smith taxation report to this Legislature, section 11 says: “When an appraisal is made, the mine assessor usually, but not invariably, follows a standard procedure.”

Right there in that first sentence “usually, but not invariably.” What kind of law is that? First of all this stuff isn’t even in law. The minister brings a Mining Tax Act before us today and nowhere in the laws of the province are the rules of procedure, guidelines or anything else laid down. This is done by rule of thumb. It’s as long as the chancellor’s big toe. The minister has embodied it in a manual, but the manual is not part of the law of the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. White: No, we have regulations ready to come forward.

Mr. Lawlor: I didn’t hear the minister.

Hon. Mr. White: For the first time ever, we have regulations ready to come forward.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): I should hope so. They are not published yet; when will they be?

Hon. Mr. White: They will be published very shortly. It is now being regularized --

Mr. Lawlor: Well, whatever they may be, this is the hidden benefice. This is not the tip of the iceberg which shows in the minister’s legislation, but the rest of the monstrous thing that lies in the sea, where the real benefits are subterraneously conferred -- not to the eye of any beholder, not to the eye of any member of this House. The minister may get it into regulation; we haven’t seen it; I would be most pleased to see it. If we take it out of the hands of the Minister of Natural Resources and put it into the hands of the Minister of Revenue of this province (Mr. Meen) for administration, I would feel even safer.

What they say happens presently, and that’s going on right now, although some of these figures shift a bit: “ ... the mine assessor usually, but not invariably, follows a standard procedure. This consists of deducting from the sale price of the processed product the costs of processing and marketing ... ” Transportation costs are involved in that too. He sets up his little note in his notebook as to what allowances are being made under this head. Next: “ ... the portion of head office expenses allocable to processing ... ” In other words, whatever you take out that is not a pithead job; it goes right though to toilet facilities apparently. “ ... an allowance for depreciation of the processing plant ...”

There’s a depreciation allowance which is made internal to the -- nothing to do, by the way, with the depreciation allowance which is granted under this legislation. It’s a double depreciation, and when you add the federal government on it, Mr. Speaker, it’s a threefold form of depreciation.

The report continues: “ ... and an allowance for a processing profit. The latter ‘processing allowance’ is generally determined by the mine assessor at eight per cent of the original cost ... ”

The minister sets up a series of different categories -- in concentrating it was previously and is again eight per cent; in smelting and concentrating assets the 16 per cent remains at 16; refining and smelting going from 20 to 30 per cent; and in processing in northern Ontario, a special grant and allowance -- which is something no one over on this side of the House can take exception to -- a 35 per cent figure. If the latter were passed along to northern Ontario alone and the other matters not taken, it would help to generate new industrial life, new plants and at least a beginning of viability for many of the towns in northern Ontario.

Anyhow it is not all that different: “ ... generally determined by the mine assessor at eight per cent of the original cost to the operator of the assets used for processing, regardless of any depreciation that may have been claimed in respect of them ... ”

In other words, you get the depreciation and you get the allowance too, Mr. Speaker. This is something not done and not dreamed of in any other industry, and the countervailing argument against it is it takes no account of economic rent if you do it that way, but this is modified inasmuch as the minister will not permit the allowance -- I quote: “ ... to be less than 15 per cent or more than 65 per cent of the profits of the combined mining and processing operations and before deducting the allowance itself. These lower and upper limits for the allowance are arbitrary devices which were adopted to ensure that not more than 65 per cent of the profits of the combined operations of marginal producers would be attributed to processing, and that, where the investment in processing assets was small relative to that in other assets, the allowance would not fall below 15 per cent of such profits. In practice the mine assessor gives the operator of nickel mines a special processing allowance in addition to the general allowances described above in recognition of what he considers to be special conditions that apply to the smelting and refining of nickel ores.”

My faint recollection is that the government has altered that. If it hasn’t altered that, then why in green blazes hasn’t it done so? I’m not going to read the full sections of this book; it would take too long. But that was allowed under very special circumstances with respect to the chemical difficulties in extracting the nickel in the old days. It was well over 50 years ago that that was granted. I have no knowledge that it has been altered since that time; that is, that the nickel mines are treated even more specially than anybody else. A couple of years ago, I thought this subject was discussed in this House and it was indicated that there was some alteration and that they were treated precisely the same as anybody else, as they very well might be and should be in any sense of equity with respect to mining taxation.

“From 1939 to 1955, but not subsequently, the basis of the special allowance was authorized by order in council. To summarize, under this method of appraisal the value of ore at the pit’s mouth is determined by deducting from the value of the processed product specified processing costs and an allowance for processing profit.”

At page 328, the whole lamentable and really trying story, in terms of equity and in terms of decent taxation policy, is set out as to what the regulations do, as to the determinations that are left in the hands of the mine assessor. I have spoken on this matter previously and have read these paragraphs into the record years before, but it hasn’t had much impact. It’s all there. I leave it to the hon. minister and to the Minister of Natural Resources to move in on the area.

When we think that at this time in history we have gone to $140 million, and perhaps close to $200 million in revenue from mining in this province, will the minister please take into account that that may still not be enough? Why? Because the margin of profit that is derived from the mining industry, particularly the big operators and particularly in gold of recent times, has been proportionately greater in retention after taxes than before, because of an inflated world market in this regard.

I heard the minister say the other day that this is levelling out and zoning down; that’s probably true, because the figures that came out today from UNESCO with respect to world inflation arising out of raw materials show that it was one per cent in the last month. It has come down from other previous figures, and that is all to the good. The fact is that they have had a great ballooning of profits which the government wanted to enter into, quite justifiably, at least as part beneficiary. I say to the minister that the companies weren’t hurt in the process.

Secondly, there’s the consideration used ad nauseam by the hon. minister in this House on previous occasions, that where it is a corporation profit it’s basically passed on anyhow and that whatever benefits are derived from such sources and so on in terms of the treasury of this province ultimately are substantially not borne by those sources at all. Therefore, to pretend that they are in some way mulcting the mining industry, as they pretend, having given figures of -- what? -- 78 per cent or 73 per cent taxation -- what a joke, the way they compute things. They compute even without computers. A computer could never come up with answers of that kind. No machine could be so self-interested and purblind as to arrogate the facts to that particular extent.

In terms of exploration and development, this government is giving a full 100 per cent deductible allowance, while the federal go eminent allows 30 per cent for development and 100 per cent for exploration. Again the politics of desperation prevail.

All right, suppose we said very little about that. We will say that the generation of new ore and the finding of new mines was such a vital facility in this province that a 100 per cent deduction was permissible, just, allowable, and was to be recognized and taken off the mines’ profit tax. Suppose we went that far. Can’t the government do something in a positive direction the other way, by grubstaking for example? Don’t the companies use the government’s aerial surveys extensively? Doesn’t the government make a major contribution in terms of roads and every other way of getting the prospectors into the resource?

I’m not trying to rake off the private sector; I want a mixed economy, but I want it a damned sight more mixed than we have it at the moment, and I don’t want all the fruits flowing in a particular direction, or rather the basic fruits that would very well come to the people of this province. Why don’t we move in the direction of doing something to subsidize exploration in the province in a direct way, and immediately, so that when the staking occurs the province will become the prime, initial beneficiary?

Nor -- this is my personal position -- when the time comes for development need the government do it wholly and entirely in its own hands, but it at least is there at the initial rung of the ladder, having a substantial interest, having people on the board of directors who are aware and cognizant of the wider interests of the province, the wider interests of this particular economy, rather than a group of moguls over here who are completely insentient to any public good at all as far as I can see, and who in any case live in Switzerland or the Bahamas and couldn’t care less about this country as long as they can extract, as absentee landlords, the benefits from these things.

If the government participates in capital and in exploration all along the line it would have taken an immense interest, it would have been there at the core, and it would have been a guiding figure in the destiny of that corporation as it developed; and it would develop in a way that would be beneficent to all of us, including the government and the minister; because there is the root of our prosperity -- it is in our natural resources and in our farm lands that the generative core exists. We are disposed under heaven in a way that possibly no other jurisdiction in the world is yet. I say that our resources haven’t even begun to be exploited. The point is that they have been abnegated, neglected, let go off to private interests for too long. The whole history of the thing is one vast sellout. The book of this ministry a short time ago gave the whole history of mining in the province and what a sorry tale that is, if the minister has had an opportunity to look at it.

In the realm of depreciation we have gone from a straight line of depreciation of five per cent at least, and not more than 15 per cent, up to a figure, with respect to new plants and equipment after July 9 last year, of 30 per cent. They have doubled the depreciation and I don’t think there is adequate justification for that. It is a sore point. They are trying, I suppose, to generate more employment in the province, but I just wonder to what extent that is feasible. Can the minister justify that in terms of the equipment and what not as purchased from other jurisdictions which have no impact whatsoever on employment in this province, and particularly in the mining industry? The last area which I want to make mention of is in the effective rate, going from $50,000 exempt, at a 15 per cent figure, up to a basic exemption of $100,000 with a 15 per cent base, and escalating up to, I believe, 40 per cent by tiers. That, as far as I am concerned, is not a bad move. It is, again, better than imposing royalties. The graduated straight structure permits a good deal of flexibility. I would that the minister had retained it at $50,000 and not at $100,000 tax free in the first instance, and secondly, I think that if we can’t alter the processing allowance and all that is hidden therein, then we can go round to the front door and use the rate structure in this thing for the government’s own purposes and for future governments of this province to bring back to the people as a whole something commensurate to what the public realm needs and requires and is justly entitled to in terms of the flow to the Treasury from our basic resources which are, incidentally, in this instance at least wiped out and never renewable.

These are the basic considerations, as it were. If this is tied into the federal picture, which I don’t think it would be proper to do on this occasion, we’d get the whole, vast panoramic picture of what resource taxation looks like in this country and the unusual benefits, the usual levitations, conferred on this peculiar type of company. If that were done, then we would see the full range and impact of how inadequate and how vicious and how exploitative they are and how much of a giveaway is involved, both in this jurisdiction and in the federal realm, touching this area. If one contrasts it with what the Carter committee again would have brought into being, had it had the power, in terms of an invocation of pure conscience, a distribution of wealth in this country, then something meritorious might be accomplished.

This is a toddling step. The government always feels that it should be praised for its infant efforts, but it is only just that. Come into adolescence but don’t expect maturity; that’s too great a boon. We might have some form of responsibility at that stage. Just come into adolescence with respect to this area of the economy. Enter into it personally; use Crown corporations in terms of development and fund them with some money. It will bring in fifty-fold of whatever the government has to spend in terms of what the resources of this province are and which have not been exploited.

These beggars threaten the government, cajole it and use every form of blandishment against it in terms of saying: “We’re going to pull out. We’re going to slow down. We’re not going to do it.” If that’s the position they take, then the government is left no alternative. It must use its own weapons and the tools at its disposal in order to fill that gap. If that’s the way they want to play the game -- and this is, I think, what the government feels the particular press to be -- then we have the wherewithal at our hands to take over and do it and we will also be the greatest beneficiaries of that thing at the end of the day. I think the path is clear.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly am pleased to take the opportunity to enter into this debate as the minister responsible for the administration of Bill 111 in the realm of administration and implementation. Of course, we have a very close interest and a real concern.

