Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: When we rose at 6 o’clock, we were considering second reading of Bill 33. I believe the member for Windsor West was about to address the assembly.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In speaking to this bill, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act, I find there is nothing very much in the bill that I can support. There might be small pieces that I can support, but mainly I can see no need for this Act coming in at all, bearing in mind the persons and corporations that this Act alone benefits.

Relief from paying tax on gasoline and diesel fuel is given already to fanners and commercial fishermen --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): And Quinn Enterprises.

Mr. Bounsall: And Quinn Enterprises; that’s right. We will have something to say later about Quinn Trucking in one of the exemptions they have here.

The Act proposes to give this tax credit to institutions, including hospitals and schools. Well, I don’t find this is much of a step forward. It is taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other pocket. With respect to the heating of a school, a hospital and so on, it does decrease the institution’s expenditures and it does decrease the government’s revenue, but the net total expenditure position is still the same in terms of real money to spend on services. They simply don’t pay the tax and their budgets must decrease by the amount that they don’t pay. There is no real net saving to anyone here.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Doesn’t the member think schools and hospitals are deserving?

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, but I am saying it makes no difference --

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Who pays for the bill anyway?

Mr. Bounsall: It makes no difference, if I might reply --

Mr. W. Hodgson: Is the member opposed to schools and hospitals receiving the rebate?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): It was never used for heating anyway.

An hon. member: How stupid can you get?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): There was never any tax on it.

Mr. Stokes: That’s right. So how can they benefit?

Mr. W. Hodgson: The NDP are against it, eh? Okay.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West has the floor.

Mr. Bounsall: If these institutions pay no tax now, then the budget papers erroneously include them among institutional users; there’s a note on page 29 of the Ontario budget statement that is incorrect.

But, as I say, if there is a decrease to any of those institutions, if they are being relieved of this tax, it is only money coming out of one Ontario government pocket and going into another Ontario government pocket. It means no more or no less funds for that government institution to provide more services to people. It makes no difference whatsoever in terms of the effective operation of that institution whether or not the funds are here.

In terms of the particular school it might make a very slight difference to the municipality if they pay 45 per cent of the total school budget, but it’s pretty darned slight. In terms of the provincial government’s contribution, it makes no difference at all.

Mr. W. Hodgson: There is quite a bit of difference.

Mr. Bounsall: If that was all the bill provided and we were dealing with that part of the bill, I suppose one could calculate that slight amount of saving on school budgets that would be passed on to the taxpayer of the municipality from such relief. We could be in favour of this bill if that’s all it did.

But what it proposes to do is to relieve from paying that gasoline tax and diesel fuel tax all those industrial users in the mining, forestry and construction industries, and all those people engaged in maintenance and construction of roads -- all those contractors to whom the Ontario government gives out contracts to maintain or build roads in the province. We don’t feel they need this tax relief.

All this will do is turn up on the profit balances of the companies, many of which over the last year have shown spectacular increases in percentage profits well beyond any other year of operation. They don’t need this tax relief. This additional tax relief simply will not cause them to produce more jobs nor cause them to operate any more efficiently but will allow them to pay out a higher profit and make spectacularly higher percentage profits than were shown in the previous year.

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I feel I cannot support this bill. There are other sections of the bill which to me are rather interesting. As should occur in any sort of tax bill, we did have a penalty on a person for unpaid taxes. One could in the past take a lien against the property of someone who did not pay taxes or penalties. We’re proposing not only to remove that possibility of taking a lien against the property of someone who is required to pay tax, but has not paid it or has not paid the penalty for not paying the taxes we’re also going to relieve the payment of any interest on those unpaid taxes as well where the minister considers it equitable to do so.

I can see no reason for either of these. The minister is really tempting all payers of this tax --

Mr. W. Hodgson: The member is trying to justify his opposition to the reduction of the sales tax. That’s all he is trying to do.

Mr. Bounsall: No, we’re not.

Mr. W. Hodgson: His party is already on the record --

Mr. Bounsall: What we are doing is attempting --

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): The sales tax bill has gone. Doesn’t the member know that’s gone?

Mr. Martel: Give them another slice of pie.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Where has he been for the last two days?

Mr. Martel: Trying to fill the Tory coffers for the election?

Mr. W. Hodgson: We’re all ready. This is going to haunt the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Bounsall: We are tempting and encouraging those few payees left who pay the motor vehicle fuel tax to not pay it because we could take that amount as a lien against their property but now in this bill were saying we definitely can’t. In addition, we’re saying we can remit the interest as well. They can let their bills go unpaid for a while, plead special circumstances before the minister and they won’t have any interest. That’s zero, free borrowing, from the Province of Ontario with that provision.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Don’t try to catch up with it.

Mr. Bounsall: There’s no way we can see why those who have to pay this motor vehicle fuel tax should be allowed, as a special group, the possibility of getting zero interest loans from the Province of Ontario.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I find I can’t support the bill. I find too many parts of it which are unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex South.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): I would ask the minister, before I commence any remarks, whether or not this in effect takes the tax off the fuel used by bulldozer and earth-moving operators? I have a nod of assent and this fortifies my position in supporting the particular bill.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I hope that’s the position of the member’s party.