I was most impressed with the debate to date. I think it’s fair to say that both the opposition parties, Mr. Speaker, would like to wholeheartedly endorse this particular bill. I noticed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has come out flat-footed and endorsed it. I sense in the NDP a balance, a riding the fence, so to speak.

They like the idea of the graduated tax, a graduated tax that will impose, Mr. Speaker, a tax of 15 per cent on that first $100,000 of profits earned. The rate will then be levelled at a progressive rate by increasing it five per cent on each $10 million of profit earned and it reaches its maximum of 40 per cent on profits in excess of $40 million.

I’m particularly pleased that both parties have seen fit to endorse this graduated application of the mining tax up to this particular figure. I notice some indicated it should be a little higher, but in essence I think that the principle of the bill itself is endorsed -- and this comes as a bit of a surprise to me.

Mr. Lewis: We didn’t endorse the graduating tax.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Read Hansard -- I’m sure he’ll see it.

Mr. Lewis: If he is going to bring in a tax, it should be graduated -- but that’s not the principle.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This is a real diversion from the NDP’s counterparts out in BC and in Manitoba --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right, we believe in royalty.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- who went the royalty route.

Mr. Lewis: That’s our route.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’m very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see this waffling or this shifting here in Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: What shifting? Why does he think we are opposing the bill?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Because there is a definite change. The recent speaker and the hon. member for Thunder Bay, and even the member for Cochrane South indicated that they thought this was the best route to go.

Mr. Lewis: If the government is going to have a tax and it graduates it, we accept that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: So, I just want to make the record very plain and clear that we have support in this particular field.

I just want to point out that there has been some concern and some expression that possibly the Ministry of Natural Resources is not the place for this particular tax to be administered. But I would point out that in the Ministry of Natural Resources we have the responsibility for the conservation, or the development of the natural resources of the province.

Mr. Renwick: The exploitation of them is what the minister is responsible for.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Certainly, if we are going to manage those resources, then the best tool -- as the member for Lakeshore has correctly pointed out --

Mr. Renwick: The government is not managing those resources; it has given them up years ago.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The best tool that we have is the taxation tool.

Mr. Renwick: The best tool the minister has is not a taxation tool.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: And when one considers that, it is obvious that with the type of personnel and with the management of the resource, this particular bill should rest within the responsibility of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

I think it’s very plain to point out, Mr. Speaker, that there are basically three principal stages in the mining field -- of which I’m sure the members are aware.

First of all, of course, is the finding of the ore body itself -- the exploration aspect. Then, of course, we have the mining itself -- the extraction of that mineral from the depths -- and then the mineral processing further down the line. So it requires a tremendous amount of expertise, it’s a complex operation, as the member for Lakeshore correctly pointed out.

I just want to make it clear that the government of Ontario certainly recognizes a need for very special incentives, particularly for exploration and processing. I think it is fair to say that in the field of exploration we’ve gone some considerable distance with the introduction of the mineral exploration assistance programme. As was announced in the budget last spring, we will see a further expansion of this particular programme.

Mr. Renwick: Why is the government so slow about the expansion of that programme and the establishment of the provincial exploration company?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In the field of exploration, Mr. Speaker, my former parliamentary assistant, now the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes), led a very ambitious committee to revise the Mining Act. This, of course, deals with the mining activities that occur prior to the actual mining operation. I’m referring to the staking and the assessment work that’s required by the prospector and those involved in staking claims. This is coming forward and there be some incentives. There will be some direction to the smaller operations.

I think the member for Thunder Bay made a particular plea for the lowly prospector, who is fading not only in Ontario, but right across Canada. We are concerned with that. We hope the changes that we make to the Mining Act will lend some support to that breed coming back into Ontario.

As the member for Thunder Bay correctly pointed out, he was that fellow who chose to go out early in the spring and stay out until late fall, sometimes even throughout the winter. He scratched the surface as he moved throughout the north country and took the opportunity to uncover those outcrops and to follow them up further. We cannot forget those individuals who have played a very prominent role in the development in the mines in the Province of Ontario.

I think, historically, Ontario’s policies have been directed -- and very effectively directed -- to more mines being discovered and more mines being put in operation. When you compare the effects and the results of this policy over the last number of years, one will see, of course, that we in Ontario produce well over 50 per cent of Canada’s mineral production. This is something that we certainly are proud of. Certainly it may be because of our natural endowment, but I think the fact remains that the mining industry, helped by the policies of the Ontario government has been and still is a very stable employer in northern Ontario.

Another point I should make, Mr. Speaker, with reference to section 113 -- and I know this will come up for some considerable discussion -- is that we in the Province of Ontario have more production and more processing, in relation to the amount of minerals mined here, than any other province in Canada. So we are moving in the right direction.

I just want to make a comment on the stability of employment within the Ontario mining industry. If you’ll check page 31 of the Ministry of Natural Resources statistics for 1974, Mr. Speaker, you will see that in 1962 we had about 29,000 people working directly in the mines; in 1972 it was 28,867. Basically the total is just about the same in a 10-year period. When we take in the quarries, the gravel operations, the diamond drilling contractors, and the metallurgical people, we are talking of a total in 1962 of 48,989 people; 10 years later, in 1972, we had 47,753.

I think you would have to agree, Mr. Speaker, that the mining industry has been a very stable employer when it comes to numbers.

Granted, there has been new technology, new science and new methods of extracting ore; they are producing more with the same number of people. I think we are seeing this happen in a number of our resource extractive industries. We can see it happening on a daily basis in the pulp and paper industry where they are becoming more sophisticated, more mechanized; of course, this means less direct employment but production is maintained and even increased. So I think we can take heart in the stability of employment that the Ontario mining industry has given to northern Ontario.

I just want to say a few words about the tax system itself. I think it is fair to say -- and I hope the members of the opposition realize this, as I’m sure they do -- that while we have been endowed with a tremendous amount of mineral wealth in the Province of Ontario, particularly in northern Ontario, and while we mine those minerals, the metals that we produce are of course brought onto the market on a world competitive bases, because it’s obvious that we ourselves can’t use all the metals that we produce here in Canada, even from the mines of the Province of Ontario.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, with the transportation facilities we have today and considering the interchange and the interplay, the world is becoming smaller and smaller each day. So we have to consider the application of a tax in a world connotation, not just within the confines of the Province of Ontario, if we are going to maintain a viable mining industry and the stable employment we all look forward to.

I think it is also fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that the amount of minerals we can use in the Province of Ontario bears directly on the manufacturing markets which are similarly constrained domestically. We can only grow in terms of our international sales, so again we are in a world-wide situation. Our prices, and hence the prosperity of the industry, are largely determined on an international basis and on international demands.

I think the members of this House, and certainly the members who entered this debate, are very much aware of the cyclical nature of the prices of minerals and metals in Ontario, and indeed in the world. In fact, a recent report in the Northern Miner indicates that 1974 prices were at an all-time high in all minerals and all metals. When one looked at them six or seven years earlier -- I think it was 1966 -- the price dropped considerably at that time. It has been rising ever since. We are seeing a direct result. I think the mining revenue tax that will be accruing to the Province of Ontario -- we estimated $144 million last year -- in this coming year is something we can all take heart in.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Is that estimate realistic?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The experts tell me it is very realistic.

Mr. Bullbrook: I heard it was a little conservative.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As the member points out, it is slightly lower than what was estimated in the budget last spring.

Mr. Bullbrook: I heard the minister is getting more money than he ever dreamed of.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I don’t think so. We are not out to rip off the mining industry. We just take what the member’s leader has said was a fair and equitable share of their profits. This is what we intend to do.

I think it is fair to say that we on this side of the House have always used a tax on profits. This has been in effect for 67 or 69 years now. This tax is much different from the royalty that is applied in other provinces. I think it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that the application of a tax on profits avoids the closing down and the reopening of mines.

Anyone who is connected with the mining industry knows that to reopen a mine it is very costly, and that the personal hardships that are encountered should one close down are astronomical. We are going along with a percentage, a tax on profit that maintains the operation, regardless of the price of the end commodity or the mineral that is extracted. A portion of those profits accrues to the government and the people of the Province of Ontario, but in no way does it jeopardize the operation, which is in complete opposition or contrary to the application of a royalty that comes right off the top, regardless of whether or not there is a profit.

The other governments of this country have chosen to go that route, and I think we’ll see the effects of that in the not-too-distant future. In fact Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of spending three or four days in one of our western provinces. It was obvious to me as I toured many of the mining operations and met with members of the press, that the feeling out there was that it was eventually going to be confiscation of the mining industry. There was just no doubt that as a result of the rate of royalty that was being applied, that the end goal --

Mr. Stokes: The CMA and the OMA say this tax is confiscatory.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- was obviously going to be confiscation of the mining industry.

Mr. Stokes: The minister can take that with a grain of salt.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is certainly something that we don’t want to get involved in. We think there is a place, as the Leader of the Opposition has correctly pointed out, for the free enterprise system to operate and to operate very effectively. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not our goal to go that complete route.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister could hardly call Lougheed a socialist; now when he talks about free enterprise --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am looking over the other side of the hill.

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t think there is anything mutually exclusive between royalties and a free enterprise system.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I’ll just touch on another point. The Leader of the Opposition made some comment as to the rapport that exists between the various Ministers of Mines when it comes to the application of various taxes, because he felt that interprovincial borders were not there as barriers, in other words to siphon off development that may occur in one province vis-à-vis another.

I would expect the Leader of the Opposition is referring directly to the Noranda operation. I know the member for Thunder Bay will agree with me when I point out that Noranda does a lot of custom smelting and refining in Noranda, Que. and in Valleyfleld but nothing in the Province of Ontario. Not a thing have they got here that directly relates to that type of an operation.

I can say to you, sir, that we put a tremendous amount of pressure on that particular company a few years ago because there was a strong feeling within my ministry and within the government that there was need for a custom smelter in the Thunder Bay area. At that time, the cost of energy was considerably lower in the Province of Quebec.

Hon. Mr. White: Subsidized.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, subsidized. In fact, I said at one time that it was an under-the-table deal, where our costs are on top of the table. Hydro would not move from it. They said: “This is the cost of energy in the Province of Ontario for all industries located in specific areas and that is our cost.” But when we compared the mill rate that was suggested to that operation then, of course, it was obvious for economic reasons that they had to expand their operation in the Province of Quebec.

Mr. Renwick: Of course, this government has never provided any tax giveaway programme for industry.

Hon. Mr. White: Ours is on top of the table, it is not a hidden subsidy.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s on top of the table. It’s right there.

Mr. Renwick: Not at all, because this is the minister who disregarded it.

Hon. Mr. White: It is on top of the table.

Mr. Renwick: Our resources are exploited. People have a right to know about these things.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As I am sure the Minister without Portfolio, the former Treasurer, will point out when he responds to the various comments, all our dealings are on top of the table, be they processing allowances or any other type of tax. Even our energy costs are debated and are clear for everybody to see.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, for heaven’s sake. Read about the exploitation of natural resources of northern Ontario. They are not on top of the table and the minister knows it. He cannot rewrite history.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I just point out that, with the incentives we have here, we will see things coming back into northern Ontario. I think the member for Cochrane South is very much aware of what is going to happen after this bill gets the approval of the members of this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. White: Yes, he is sorry it is going to be successful, though.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I wonder how he is going to live in his home town of Timmins with that speech be made, but it will be interesting to see how it moves ahead.

Mr. Ferrier: I will live with it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I just point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that while we may be accused of trying to create and give the mining industry incentives, those incentives are for development in northern Ontario -- the processing allowances which will bring the type of development that we in northern Ontario all want and have been striving for and I think are all working for, or at least those who speak for northern Ontario in this Legislature.

I just want to touch briefly again, if I could, on the administration of the mining tax and the complexity of the exercise. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the proper assessment of the tax itself is a very skilful thing, and I think the member for Lakeshore touched on this when be made reference to the mine assessor.

Mr. Renwick: It has been illegal up to now.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I just want to point out to the members that when we manage the resources as we do in the Ministry of Natural Resources, then it is obvious that we should have the taxation powers that go hand in hand with that. The people we have in the mineral resources branch are the highest calibre of men we can find anywhere in Canada. I just want to name them to you, Mr. Speaker, because they do a great job.

Mr. Stokes: It is time the minister brought them out front and centre instead of giving them a secondary role.

Mr. Renwick: That is right.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are right out there --

Mr. Renwick: That is why the under-the-table talk about other jurisdictions lies very uneasily in the minister’s mouth, when the method of assessment has never yet been disclosed.

Hon. Mr. White: It is going to be; don’t worry.

Mr. Renwick: It is going to be now, after how many years?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, we have made this commitment and that will properly be brought before all to see.

Mr. Renwick: The sooner it is taken out of that corrupt ministry the better it will be for the people of the province.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out the quality of the type of people we have in the mineral resources branch. They are not only expert in their particular fields but they are most difficult to recruit and, of course, they do a great job for the amount of remuneration they receive. I think it is fair to say that some of them are experts. They are all experts, of course, in their particular fields.

I just want to name them. Dr. Tom Mohide, who is the branch director and mine assessor, is an expert in the marketing of metals. He comes to us with a tremendous background in the particular field of economics and finance. We have the mineral taxation assessment section, headed by Mr. J. Stoddart. Also, we have on that same team a mineral economist and a metal minerals expert in Mr. Wade and Mr. Matten. We have Mr. Foster, who is with the pits and quarries section. With the petroleum resources section we have Doug McLean. So we have gathered together, over the years, a tremendous force of expertise to deal with this very complex situation.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, for heaven’s sake.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: For heaven’s sake. Oh please don’t. This was a good debate until the minister entered it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s not the application of an ordinary tax. I think the hon. member --

Mr. Renwick: This apologia by this second-rate minister is more than we can endure.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But it’s there, Mr. Speaker, for all to see. The application of the mining tax is no easy job. It takes experts in marketing, in metallurgy and in economics to administer it, in co-operation, of course --

Mr. Renwick: It will reduce the tax take of the Province of Ontario to the lowest possible figure. It takes genius to do that over the years.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- with the resource development and the management that we have within the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. Renwick: The government has really got to work at that to be able to expand the expenses deductible from the value at the pit mouth to get as little return as it does.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, we’ll have that all spelled out for you in very simple clear language, Mr. Speaker, in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Renwick: The government has really got to be skilful to be able to do that.

An hon. member: What is the member for Riverdale blethering about over there?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the proposed tax, of course, will have new incentives, particularly directly related to development in northern Ontario. There will be 100 per cent write-off of all exploration and pre-production expenses. I’m sure that this is not the whole solution to further development, and I accept that. But, nevertheless, it’s a step in the right direction.

I think another point we should make, Mr. Speaker, is that there is an increasing cost of working in the minerals field today. I think it’s fair to say that the cost of exploration has accelerated considerably in the last 15 or 20 years.

I think, as the hon. member for Thunder Bay pointed out, all the outcrops in northern Ontario have been thoroughly gone over, so that now we’re left with a more sophisticated type of exploration and development.

We have the type of equipment that will go down 50 or 60 ft through the overburden and reach the mineral resources and give us some readings. But now we even have to go further than that.

I think, as I announced in the Legislature some time ago, we are looking at the lower James Bay basin. It is an area of tremendous potential, but we don’t know what is there. We’re going down 500 to 700 ft to see what is there. However, the costs are rising each day from inflation. I would just like to point out that in 1955 the work cost $100,000.

Mr. Stokes: Maybe even hydrocarbons, if one looks hard enough.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: To do that same amount of work in 1975, you would have to have about $1 million. The costs have gone up about 10 times in 20 years. This is a further burden. But we have to have further exploration if we’re going to keep our mineral activity where we want it in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Stokes: The minister might even get into it himself.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, we might yet.

Mr. Stokes: What about joint ventures?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As we get into this more sophisticated type of exploration, of course the risks get much greater. It’s obvious that you can’t become more sophisticated in looking for minerals through a tremendous amount of overburden without creating a greater degree of risk. This adds further costs to the exploration companies.

I think it’s fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that while we haven’t got all the answers on all the problems, I think the government recognizes there is a great technical and scientific challenge facing us. And, of course, it will be coming forward with many propositions in this area. We’re working on them now. I refer, of course, to the mineral exploration assistance programme, which is working quite well and which we intend to expand.

We do think that we should be concentrating not only in the gold mining areas, but now that energy is becoming scarce throughout this country, maybe the time has come to concentrate on uranium areas. Hopefully, I’ll be able to announce something along these lines in the not-too-distant future. We think there should be more surveys. A Crown corporation, of course, is something that we have on our shelf; and we are moving ahead in this particular field.

Mr. Ferrier: We’re going to take it off the government’s shelf.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I just want to touch briefly, Mr. Speaker, on the comments of the hon. member for Lakeshore when he indicated that we should get involved in more direct ways to help the prospector -- and he suggested the field of grubstaking. Well, I am sure those members who are knowledgeable are aware of the experience in the Province of Saskatchewan where they went into a direct subsidy for the small prospector. It was a total and complete failure. They have withdrawn that programme because of so many abuses and it did not produce the necessary results.

But we think that the rewriting of the Mining Act, giving certain concessions and assistance with regard to assessment and giving the prospector more credit with regard to the work that he does in a broader range of areas, this type of assistance will be more beneficial to encouraging them to go back into the field and stay there.

I think, Mr. Speaker, as the application of this graduated tax becomes known and as it is applied and as the new incentives for refining and processing of our minerals in northern Ontario are applied, we will see a very strong and powerful tool that will bring into force new plants in northern Ontario. I suggest that new plants, and new employment opportunities will follow closely on the passage of this particular bill. I refer to a zinc refinery, a copper smelter, a cement plant and even a fertilizer plant.

Those are things that we just can’t scoff off because they are there and there are going to be more to come. In fact, I am going to make a prediction for the member for Thunder Bay that we will have a smelter in northwestern Ontario within the next decade, solely on the strength of this particular bill and, of course, the need for a custom smelter in that particular area.

Mr. Speaker, just a note before I wind up, I want to make the members aware that in 1974 we had four new mines come back into production and at this point in time, because of gold prices throughout the world, we have renewed activity in 17 other areas. This is quite encouraging when we think that in one year alone we have something like 21 new activities, and we are hopeful that all 17 will come into production this year.

With that kind of renewed interest, I think it is fair that the direction we are taking with the application of this graduated mining tax is not only acceptable and returns to the people of the Province of Ontario their share of the profits from those mineral resources, but also encourages the mining industry to continue exploration and to continue operation and to continue expanding.

Mr. Speaker, I think maybe I should wind up with a summary, because we did hear sometimes about the neglect of the mining industry. I am not here to make any excuses or to pat the mining industry on the back for what they have done for northern Ontario, but I think it is fair to say that they have done things. Granted, in some instances, they could have done more.

I just want to point out to the members that there has been no railway development in Ontario in the last number of years without direct relationship to a mining industry. I think we can look at road developments in many parts of northern Ontario. They are again related to mining activity. I look at the incentives that were granted to the employees of many of our mining communities. We saw mining communities go in and establish a very broad range of housing facilities and other services. After X number of years of low rent being paid by the employees -- and rightly so because they were certainly giving up other amenities of life -- those houses have now been turned over to the mine employees at a very nominal price. Some homes in my own area have been turned over for $4,000 and $5,000. These are homes that are worth $20,000 and $25,000.

Mr. Ferrier: Hollinger got all they could get out of it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The homes are there and the employees are most anxious to get them. I also want to point out that the industry has not neglected its responsibility totally as some would indicate to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Stokes: I am talking about the ones who have moved out.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, yes, I think I would agree with the member. Several years ago they did move in and move out, but now we have a new attitude in the mining industry, and I think it is because of the effort and the direction of the government today which is demanding, and the public is demanding that they pour more back into the improvement of the quality of life in northern Ontario. I like to look at Manitouwadge, which is a typical example of a fine community, a well laid-out community, with all the services.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Tell us about Elliot Lake.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Elliot Lake is an excellent community. There is not an empty house in Elliot Lake.

Mr. Germa: Yes, tell us about it. Tell us about the corporate citizens up there.

Mr. Ferrier: There are lots of people in the graveyard, though.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In the field of recreation, I just want to point out in my own riding, Mr. Speaker, the mining industry there is directly involved with the construction of an ultra-modern arena with artificial ice. They are directly involved in a curling rink. They even have a nine-hole golf course carved out of the wilderness area of northwestern Ontario, out of the barren rock. They even hauled in fill to make it more acceptable. Very recently they developed a ski hill.

Mr. Germa: Tell us about Elliot Lake.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In the housing aspect, they developed a special community adjacent to the Cochenour housing development for our native peoples so that they were directly involved. Right next to that, the town picnic area and the swimming area were totally developed by the mining industry. So we have a direct involvement, we have a concern, and we have an acceptance by some of the mining companies as to their responsibilities in improving and maintaining the quality of life in the northern communities where they are involved.

I touched on the stability and the job opportunities that they do provide. So, Mr. Speaker, as we move ahead with this particular bill and apply the graduated mining tax, I think that we in northern Ontario can take confidence that we will see action -- that this policy direction is the one which will bring us benefits in the future.

Hon. Mr. White: That’s the first sensible speech in this debate.

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

Mr. Lewis: Well, the former provincial Treasurer calls it a sensible speech. I have never heard a more lamentable apologist for the mining industry than the present Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. White: The member only thinks so because he hates the industry.

Mr. Lewis: No, I don’t hate the industry.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): He only thinks so because it’s true.

Hon. Mr. White: Why does the member hate northern Ontario?

Mr. Lewis: I know that the job of a Minister of Natural Resources is to control the industry; to monitor the industry; to regulate the industry; to make sure that the industry operates on behalf of the people of the Province of Ontario. The present minister sees his job, not as regulator, not as an authority, but as an extension of the mining companies --

Hon. Mr. White: I don’t think so.

Mr. Lewis: -- and there is absolutely nothing positive about that. That is the minister’s view. He’s entitled to that view. We’re entitled to our objections to it. Fortunately, some of his colleagues --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is not correct at all.

Mr. Lewis: -- are not such sycophants within their own ministries. Happily, the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) doesn’t bow every day to the medical profession. If that happened in his ministry the way it happens in the Ministry of Natural Resources there would be a public scandal.

Happily the new Attorney General (Mr. Clement) does not bow every day to the legal profession. The only ministry which day in and day out sees itself as a logical extension of the industry it is supposed to supervise is the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. White: The member is having a pipe dream.