Mr. Paterson: Yes, I believe it is.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He says it is. If he says it, it is.

Mr. Paterson: Two or three days ago, I recall, this tax was first imposed upon people using earth-moving equipment for digging aggregates and so forth for the house-building industry. I know in one case it cost a small business firm approximately $25,000 in tax and almost put that small company out of business.

I’m glad to see this is relieved and companies such as this can now bring aggregates to the market for the housing business and so forth at a little lower price. I think this is what is attempted in this bill. It’s not all large corporations which are going to benefit; there are a lot of small contractors which are going to be relieved of this particular responsibility.

I know someone has interjected here something about the greenhouse industry. I don’t believe there is any tax as such on natural gas for use in those premises. This is a matter we are currently negotiating with the Ministry of Energy. I realize it is not contained in the bill, but this is a very serious situation with these growers.

It this is to help relieve the tax and lower the cost for people in the construction business to get on with building houses and industrial parks and so forth, I think it is a very worthwhile measure.

Mr. Germa: How about Inco?

Mr. Speaker: Any other hon. member? The member for Welland South?

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just have a question of clarification of section 5. The repeal of section 17 removes from the Act the lien against the property of a registrant for unpaid taxes and penalties. The proposed section 17 will enable the minister, where he considers it equitable to do so, to relieve against the payment of any interest provided for in this Act.

Let us take, for example, Quinn Enterprises, which has been raised here in the last couple of days in the Legislature. Does this apply to them when they owe some $200,000 in fuel tax?

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, it does not.

Mr. Bounsall: It could, though, couldn’t it?

Mr. Haggerty: The minister said he is removing the lien.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That’s got nothing to do with it. I’ll explain it later on.

Mr. Haggerty: The point is that it says that the minister is removing the lien. I think he indicated in the House the other day that he does have a lien against the property at the present time.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I don’t ordinarily do this, Mr. Speaker, but if I could interject I would explain to the hon. member that there are liens and there are liens. In this case, the lien we are talking about is a lien for unpaid taxes. It is automatically on the property of a vendor if he sells the property. The purchaser of that business would have to get a lien clearance certificate from my ministry. However, if as happens in the Quinn case, there is evidence of unpaid taxes, then the minister may execute a warrant and lodge the warrant with the sheriff thereby, in effect, imposing a lien on the property, but it is a different kind of lien altogether.

The removal of this kind of lien by no means alters the practice or the availability of the use of a minister’s warrant for unpaid taxes or moneys owing in any event. They are not the same thing, as the hon. member for Welland may have erroneously believed them to be.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of points that have been raised. I have just cleared up one of them. If I had known I was going to have the opportunity to reply at this stage, I could have included it all in my formal remarks.

I am not quite sure how the hon. members of the NDP are going to blow when it comes to voting on this. Perhaps the member for Sudbury should talk to his colleague, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier), who pointed out one of the advantages of the removal of the diesel tax in certain areas. The member for Cochrane South specifically referred to Texmont Mines, which is a little mine substantially removed from any hydro service as we know hydro service to be. It has had up until now to generate its own electricity by trucking in diesel fuel at a fairly high cost, I expect, for operating its diesel electric generators.

Mr. Stokes: And where was the minister when they needed his help?

Hon. Mr. Meen: It seemed unwise, unfair and unjust to impose a tax on diesel fuel used in an internal combustion engine for that purpose when a similar mining operation perhaps in an adjacent property -- or not too far away, and certainly adjacent in the sense of being competitive in the market -- might very well have access to hydro-electric service and be able to buy that power at substantially lesser cost.

Mr. Stokes: The member for Cochrane South raised that with the minister and he offered no assistance whatsoever. He waited until after they closed.

Mr. Martel: The minister is grasping at straws.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: Why doesn’t the minister talk about Inco and Abitibi, the ones who get the real benefit?

Hon. Mr. Meen: In bringing some substantial measure of equity into the taxing picture, as the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) indicated he was doing in his budget, this is one of these areas in which, by the removal of tax in such quarters, we bring a form of equity. Texmont Mines has indicated, for one, as I understand it, that given --

Mr. Stokes: Where was the minister when we needed him?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- this kind of treatment it might just reopen. Who knows?

Mr. Stokes: They closed two years ago.

Hon. Mr. Meen: If they do, the member for Thunder Bay can thank us, not the member for Sudbury.

Mr. Stokes: They closed two years ago. The government is two years too late.

Mr. Bounsall: We begged them to open that up and give them that relief two or three years ago.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I’ve forgotten who it was. I think it was the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) who asked me what general areas would benefit by the removal of the tax. I have collected some information that may be of some use to the hon. members.

For example, in the general construction field and building construction using excavation machinery, bulldozers, cranes, earth-moving equipment, and that kind of machinery, there would be about $1.1 million in tax saved.