Mr. Lewis: That is frankly abhorrent. Obviously that’s a basic difference. I’m not going to get into the details of the bill. They’ve been discussed at length by members of the Legislature. I just want to put to the House some simple philosophic differences which cause us to vote against the bill. Because that’s what we are talking about; we are talking about basic differences in principle, the way in which we approach this resource sector and the way in which the Tories do. Our approach starts from a quite different premise, Mr. Speaker.

We think Ontario owns the resources. We think the resources belong to the people of this province. We think that only on sufferance and on very tight contractual provisions, should Inco, Falconbridge, Rio Algom, Denison, Hollinger or anybody else have the right to mine our ores. We think, as a party, and I make no apology for it, that the mineral rights belong to the people of the province -- not to International Nickel Co. On that we part company in this House -- on that we part company.

The government believes that the mineral resources in the ground of northern Ontario belong to the companies. Starting on that premise, it applies a certain tax to the profit structure of those companies in order to recapture for the public a modicum of income, a tiny fraction of what we deserve. That’s a basic difference in social philosophy.

The government says that because Inco is there, or Texas Gulf was there and did the exploration and found the ore and now processes and develops it, that it is the company’s. Our response is, it is not their ore. It is ours. The ores in the ground of Ontario belong to the people of Ontario. The government had no right to alienate the mineral rights, not at all; no right whatsoever. Tell me another province in Canada that’s alienated the mineral rights?

The government has no right to enter into this tax relationship with Inco, or any other mining company for that matter, which accepts as its basic premise that it owns northern Ontario. We own it, and it’s time the government understood that. The people own it. There is such a fundamental division in social attitude that it speaks volumes about why we oppose the principle of this bill.

When we apply a graduated tax to the profits of those companies what we are doing in effect is accepting everything about capitalism that is most abhorrent and, curiously enough, what we are doing is participating in something that is now a matter of international debate.

As a matter of fact, I’m sure the former Treasurer has occasionally speculated on what is happening internationally and continentally in terms of resources and in terms of whether they are energy resources or more traditional mining resources: The western world now is ranged against Exxon and OPEC, and governments find themselves in a terrible dilemma as they suddenly face the corporate sector in a fashion which is uncomfortable for most western capitalist governments -- and I use the phrase in descriptive ways.

The government of Ontario now is dealing with Syncrude in a fashion which makes Ontario a supplicant to Syncrude. We’re not calling the shots. We get a five per cent equity in an operation which is dominated by multi-national corporations and to whom the profits will flow disproportionately. It’s a real dilemma for the Province of Ontario. It’s fascinating that we have come so far in our basic regard for and favours toward the resource sector that we would allow ourselves, incredibly enough, to give $100 million or more to Imperial Oil, which is no longer even part of what was once called the multi-national society and is now ranged with the major OPEC companies against governments.

Whether it’s the resource sector in terms of energy or in terms of minerals, what the government is doing in this bill in fact is again saying that the mining companies have all the rights in this province, that they dictate the terms, and what we will do is intervene to tax them. We’ll try to civilize the taxes a bit. We’ll try to redeem the incredible exploitation of the last 20 years when they got away with paying a pittance. We’ll try to redeem that by graduating the tax somewhat --

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): They should have made it retroactive.

Mr. Lewis: So we come out at the far end with $145 million from our mines tax and $202 million in total. In the year 1975 the net profit for Inco was $306 million.

Hon. Mr. White: World-wide, yes.

Mr. Laughren: Where does the minister think it comes from?

Mr. Lewis: Let me put it to the minister this way -- and on this fact I have no qualms to stand -- Inco makes more net profit in the Province of Ontario than this government is extracting from its entire mining tax that we’re debating this afternoon. Does the minister understand that? Does he realize how disgraceful that is? One multi-national corporation makes a greater net profit in this province than this government extracts from an entire piece of legislation to be applied to all of the mineral industry.

Someone, somewhere, is going to have to explain the justification and legitimacy of that to me, because the logic escapes me.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): What do the shareholders think of that?

Mr. Lewis: One would have thought, as my colleague from Nickel Belt has pointed out -- and I’ve listened to many of the speeches in this debate -- that at the very least the government would take as much for Ontario as it gives to them in profit. Is that not a fair rule of thumb?

My colleague from Nickel Belt says behind me, sotto voce, that maybe we should apply the tax retroactively. Well, I don’t know how we can apply a tax retroactively; clearly we can’t --

Mr. Deans: They’ve done it.

Mr. Lewis: They’ve done it by a few weeks, I suppose. That’s true, I remember that fiasco.

Mr. Deans: We argued that it was illegal --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: And it was illegal!

Mr. Lewis: We argued that it was illegal. So just as we argued in terms of the sales tax --

Hon. Mr. White: The members opposite made it legal.

Mr. Deans: It was illegal.

Mr. Lewis: I must say, he is quite right. We are doing it with this bill. He is quite right. But I suppose retroactivity has a termination point; one doesn’t go back to 1950. But I’ll tell you, there is no reason why the terms within this piece of legislation, the tax which is levied, shouldn’t be sufficiently tough that we begin to recoup all that we gave away in those years of enormous profits in the 1960s and early 1970s. It’s very easy now for the former Treasurer --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: -- the portly overlord, to introduce a piece of legislation which now brings us $145 million from the industry. And he claims --

Hon. Mr. White: It is $202 million.

Mr. Lewis: -- $202 million depending on the tax: This tax will bring us $145 million, right -- that is the bill we are talking about. It is $145 million under the Mining Tax Act. And the minister talks about it as a major increase over last year. That’s right -- threefold I guess. Just about threefold; right!

Then I recall all those years when the total productivity of the mining industry in Ontario ranged between $1.5 billion and in excess of $2 billion a year, and we were receiving by way of mining revenue less than one per cent of total productivity.

It was an absolute scandal what Inco and Falconbridge and everybody else got away with in the Province of Ontario. And that’s all documented. That’s all on the record. It all came from Dr. Tom Mohide. Would that he were still allowed to do the kind of breakdown which he did up until 1971.

You know why we don’t now have the breakdown mine by mine, table by table, that we had then, Mr. Speaker? Because it’s too embarrassing --

Mr. Laughren: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: -- for the government to show publicly what it hasn’t been getting from the mining industry. And the reason -- as I stand here; and I believe this -- the reason that since 1971 we have never been able to have the explicit breakdown of the figures for revenues from the mining industry is not, as the minister says, because it was a complicated procedure and they were cutting back on what they put out, etc.; it’s because of my Sudbury colleagues and others showing the world that it was $16 million, $18 million, $24 million, $25 million a year. It was so embarrassing. It was so difficult in northern communities that the government decided to suppress the information. It’s as simple as that. And that is exactly what it did.

I don’t know how many times we phoned the minister’s office. As a matter of fact, I even phoned his office attempting to get the figures, forever to be told that they were in preparation, or they were coming, or they were not quite in the form that they once were, etc. The government extracted so little from the mining industry that it became a matter of public embarrassment. Now the minister can talk about $145 million as though it was of some consequence. It’s of no consequence measured against what the government relinquished in the past.

So the basic philosophic point then remains: The government believes that the industry owns the ores; that it has an untrammelled right to those ores. Therefore, all the government is prepared to do is enter into a graduated tax relationship with it. We believe the people own the ores and that, therefore, there is a contractual arrangement to be entered into with the companies where they pay us by way of royalty for the mineral rights in the exploitation of the resource, and we get our money back for the people of Ontario. That is what is being done in western Canada by New Democratic governments.

Mr. Deans: Maybe we could put it on the income tax.

Hon. Mr. White: They have withdrawn that one -- they are in retreat.

Mr. Lewis: It is in effect in British Columbia; that is exactly right. Nobody is in retreat. Manitoba has taken the bill off the order paper to make it even tougher. No one is in retreat.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He has got to be kidding -- he is away off base.

Mr. Lewis: Not at all -- not at all. And if the government is going to have an income tax --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They took a realistic approach -- that’s what they did.

Mr. Lewis: -- of course you have to graduate it. Which of my colleagues can object to that? Who can object to that? Graduated taxes make sense. It’s motherhood. But that isn’t the route. That’s kind of an acceptance of everything that the mining corporations stand for. This government has simply accepted their right to dominate both northern Ontario and the industry -- and to our last breath we will not accept that right. We don’t believe the ores are theirs. We don’t believe we should have given them away, at all, in the first place. So that’s the first philosophic difference.

The second philosophic difference, Mr. Speaker, if I can put it to you, is that having applied a tax to the mining companies, we would then not allow all of the special exemptions and special provisions -- from depreciation and depletion to tax write-offs for development exploration, and everything else in the world that they get from provincial Tories and federal Liberals. We would simply not allow it.

If the government is going to have a tax, let it have a tax and cut out the exemptions. If the government says to us that somehow those exemptions are needed for the mining industry in order to survive, we say balderdash. Everything they do, Tories and Liberals, with resource corporations is to provide special security for them.

I read that front-page Globe and Mail story in the “Report on Business” this morning on the tax concessions given to Syncrude and I could hardly believe it. I could hardly credit it. They are getting eight times in tax concessions what we are giving them from the public coffers of the Province of Ontario. We fall all over ourselves to provide special provisions for the mining corporations and resource corporations in this country, and on that we have a basic philosophic difference. If the government is going to tax the blessed corporations, then let it tax them and not play games with them.

The third philosophic difference, Mr. Speaker, which we have with the government on this bill is the inherent continued exploitation of northern Ontario. The member for Thunder Bay, the member for Nickel Belt, and the member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith) in the Liberal Party talked to the House about the rights of northern communities. There is something foul about politics in Ontario, and there is something that is malodorous about politics in Ontario that the government has extracted so much from the north and returned so little. The Minister of Natural Resources has the chutzpah -- which translated freely means a combination of audacity, gall and presumption -- to say that there are golf courses built in northern Ontario on the exploited ore lands. What does he have? What has he done? What did he have?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He is an authority on northern Ontario. He made one trip in four years and he is an authority.

Mr. Lewis: One hole per life is that what the minister is establishing? Every time a miner dies on the job he builds another golf course?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member doesn’t even know where half of the municipalities are in northern Ontario.

Mr. Deans: He digs a hole.

Mr. Lewis: One of the things I have learned in my travels through the province as leader of the NDP, sometimes useful and sometimes not so useful, is that every Tory in northern Ontario is in trouble, including the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member said that in 1966 and he said it in 1971.

Mr. Lewis: No, I have never said it before. I always thought the minister was impregnable. Then I realized that only applied to his cerebral processes. I now understand that politically he is vulnerable.

Mr. Stokes: What did the minister say about me in 1966?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we could return to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: I am. If these caustic interjections would cease, I would continue my amicable views.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that northern Ontario has been betrayed through this Mining Tax Act for as long as any of us can remember. To talk about golf courses is kind of a surreal note. I don’t know where the minister garners his pleasures from, but not the workers. What is he trying to tell us? What about the miners in Geraldton? What about the miners in Elliot Lake? Has he taken a good look at the Sudbury basin recently? Has he looked at what the gold mines that closed down in Timmins did to the economy of the region? What is he talking about in referring to these benefits that are conferred on northern Ontario by the mining companies?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Go up and look at it.

Hon. Mr. White: The member had better go up and have another little look. Things are happening.

Mr. Lewis: If the government had extracted a fair and equitable tax from the mining companies through the last 15 years, then it could have returned some of it to northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Look up there and see what has happened in the last 10 years. This is the same old broken record of five years ago. He hasn’t changed his tune. He hasn’t changed his point of view.

Mr. Lewis: Broken record? I don’t mind the broken record.

Mr. Deans: It’s a shame we have to keep saying it; that’s the problem.

Mr. Germa: How does the minister sleep at night? The minister has blood on his hands and he knows it.

Mr. Lewis: In 1971, there were Tories who lost their seats in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. White: Northern Ontario is blooming all over.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the hon. member for Scarborough West has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: The government’s whole view of northern Ontario is so filled with political contempt that it’s time that was said.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member is scared of what is going to happen in northern Ontario, that is why.

Mr. Lewis: They look at northern Ontario and say within the inner sanctum of the Tory party: “They have only got 15 seats. We are going to have 125 in the new redistribution. To hell with northern Ontario, we can lose them all and still keep a government.” They always thumb their noses at the north. They have never ploughed back into the northern economy that which they have taken from it, the minister knows that.

My colleague from Nickel Belt talked about when he first moved to Sudbury. I can remember in that 1971 campaign -- and I didn’t know much about Sudbury at the time -- I walked into a community and found the road network was terrible, the hospital beds were in short supply, there was no housing, and people were sleeping in the backs of station wagons. There was a lack of housing, transportation and health amenities -- and Sudbury sits on the richest ore body in the western world.

The government calls that justice in northern Ontario and the minister tells my colleague from Thunder Bay about places in the northwest which have golf courses. Tell that to the miners with silicosis and cancer in Elliot Lake, and look at the profits of Denison and Rio Algom. We are telling this government very simply that one of the ways to correct all of that is by applying a tax which is fair. This tax is simply not fair.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That party is forever downgrading northern Ontario and the people who live there.

Mr. Lewis: This tax is simply not fair and one of the other philosophic differences -- well, the north will make its judgement several months from now.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They have a hard time handling the seats they’ve got.

Mr. Stokes: The minister doesn’t believe that.

Mr. Lewis: We will stand by that, as the minister will. They will make their judgement and we will see what they say.

The reality is that we part company with this government on northern communities as well. There is no part of this province -- including eastern Ontario --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Join us and start building northern Ontario. Things are happening.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister want to speak again?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough West has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: By all means, I will sit down for him.

Hon. Mr. White: I want to speak. Speed up.

Mr. Lewis: I am sure he will. He is another apologist. The place is filled with apologists for mining companies and oil companies over there. I have never seen such a coterie.

The fourth philosophic basis -- and I am going to play right to all the government’s prejudices, because we want the record unmistakable in all of this -- is that if we are going to move into the resource sector at all, then it doesn’t involve a five per cent equity in a Syncrude or a graduated tax of the mining industry which nets about half to a third of what we should have been getting for the last 10 years; we either take a controlling interest in the industry or take one of the major multi-national corporations into public ownership in order to show what can be done.

For the Tories, that’s sacrilege. But let me say to those opposite, it is no longer sacrilege to the public; no longer at all. The public of Ontario and Canada wouldn’t bat an eye if the government bought a controlling interest in Imperial Oil. They understand that resources which are so central to the life of the province have to be publicly controlled and often publicly owned, and at some point we simply have to intervene on behalf of the public.

It doesn’t cause me one jot of anxiety to suggest that one of the major mining corporations belongs in the public sector or, failing that, we should take an equity participation which gives us control over its investment policies, its exploration policies, its development policies and the distribution of its profits, and begin to return to northern Ontario the wealth that is theirs and begin to show to the rest of the province what might be done. Again, philosophically, we feel that very strongly. The government doesn’t feel it at all?

One of the reasons the Tories are losing Ontario is that there is no recognition of what is real in the outside world. There is no recognition that the little waltz they have danced with the mining companies, lo, these many years, is now turning to a series of sour notes, that they have to change their step, that the gavotte is out of date, that the incestuous relationships are over and that no one any longer regards a simple graduated tax as dealing with the mining sector of Ontario. No one believes that any more except the most inveterate Tory -- and, my God, the benches are empty of inveterate Tories, but there are a few who are here representing them. No jobs will be driven out as a result of taking a tough position on mining taxes; no jobs at all. Jobs aren’t leaving British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Manitoba; no, sir.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes they are.

Mr. Lewis: No, sir. Jobs are not leaving those provinces and that has been demonstrated every time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh yes they are. Face up to it. How can he stand there and say that?

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, this government should intervene even for the international implications --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member is 100 per cent wrong.

Mr. Lewis: -- and show people in Ontario. I know that this doesn’t make any impact on the minister, but I’m going to say it anyway, because I agree with my colleagues in the caucus: Falconbridge spends all its time exploiting underdeveloped countries with the wealth we extract from Ontario. International Nickel does the same. There’s a certain shame in that, you know.

We don’t run off to the food conference in Rome and beat our breasts about the need to give money to the third world and at the same time play footsy with the mining corporations in Ontario who use our profits from our resources to exploit peoples in the third world. There is a moral inconsistency there, if nothing more. But it matters not at all to those benches.

If we raise the behaviour of Falconbridge or Inco or any of the others in Rhodesia, South Africa, New Guinea or any other third world area, we’re not even allowed to discuss it. It’s considered beyond the pale.

Mr. Laughren: Does the minister remember that?

Mr. Lewis: But it means something to this party, and I want the minister to know that. Philosophically it means something to this party, and we’re not going to participate in the endless accrual of profits in Ontario to be used for the exploitation of underdeveloped peoples. That is another reason why we feel strongly about this bill and about the principle it embodies.

Let me summarize:

1. We repudiate the bill because it explicitly endorses the proposition that the mineral companies own the resources of Ontario. We reject that. We own the resources of Ontario. We will grant to the private companies the right of exploitation on our terms, not theirs.

2. If there is to be a tax of any kind on the mining companies, even in Tory terms, it must not be a tax which can permit the kinds of concessions, exemptions and special favours which renders the tax obsolete.

3. If a tax is to be levied, then it has to capture a legitimate amount of money. And $145 million, which I repeat represents less than the net profit of International Nickel in 1974, is not a legitimate amount of money.

4. Northern Ontario has to receive some special advantage from this tax. We can only discriminate against an area or a region of the province for so long before we have to introduce a note of equity -- and nothing in this bill suggests anything on behalf of northern Ontario.

5. If we’re going to enter into any taxation at all, it should be on the basis of equity that means something by way of ownership of shares, as well as the taxation, or indeed the public ownership of a major company.

6. If one is going to deal with the mining industry in this province, one must deal with it in an international context recognizing the behaviour of those companies abroad in the third world, and recognizing the problems of western governments as they face the major multi-national resource corporations.

On every one of those grounds the government is wanting, and we repudiate the legislation for it. Speaking in terms of philosophy and in terms of principle, there is not a thing we hold in common in terms of the way in which we would approach the resource sector of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill before the minister replies?

Mr. Deans: The minister did reply.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Deans: He already has replied.

Hon. Ms. White: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP has summed this up very well. There are a number of philosophical differences standing between us, who believe in free enterprise, and the NDP, who believe in socialism.

Mr. Lewis: A mixed economy.

Hon. Ms. White: Where the Liberals stand on the matter is once again somewhat in doubt, because “Fighting Bob” came out yesterday very hard on each side of the argument. It was only in his very last sentence that anybody here in this chamber had the slightest idea whether the Liberals were voting for the bill or against the bill.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): The minister was listening to that, was he?

Hon. Ms. White: Now, in fact, they’re voting for the bill, as it turns out although the three speakers from their side each expressed a different Liberal policy in arriving at that conclusion.

I’m going to go through the details of the bill, but before I do I’d like to come to grips with some of the philosophical differences which, as the socialist leader quite rightly pointed out, form a very great barrier between his party and our own.

Regardless of who owns the ore --

Mr. Lewis: Regardless?

Hon. Mr. White: -- that ore is not an economic good until it is discovered, developed and put into production.

Mr. Lewis: Right. What does the minister mean, “regardless of who owns it”?

Hon. Mr. White: We on this side of the House believe that the economic value thus created at the risk of investors and promoters --

Mr. Lewis: What risk?

Hon. Mr. White: -- is to be shared with the risk takers, and we make no apology for that.

Mr. Laughren: Including the workers? Are they the risk takers too?

Hon. Ms. White: And as a matter of fact, the member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon) --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Give the minister a chance to speak to this bill.

Hon. Mr. White: -- came out with that proposition yesterday and it was just about the only sensible thing that was said from the Liberal benches. So we do have that fundamental disagreement with the NDP.

Mr. Lewis: What does the minister mean, “regardless of who owns the ores”? How does he throw it away so lightly?

Hon. Ms. White: Well as the member’s daddy quite rightly put it about five years ago, it doesn’t make any difference who “owns” these resources --

Mr. Lewis: Don’t be silly.

Hon. Ms. White: -- and the federal NDP did indeed change its policy, coming to the realization that one could --

Mr. Deans: But we do own them now.

Hon. Mr. White: -- accomplish all of these objectives without investing enormous amounts of public moneys in private corporations, and that’s the route we are going to take.

Mr. Deans: That is an entirely different matter.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is talking about something quite separate.

Hon. Mr. White: Well they are not different points.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There should not be this number of interjections.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): The member was complaining that he was interrupted.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that statement has nothing to do with the ownership of ore bodies. That statement had to do with whether or not it is necessary to nationalize individual companies.

If the minister wants to use my dad, he should quote him accurately.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, I have high regard for the member’s father and I used the term only to tease the member, and not disrespectfully. Although I have never agreed very much with anything Mr. David Lewis said, I think he is a man of complete integrity --

Mr. Lewis: Thank God for that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I understand the minister only agrees with John Robarts.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and I do agree with him in this respect, that who owns the resources is not now important, Because governments have the undoubted power --

Mr. Lewis: He never said that.

Hon. Mr. White: -- to reach their objectives.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. White: Now then, this is going to take a long time, so if everybody will settle down, I will go through the points as quickly as I can. Secondly --

Mr. Deans: He is a past master at twisting other people’s words.

Mr. Lewis: I was heckled mercilessly.

Mr. Bullbrook: This speech is to assure the minister’s directorships as soon as he resigns, that’s all it is.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. White: I am not going to take that lying down.

Mr. Lewis: Well, take it standing up then.

Hon. Mr. White: It is an insulting remark and to make it and then run for the corridors.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Treasurer has already left, he can’t take it.

Hon. Mr. White: So I haven’t got my cap in hand for anything, and we will see some months from now who --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He’ll see some months from now.

Mr. Eaton: The Leader of the Opposition should read what the member for Sarnia said about him at the weekend.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s get the debate back in its proper order. Every member has had a chance to speak. Now it is the minister’s turn to reply and there should not --

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister saying he wouldn’t accept a corporate directorship in a mining company?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There should not be this many interjections. Will the minister please continue?

Hon. Mr. White: I wouldn’t accept any --

Mr. Lewis: When I was speaking there were a great many interjections, Mr. Speaker, and I took them in good spirit.

Hon. Mr. White: I am saying I wouldn’t accept any directorships for a considerable period of time after leaving public life --

Mr. Lewis: Yes, about six months.

An hon. member: About 30 days.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and beyond that I would want to weigh every such offer --

Mr. Lewis: Against the remuneration.

Mr. Germa: Remember Leslie Frost? He got 15 in one afternoon.

Hon. Mr. White: -- if, indeed, any are re-received -- to assure myself that I wasn’t accepting a position in a company I had benefacted. And to have this insulting remark from the MPP for Sarnia, who thereupon runs out of the room, when he himself has undoubted designs on a very handsome law practice --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh yes. The minister should get to the point of the bill. He is so childish. His own Treasurer has left.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, go and get him then and let’s have it out.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is the minister’s job to get the Treasurer in here. He is the one who sent him out.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. White: It is clearly out of order that kind of --

Mr. Lewis: They are going to have fisticuffs.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have asked that the procedure of the House be respected. Will you please do so? Will the minister continue?

Hon. Mr. White: Well “Fighting Bob” is shouting a little more since last Saturday, but he is not saying any more. And certainly his contribution on this particular debate was an absolute and complete travesty. No wonder the Toronto papers are now demanding that the Liberals come out and say something for a change.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, that is it; every day a little more. Is the minister going to speak on the principle of the bill or not? He is just talking nonsense. That’s why he was dismissed from the cabinet. He is just kept around to mount this campaign.

Hon. Mr. White: Now moving to another point --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, another point?

Hon. Mr. White: -- trotted out by the leader of the NDP. He said there should be a flat rate. It has yet to occur --

Mr. Lewis: I didn’t say that, I know I didn’t. I offered royalties as an alternative. There are various ways.

Hon. Mr. White: Listen, the members of the NDP who have spoken on this bill have been completely against royalties. I am including the member for Lakeshore and the member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Lewis: They have indicated again that if the minister is going to apply this kind of tax, it clearly has to be graduated. it is common sense. There are alternative ways of dealing with resource taxation --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is the principle of the bill that they are opposing.

Mr. Lewis: We are opposing the basic principle, that’s right.

An hon. member: It’s a matter of degree.

Hon. Mr. White: Royalties, quite frankly, cannot work well insofar as mining is concerned, because it does induce the companies to highgrade. This fact is making itself abundantly apparent --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on. If the government had a different minister they wouldn’t highgrade.

Hon. Mr. White: -- to Premier Barrett in British Columbia and Premier Schreyer in Manitoba. In both of those provinces they are in full retreat from those measures.

Mr. Lewis: What a ridiculous answer! Oh, stop it. Don’t be silly.

Hon. Mr. White: Manitoba is doing it overtly and British Columbia is doing it covertly. In the British Columbia legislation the minister has enormous discretionary power which he is using secretly and privately to try to keep that industry breathing out there.

Mr. Lewis: That is not right. No, he is not. Secret and private; what is he talking about? Prove it.

Hon. Mr. White: Insofar as our approach, that is to say, a graduated mining tax versus a royalty, I’m perfectly sure we’re on firm ground. The other provinces are now finding this out, as they emulate us. Indeed, Quebec has done so in the last couple of weeks by coming out with a system not unlike our own.

So the idea of a flat rate turning up a marginal tax of 77 per cent would, in itself, have two distinct disadvantages. It would make our industry in this province uncompetitive with mining industries in other jurisdictions and, perhaps even more importantly, it would leave us with the lever of processing allowances to induce the development of a manufacturing sector in northern Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, right.

Hon. Mr. White: Now, I’m going to pause on this. I’ve listened carefully to each of the speakers, most of them here in this chamber, one or two from outside Mr. Speaker’s office. I’ve listened to every word said in this debate, and nobody has realized the very powerful combination of the high marginal tax rate of 77 per cent and the very large processing allowances available if a company takes its production to a fourth stage; that is to say, to a manufacturing or fabricating stage as such.

This provides a very great incentive to the companies. And, although the returns aren’t in by any means -- because, frankly, the companies themselves didn’t quite comprehend it in the early months. That’s one of the reasons their estimations were so high and so inaccurate.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s why they asked the minister to explain it.

Hon. Mr. White: They are now coming to the realization that they can earn back some portion of tax that would otherwise be payable if they developed manufacturing jobs in northern Ontario.

Mr. Deans: They’re certainly rushing out to do it.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Tell us all the names of the firms that have done it.

Hon. Mr. White: As the realization has dawned, things have happened. Texasgulf has announced a $100,000 expansion of the Kidd Creek mine. They’ve announced construction of a $150 million smelter and refinery at Timmins.

Mr. Lewis: They announced it before the tax was introduced.

Hon. Mr. White: No, no. Listen, they did not.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Flow many processing jobs were needed?

Hon. Mr. White: They have announced the construction of the first of a series of fertilizer plants in northern Ontario, each to employ 300 people.

Mr. Reid: Are they shredding the minister’s old speeches?

Hon. Mr. White: And they have other prospects on the horizon that I’m not free to mention.

Now Inco is looking at the construction of a strip mill plant in northern Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: That was before the tax was introduced.

Hon. Mr. White: Falconbridge has announced a $95 million smelter improvement programme at Sudbury and the opening of a new mine at Sturgeon Lake by a subsidiary at a cost of $17 million. Union Miniere has a $60 million mine development programme in Pickle Lake.

Mr. Foulds: That really gets us into secondary manufacturing, doesn’t it?

Hon. Mr. White: I’ve got some news for you, Mr. Speaker; this is only the beginning. We have a date in front of us now indicating that $4 billion is going to be expended by all kinds of industries in northwestern Ontario alone in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Foulds: How long is that foreseeable future?

Hon. Mr. White: And in northeastern Ontario, from some of the illustrations I’ve provided here, one will see another enormous investment in northern Ontario employment. While there are a number of reasons for this, one of the principal reasons -- as history will prove -- is because of the very high marginal rate and the very high processing allowances.

As we come up with a high marginal rate on a graduated basis, we were determined to protect the smaller companies who often constitute the single industry for small communities. So what have we done? If that small company’s profit was less than $1.3 million, we’ve removed all of the mining tax, so that that production would be perpetuated and the employment continued.

I think we’ve accomplished the purpose of inducing additional development in northern Ontario, trebling the amount of revenue realizable by the public purse and not putting the little guys out of business.

Turning now to the exploitation of northern Ontario, one has not available the precise collection of taxes and the exact expenditures by any regions in this province, and I half hope we never do, any more than I would want to see a really accurate depiction of the revenues from Ontario at the federal level and the expenditures into Ontario at the federal level.

Mr. Lewis: That’s not a bad principle.

Hon. Mr. White: This quite frankly would be drawn to the attention of the uninformed and thereupon give rise to all kinds of dissatisfactions in this rich heartland of Canada and make it impossible for the federal government to continue to ship, in effect, billions of dollars worth of economic development into the less developed parts of this country.

Mr. Stokes: We are talking about quality of life in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. White: Yes, and I’m going to apply the principle in a minute to this province alone.

Mr. Deans: The trouble is the government is not doing that here in Ontario.

Mr. Stokes: Even the Tories are talking about the quality of life in Northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. White: If one acknowledges that one of the fundamental reasons for Confederation is to share the economic fruits of one region with another --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right, and the government has done nothing about it.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and if one acknowledges that the federal government has done this with very little complaint from us, I must say, by shifting billions of dollars worth of economic wealth into other parts of the country --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: This government hasn’t done that in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. White: -- without a great deal of dissatisfaction, because the numbers are not known.

Mr. Lewis: Why does this apply to the Maritimes and not in Ontario?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. White: I am going to draw a parallel with Ontario. There is very considerable pressure from Chairman Paul Godfrey and his council here in Metro to have a precise counting of the moneys paid by Metro Toronto taxpayers and moneys returned to them in a variety of services. I hope this is never fully and accurately attempted or produced, because it will show, I am absolutely positive --

Mr. Lewis: This is a red herring, a neat red herring.

Hon. Mr. White: -- that we’ve invested $2 in northern Ontario for every $1 we’ve got out Now what have we done just recently?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ferrier: That’s not right.

Hon. Mr. White: I’ve dealt with the particular application of mining tax.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. What did the minister say? Did he say that the government has invested $2 in northern Ontario for every $1 that has been taken out of the north?

Hon. Mr. White: That’s my hunch.

Mr. Lewis: The minister, sir, is ridiculous.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister is the only one supposed to be speaking at this time. Will the hon. minister continue and the rest hold their peace? It is a very unsatisfactory debate.

Mr. Lewis: We have had a congenial exchange all afternoon.

Mr. Bullbrook: He misleads the House with his hunches.

Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that there he fewer interjections. The minister will please continue.

Mr. Reid: You don’t think we are going to sit here and listen to that nonsense, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, I want to tell the minister that I really think he is categorically and hopelessly in error.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Everybody has had a chance to make his contribution to this debate. There is a difference of opinion and everyone has a right to express it, but not over and over again by interjections.

Mr. Deans: There is a difference of an opinion.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order, if I may, if we have a speaker telling us that northern Ontario is receiving twice as much as they give to the public purse and then he tells us it’s a hunch, isn’t that misleading this place? I would think it is.

Mr. Ferrier: It is an insult to the north.

Mr. Stokes: What about the $2 billion in new wealth created in the north each year?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I am sure that will go right across the northern part of this province. The minister has just reduced his credibility to nil.

Hon. Mr. White: Let me recapitulate.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Can we get on with a more orderly debate? The hon. minister, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: No more hunches.

Hon. Mr. White: I hope that we don’t really refine the data relating to revenues by regions and expenditures by regions.

Mr. Lewis: I will bet the minister does when they hear what he has said.

Hon. Mr. White: I’m trying to bring some rationale to the member for Sarnia who didn’t hear this part of the explanation. I think that we will find that in the Toronto-centred area --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: To hear the minister talk they are all on the dole, and I resent it.

Hon. Mr. White: -- a lot more is being paid in taxes than is being consumed in services and I think we will find in outlying parts of the province, including northern Ontario, that more money is being expended in services than is being collected in taxes.

Mr. Ferrier: We cannot accept that.

Mr. Lewis: What is the minister talking about?

Hon. Mr. White: Now that’s a hunch of mine --

An hon. member: What’s the minister’s hunch about the next election? Maybe it’s as good.

Mr. Deans: Doesn’t that tell the minister something about the tax level, even if it were true?

Hon. Mr. White: -- and I am as well informed, I suspect, as anybody else in the chamber at the present time.

What is the consequence of this? Well, I’m going to tell the members opposite that I’ve been in northeastern and northwestern Ontario perhaps a dozen times in the last few years -- maybe more than that. Did I hear the Minister of Natural Resources say the NDP leader has been up there once in four years? Is that what I heard?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Once in four years.

Mr. Lewis: That’s a vile slander.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s true.

Mr. Lewis: I have been up there with regularity. Even my wife is up there with regularity.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, I’ve been up there a dozen times or more, Mr. Speaker, and I’ll tell you what is happening. Everywhere you look you see new houses, new warehouses, more factories, more roads --

Mr. Gilbertson: And bridges.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and hospitals, community colleges and universities, and prosperous, happy-looking people on the sidewalks.

Mr. Ferrier: That’s not true.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): The government tries to close them down.

Hon. Mr. White: So the socialists who come down here and tell us, year after year, how awful everything is in the north, like the member for Cochrane South --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. White: -- are out of touch with reality and certainly --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we --

Mr. Foulds: Why didn’t the minister act upon “the sensible and moderate suggestions” made to his ministry? -- and I am using a direct quote.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I think it help matters along if we stuck right principle of the bill, please.

Mr. Ferrier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like the minister to say when I said how awful things were in the north?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Ferrier: He doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Hon. Mr. White: Most recently, last night. Another attack on the north and on the mining industry and everything that goes with it.

Mr. Foulds: All we are doing is attacking the government’s attitude.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): We won’t have the member for London South to kick around much more.

Hon. Mr. White: Listen, I’ll guarantee personally that we will get the member lots of circulation for that speech in Timmins if he thinks it is going to help him a lot. I’ll volunteer to do that.

Mr. Lewis: We would like to have it in a glossy cover, if possible -- with his picture.

Hon. Mr. White: In all these communities across the north we find a wonderful flowering of economic and cultural activity, and it’s because we have done a number of things in recent years --

Mr. Deans: What has this got to do with the bill?

Mr. Lewis: There is a flowering here, I tell you.

Hon. Mr. White: -- including, for the first time in the history of this province, a differential grant rate as introduced in my budget of April, 1973. Hey, don’t go. This is for the leader of the NDP. This is to bring him up to date.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I have respectfully listened to the minister since he began, and I am keeping someone waiting. The minister said he was going to get on to the details. Is he at that point?

Hon. Mr. White: I’m dealing with the member’s six points.

Mr. Lewis: Has the minister finished with the philosophical differences?

Hon. Mr. White: It’s all right. When the member comes back, I’ll finish.

Mr. Lewis: Can the minister pollinate his way into the specifics?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, before the leader of the NDP leaves, and while the leader of the Liberal Party is here, I have four amendments to offer, none of which is substantive --

Mr. Foulds: Well, that’s normal.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t have to stay.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and each of which is technical. With the approval of the House, which I must have, I would like to offer these amendments today so they can be in the reprinted bill for the debate in the committee of the whole House on Thursday. So at the end of my remarks here today I will offer those, if I may.

Mr. Reid: Well organized.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Co-operation, understanding.

Mr. Reid: Well organized.

Hon. Mr. White: The socialist sagamore having left, I will now turn back to the bill itself.

Mr. Bounsall: Sagamore? Would the minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. White: What does the bill do? It is designed to achieve the balance between tax revenues and a healthy mining industry and to utilize natural resources for the promotion of economic development in Canada.

Mr. Foulds: How does a truncated Tory like the minister get away with that?

Hon. Mr. White: The objectives of the policy, Mr. Speaker, are to secure for the people of Ontario a higher return from their natural resources without imposing an unfair burden on the industry should metal prices and profits decline. And what are we doing? We had some bum figures, as the leader of the Liberal Party said. The reason we had bum figures is, first of all, that the industry wouldn’t provide us with up-to-date data, for reasons of their own, although in fairness it must be said that they have been co-operation personified since April 9, 1974. Secondly, nobody in the world -- not even the speculator from High Park -- could have forecasted some of the surging prices in some of these metals markets in the world, following April 9.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s why they are expanding up there. Doesn’t the minister realize that?

Hon. Mr. White: However, our estimations were as good as anybody’s. When I was able to inform the House last May or June that we were anticipating $225 million in total from the several taxes from the mining industry, now I can tell the House that it is going to be more than $200 million -- and that’s not a bad estimation. And if the Liberal critics have any better numbers, I would like to hear them. In fact, our forecasting has been very much better than the industry’s --

Mr. Bullbrook: Lend us some public service for a year and we’ll show the government.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and it has been better on previous occasions than the federal government’s forecasting, so I don’t have to make any apology on that score.

The second objective of the policy is to stimulate exploration, new mining investment and domestic mineral production. I have offered some evidence that that objective is being reached, and there will be more evidence to come, don’t worry. Even the ancient member for Thunder Bay, a chap who one can’t help but like --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We don’t have that trouble.

Hon. Mr. White: -- will be hanging on by his fingernails when the next election rolls around, whatever his fine personal qualities may be.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s the campaign chairman talking.

Mr. Stokes: Will the minister repeat that?

Hon. Mr. White: His destructive association with that socialist party will have the MPP for Thunder Bay hanging on to his riding by his fingernails. I think we can knock him off.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Tories couldn’t beat him if they ran St. John the Baptist against him.

Mr. Foulds: That shows how desperate they are.

Mr. Stokes: The last time I heard the Tories talk about my riding, they were asking me to run for them.

Hon. Mr. White: About 1923, wasn’t it?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The rabid socialist from Thunder Bay.

Hon. Mr. White: We want to provide economic benefits to northern Ontario and indeed we are so doing --

Mr. Foulds: Is it true that the member for London South is going to run for the NDP?

Hon. Mr. White: -- and finally to cooperate to the extent possible with the federal tax system on the mining industry.

I want to pause and deal with that for a minute. The Liberal leader, perhaps to recognize the graceful way in which all of the big brass flowed from Ottawa to Windsor on the weekend --

Mr. Reid: The Tories wish they could have that at their conventions.

Hon. Mr. White: -- gave us quite a scolding here last night, saying that we should be accommodating ourselves to a budget which came out after ours. May I recall to your memory, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance for Canada issued a policy announcement in 1970, saying that the federal government was going to back out of natural resources, they being the constitutional responsibility of the provinces --

Mr. Reid: The minister is talking about everything but the bill.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and that they were going to leave it to the various provinces of Canada to establish the total appropriate tax burden on the industry in their province.

Naturally, when we brought in the budget of April 9, 1974, we thought the federal government’s policy was intact, there having been no intimation of any description that this was not the case.

Mr. Bullbrook: We are not back to that old stuff again?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The one where we were to put on our sweaters and turn down the thermostat.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, you can imagine our astonishment when, without any consultation, the federal Minister of Finance in May, 1974, changed the policy entirely.

Mr. Laughren: The Treasurer didn’t consult him about the energy tax either.

Hon. Mr. White: Now, sir, if there was unevenness or unfairness insofar as the mining industry is concerned, where did the fault lie? Let me tell you. Right on the shoulders of the federal Minister of Finance.

Mr. Singer: Oh, yeah!

Hon. Mr. White: In fact, he had the grace to recognize that, because he did back away from certain of those provisions when he reintroduced his budget in the fall and, I think, went back something like 25 per cent.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The mining industry blames the minister -- and so does the present Treasurer. That’s why he won’t stay in here and listen to the minister.

Hon. Mr. White: We have gone from a 15 per cent flat mining tax rate, which in 1973-1974 produced $46 million, to a graduated tax rate ranging from zero to 40 per cent producing $144 million, which is to say three times as much. And when one adds in the corporation income tax and capital tax, the total amount of taxation paid by the mining industry is expected to be $202 million.

My hon. friend, the member for Cochrane South, gave his entire speech on the basis of we were raising these taxes from $88 million to $144 million and was complaining, Mr. Speaker -- I couldn’t believe it -- that we hadn’t quite doubled the mining tax.

Mr. Ferrier: I never made that remark.

Hon. Mr. White: Since this was the premise underlying every single remark he made in his rather lengthy speech, I suppose the conclusions flowing from the assumption are likewise incorrect. Anyway, I tell him now that while he is complaining that we haven’t doubled it even, we have in fact more than trebled it, as his leader was bright enough to know.

Mr. Laughren: The government is still giving Inco more than the people of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. White: We are collecting a lot more money and we are leaving the smaller companies -- as I say, those with less than $1.3 million in profit -- in a better position than they were before.

Mr. Singer: That’s what makes him so lovable.

Hon. Mr. White: We have established regulations, soon to be published for the first time, which will remove any discretion from the application of these taxes and the processing allowances. This has been a difficult, complicated undertaking quite understandably, and this is the reason, no doubt, it was never done before. However, we are going to have printed regulations which can be reviewed by members of this Legislature and members of the public. It will provide for disaggregation of new mines.

Why is that? It seemed absurd to us to say to a firm like Inco you have to pay the top marginal rate of 77 per cent if you yourselves open a new mine, but if Eaton’s opens a new mine or if Stelco opens a new mine or if General Motors opens a new mine, they will come in at the zero rate and earn their way up the scale. So for the sake of consistency and fairness, and once again to encourage exploration, development and production in the north, we have said if you open a brand new mine, you stand on all fours with Eaton’s of Canada or any other such company that might devote --

Mr. Laughren: What about a new shaft in the same ore body?

An hon. member: We’ve been shafted for years.

Hon. Mr. White: Well there are a number of points here to qualify for disaggregation, and I think I would like to give them to members now. This will bring a measure of equity as between large companies and small companies, and between companies which are mining firms as such and companies which are in the private sector with concentration in other fields of activity.

The following projects would qualify for disaggregation as being prepared for in the regulations:

1. A mining investment designed to increase ore production from a mine by 30 per cent over the previous high.

2. A mining investment of at least 25 per cent of the original cost of depreciable mining assets of a mine.

3. Mines inactive on Apr. 9, 1974, that are reopened; or if closed down after that date remain closed for five years before reopening.

4. Any other major mining investment as determined by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Well now sir, the processing allowances, which were eight per cent for concentrating in Canada, 16 per cent for smelting in Canada, and 20 per cent of course cumulative for refining in Canada, and which were eight, eight and eight outside of Canada, are now very substantially revised. Members can’t call this parochialism, because we are singling out a less developed region, namely northern Ontario, for this benefit.

This benefit will not apply to southern Ontario, and the charges made by the Liberals that we are in some way advantaging this province of ours and disadvantaging other provinces simply isn’t true. The Province of Quebec stands on the same grounds exactly as does the southern part of this province.

We have given a special advantage to northern Ontario and I make no apology for it. In northern Ontario we are going to provide processing allowances of eight per cent for the concentrating stage, 16 per cent to the smelting stage, 30 per cent instead of 20 per cent of the refining stage, and 35 per cent instead of the old 20 per cent to the further processing stage. Now that works out to a very substantial amount of money per worker per year; and also a useful amount of money -- a significant amount of money -- when one takes into account the multiplier factor as each new mine worker is augmented by doctors and barbers and automobile mechanics and so.

Mr. Foulds: It isn’t necessarily so. What advantages do they have in the north if they don’t have houses?

Mr. Reid: Build us some houses.

Mr. Stokes: The government holds back the quality of life in the north.

Hon. Mr. White: That is the kind of remark that really is so negative and so injurious to the north. I go around this province preaching what a great spot northern Ontario is, and the northern Ontario members from the socialist benches spend most of their time saying how bloody awful it is.

Mr. Laughren: The government is not doing anything about it either except for what the NDP squeezes out of it.

Mr. Ferrier: We say how bloody awful the government is.

Mr. Foulds: We say how bloody awful the government is to the north.

Hon. Mr. White: I don’t think that’s a clever way to sell northern Ontario. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I’ve given enough information on that particular matter. I now want to tell members the story of the industry.

Mr. Laughren: That’s all he has been telling us so far.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We are winning unanimous approval.

Hon. Mr. White: The industry was in a small state of shock on April 10; and then when Mr. Turner came out with his budget in May, they were furious. I don’t blame them much, because frankly the federal government had double-crossed them --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister had better get right down to New York and tell them about that.

Hon. Mr. White: -- at the same time that it was double-crossing the provinces. The new total was a pretty heavy burden. However, as I said, in fairness, Mr. Turner did correct that to some extent in his fall budget.

Well we didn’t put them out of business. I said privately and publicly in the months of the spring of 1974 that we weren’t going to put the mining industry out of business in this province. Texasgulf has done pretty well. Their after-tax profit in 1973 was $74 million and their after-tax profit last year was $147 million.

Mr. Ferrier: A really penurious company!

Hon. Mr. White: And I’m simply delighted.

Mr. Laughren: I know the minister is.

Hon. Mr. White: Their taxes to all sources, as taken from their own reports, have gone from $47 million to $122 million.

Mr. Ferrier: How much of that’s in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. White: And I’m simply delighted.

Mr. Ferrier: How much in Ontario?

Mr. Laughren: We’re saying it should go to the people.

Hon. Mr. White: At Inco the profits have gone, after taxes, from $227 million to $306 million. Good show!

Mr. Laughren: And the minister is delighted about that too.

Hon. Mr. White: Noranda’s profits for nine months have gone from $79 million to $128 million, and Denison’s for nine months from $6 million to $9 million. They’re doing very well and I’m happy that they are.

Mr. Laughren: What about the workers there?

Hon. Mr. White: If these mining commodity prices go down precipitously, then I suppose some Treasurer at some future time will accommodate himself to those sets of circumstances by altering the rate, as one is required to do from time to time.

Mr. Ferrier: He will probably abolish the taxes then.

Hon. Mr. White: The question was raised by the Leader of the Opposition as to why the Treasurer is not here to debate this bill himself. Well the answer is very simple. He has an enormous amount of work to do preparing his next budget, dealing with Ottawa, dealing with municipalities and so on. He was not familiar with the details of the bill in the way I was, I having been the Treasurer responsible for introducing it.

Mr. Bullbrook: I think he could grasp it in a hurry.

Hon. Mr. White: For these reasons he asked me to do it. I was amused, because while the leader of the Liberals was saying the bill should be debated by the present Treasurer, the hon. member for Lakeshore was saying it should be debated by the Minister of Revenue.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He wouldn’t permit the minister to take the last corporation bill through committee.

Hon. Mr. White: I think somebody else wanted it debated by the Minister of Natural Resources. I’m a sort of compromise candidate.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The minister is doing a great job.

Mr. Laughren: That wasn’t from us, I’ll tell him. He is not fit to hold office, let alone be a minister.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The minister is going to get unanimous support and unanimous approval from all sides of the House. I can see it coming.

Mr. Laughren: The way the Minister of Natural Resources has treated the workers in the mining industry he’ll be lucky to have a seat.

Hon. Mr. White: The Leader of the Opposition said the industry must have a level of profit to permit expansion. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this bill and these rates do provide that level of profit, as evidenced by the figures I have read into the record here.

Mr. Ferrier: The bill will get the minister lots of campaign funds from the mining industry in the next election.

Hon. Mr. White: As for the hon. member for Cochrane South, what a wonderful fellow for a mining town to send down to Toronto. He says taxes are too low and there are too many allowances.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister comes from a university town and they’re not too happy about it.

Hon. Mr. White: However, he won’t be back after the next election, so I’m not going to spend a lot more time on him.

Mr. Bullbrook: Neither will the minister.

Mr. Stokes: Don’t count on it.

Hon. Mr. White: The hon. member for Nipissing brought out Liberal policy No. 2, when he said the Province of Ontario should own between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of the mining companies. That was an interesting idea. That’s the worst of both worlds to own 30 per cent or 40 per cent and let the other guys own 60 per cent or 70 per cent. That I think would be the most asinine expenditure of public moneys imaginable.

Mr. Bullbrook: This government has five per cent and they have 95 per cent, is that right?

Hon. Mr. White: The hon. member for York Centre, however, came out with Liberal policy No. 3, when he said we should enter into a partnership. I guess that means 50-50 -- he didn’t say 50-50 -- but I think he was talking about a co-equal partnership with the mining industry.

Mr. Stokes: Partnership? One horse won’t run.

Hon. Mr. White: Was there a fourth policy expressed here today? I thought there was a fourth policy emanating from one of the Liberals here today. Maybe not.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister’s humour is deadening.

Hon. Mr. White: I have explained how the royalties lead to highgrading. Now I am looking at the notes I made on the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Bullbrook: Now I can see why this minister has carriage of this bill.

Mr. Singer: It was too much for the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. White: We did have a mining revenues payment system, as touched upon briefly by the member for Nickel Belt. It didn’t work at all well. The select committee on taxation in 1968 recognized the imperfections and urged there be a better way found. The better way found was to scratch the Mining Revenue Payments Act and bring in a new Property Tax Stabilization Act with a northern Ontario component.

This has increased unconditional grants to the mining communities. It has provided more money and it has provided these additional moneys more sensibly, because frankly under the old Mining Revenue Payments Act every year there was dickering between the Treasurer of the day and the mining communities involved, there was no rhyme nor reason, there was no objective test, there was a wrestling match and finally something was agreed upon that left everybody unhappy. So now we have a much more sensible system.

Mr. Stokes: I told the government that in 1968 and they told me I didn’t know what I was talking about. I told them that in 1968.

Hon. Mr. White: Did the member tell us that in 1968? Well, we did it, we did it for him. It took us a little while --

Mr. Foulds: Yes, it always does.

Hon. Mr. White: -- but we are not as quick as he is, we are not as alert. Now that the member has learned it and taught us, would he tell his compatriot from Nickel Belt? Then we will all be happy.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are going to miss the minister.

Hon. Mr. White: Well now, the member for Thunder Bay is a particular friend of mine, and he asked what was the government doing for northern Ontario? My distinguished colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, spent half an hour or thereabouts detailing some of the accomplishments in the north. I have touched upon some of them myself, such as a new grants for northern Ontario, the new tax allowances for northern Ontario mining firms.

Mr. Foulds: It is too late.

Hon. Mr. White: -- the newly announced expansions taking place all over the top of the north --

Mr. Foulds: Yes, without consultation.

Hon. Mr. White: -- that are going to turn northern Ontario, Mr. Speaker, into a veritable paradise within a decade.

Mr. Breithaupt: Hallelujah!

An hon. member: Those who want in, stand in line.

Mr. Laughren: The hyperbole is too much.

Hon. Mr. White: It is going to be wonderful.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, there is going to be no snow, no ice, no mosquitoes.

An hon. member: A new government.

Mr. Breithaupt: Is the minister going to move there?

Hon. Mr. White: You can see it in Sudbury right now; you can smell it in Timmins, when its member is out of town --

Mr. Breithaupt: You can smell it right here.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and in every community in northern Ontario things are booming.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister going to get rid of the smell in Dryden? Is he going to get rid of the mercury pollution?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker: I am informed that I don’t actually have to read these technical amendments into the House record, but rather provide them to the Clerk so that the bill can be reconsidered in the committee of the whole House with the amendments included in the reprinted version.

Mr. Stokes: At least give us a copy of them.

Hon. Mr. White: I will ask the page to distribute this now.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure, Mr. Minister, whether it is proper to do that or not, but certainly I think if you have acquainted the House with the contents --

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps the minister could either read his amendments as a convenience, or at least provide us with copies.

Mr. Speaker: You know, you just took the words out of my mouth. As long as we are acquainted with the contents, I think the bill has been already printed, preparatory to the other, and this will give the members an opportunity to study the amendments.

Hon. Mr. White: I am going to wind up, sir. This has been a very good debate --

Mr. Deans: On a point of order, if I may, regarding the minister’s amendments. I don’t quite understand why it is necessary to reprint the bill with the amendments. What is the purpose of that?

Mr. Speaker: No, we just said that would not be done.

Hon. Mr. White: This bill is going to committee of the whole House on Thursday and we could very easily have these amendments included in the redraft. They are technical amendments, they are in no way substantive amendments.

Mr. Deans: Is the minister going to provide us with copies?

Hon. Mr. White: Yes. That is the reason for doing it this way.

Mr. Breithaupt: May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if there is a matter of expense or time, and there may well be further amendments suggested which the minister may accept, that one need not go through the entire reprinting at this point, since the bill would have to be reprinted finally anyway.

Hon. Mr. White: Whatever Mr. Speaker and his officials decide on suits me.

Now, sir, very briefly, what are we trying to do? We’re trying to increase the revenues from the mining industry and we are trebling the revenues from the mining tax. We are increasing the revenues from the mining tax from $46 million to $144 million, and we are increasing the total tax revenues from the mining tax, the corporate tax and the capital tax, to $202 million.

Mr. Deans: That’s what they invested in Syncrude.

Hon. Mr. White: That’s what I call a big step. At the same time, we are leaving our large corporations competitive in the markets of the world, as proven by the figures I’ve given.

Thirdly, we are decreasing the tax on a substantial number of small mining companies, upon which depend some of the small communities of northern Ontario. We are providing very large processing allowances against the large marginal rate of 77 per cent tax, thereby inducing the development of a secondary manufacturing industry in northern Ontario in a way that has never been attempted before. It’s going to work and it has started to work. I’m not going to apologize for that either.

So, with this one bill, we bring in a completely new system of mining taxation which is going to bring about a new flowering of the north, and I venture to say, brave as I may be --

Mr. Laughren: Show us a guarantee of that in the bill.

Hon. Mr. White: -- foolish as I may be, I venture to say that 10 years from now the member for Cochrane South will say --

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): What a great man the minister is.

Hon. Mr. White: -- Feb. 11 was an historic day for northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The motion is for second reading.

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 111, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Allan Apps Auld Bales Beckett Belanger Bennett Bernier Braithwaite Breithaupt Brunelle Bullbrook Campbell Carruthers Davis Deacon Downer Drea Dymond Eaton Edighoffer Evans Ewen Gaunt Gilbertson Good Haggerty Hamilton Handleman Havrot Henderson Hodgson (York North) Irvine Jessiman Kennedy Kerr Leluk MacBeth Maeck McIlveen McNie Meen Morningstar Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon (Dovercourt) Nixon (Brant) Nuttall Parrott Paterson Reid Root Roy Ruston Sargent Scrivener Singer Smith (Simcoe East) Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Smith (Nipissing) Snow Stewart Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox) Taylor (Carleton East) Timbrell Turner Villeneuve Walker Wardle White Winkler Wiseman Worton Yaremko -- 73.

Bounsall Burr Cassidy Deans Dukszta Ferrier Foulds Germa Laughren Lawlor Lewis Stokes Young -- 13.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 73, the “nays” are 13.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding that it will go to committee of the whole House. Is that right, Mr. Minister?

Agreed.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Before you see the clock, Mr. Speaker, earlier today I suggested that we would communicate in regard to sitting tomorrow to hear speakers who care to make a contribution to the budget debate. There is an agreement reached. I would suggest that maybe you’d like to make it an order of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Will you acquaint us with what that is so I will know too?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The House would sit tomorrow afternoon to hear the continuation of the budget debate without routine orders.

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreeable?

Agreed.

Mr. Stokes: From 2 to 6?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, from 2 to 6, that’s right.

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

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

House in committee on Bill 179, An Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972.

It being 6:05 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.