In road construction, graders and bulldozers -- and I mentioned earlier to the member for Essex South, that earth-moving equipment would fall into that category -- there would be a saving of about $4.2 million.

In the mining industry -- with Texmont as an example -- there are electric generators, hauling equipment, hoists and that sort of diesel-driven equipment; there would be a saving estimated at about $1.8 million.

In lumbering, including pulp and paper, there is machinery like diesel-driven log skidders. I would emphasize the unlicensed hauling equipment, electric generators again, personnel carriers, tree harvesters, diesel-powered sawmills and similar milling equipment; there would be a saving of about $1.4 million.

Mr. Stokes: How are the institutions going to benefit?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, I’ll answer that. Municipalities and public utilities get their heating free, but they do have certain other areas of activity in the remote parts of the province. That’s a relatively small item. That’s estimated at $300,000; but it still is significant.

Mr. Stokes: What about the institutions?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Institutional use is relatively small. It’s $100,000. Some of the institutions use diesel-electric generators for standby power and that’s the kind of thing where they would save on having to pay tax on the fuel.

Mr. Martel: He’s digging a pit to fall into.

Mr. Cassidy: Put Florence Nightingale up as a front for Inco.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In commercial use, the northern tourist camps have electric generators in ski resorts and diesel-powered tows and equipment such as that, landscaping equipment; basic commercial installations would be about $500,000.

Mr. Cassidy: Is that a social priority or what?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Miscellaneous manufacturing would include such things as on-site unlicensed vehicles, diesel-powered machinery and gas turbines for the pumping of the gas itself through gas pipelines and diesel generators, it would be about $1.1 million.

In all, it makes a total of some $10.5 million of diesel tax that we would not apply in those areas.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest the real intent of this section is to bring some kind of equity to an otherwise rather confused area in which services standing side by side might find themselves in a position where one was being taxed and the other wasn’t.

Mr. Martel: Side by side, 500 miles apart.

Hon. Mr. Meen: What we’re trying to do is rationalize the whole picture of taxation at a relatively small expense.

There are other provisions in this bill, Mr. Speaker. I suppose I’m tempted to call them housekeeping. They implement some of the other statements by the Treasurer as basically bringing a more rational approach to the taxation picture in the fuel end of things. When we go into committee of the whole House later on the hon. members may have some questions on these particular sections; I think we can deal more appropriately with them at that time.

Mr. Martel: What a weak answer.

Mr. Speaker: The motion, then, is for second reading of Bill 33. Shall this motion carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Did I hear “no”?

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 33, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Allan Apps Bales Belanger Birch Brunelle Campbell Carruthers Deacon Eaton Evans Ewen Gilbertson Good Grossman Haggerty Hamilton Henderson Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton) Hodgson (York North) Irvine Kennedy Lane Leluk Maeck McKeough Meen Morrow Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Newman (Ontario South) Nixon (Dovercourt) Nuttall Parrott Paterson Riddell Root Roy Ruston Scrivener Smith (Simcoe East) Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Spence Stewart Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox) Taylor (Carleton East) Villeneuve Walker Wardle Winkler Wiseman Yakabuski -- 51.

Bounsall Burr Cassidy Foulds Germa Lawlor Martel Renwick Samis Shulman Stokes -- 11.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 51, the “nays” 11.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves second reading of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1973.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, strangely enough, we in this caucus don’t have any serious objection to this bill. I would ask one question of the minister: Why is this particular bill made retroactive to Oct. 1, 1973?

Mr. Stokes: Oct. 30.

Mr. Renwick: Oct. 30, 1973.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) wish to speak? The member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to say a few words on Bill 34, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act. I’m sorry to see the government failed to take advantage of a situation which would have gone a long way to help other aspects of society when they were tinkering with the taxation of vehicles which use propane or butane or other forms of manufactured or natural gas. This is precisely what the bill deals with.

I’d like to ask the minister why he didn’t follow the lead of that great Province of British Columbia.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Wonderful place.

Mr. Martel: Always in the forefront.

Mr. Germa: It seems to me that British Columbia has to keep breaking new ground in order to pull the rest of Canada with it. And I’m talking now about the problem which burning of fuels is causing in the Province of Ontario. Specifically, I’m talking about the great metropolitan area of Toronto, which is now choking to death on carbon monoxide from the emissions of automobiles. Here was a wonderful opportunity for the Minister of Revenue or the Treasurer to do a job that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. N. Newman) has been unable to do, and that is to clean up the atmosphere in our major metropolitan areas.

Does the minister know -- and he probably doesn’t know -- that the Province of British Columbia has introduced special legislation which will provide an incentive to induce motorists and truckers to use propane and butane in automobiles and trucks? I’m sure the minister doesn’t know that this product is 100 per cent combustible and does not have the effluent which comes from the burning of diesel and gasoline fuels. In one simple stroke, he could have cleaned up the mess that we see going along in our large metropolitan areas.

An hon. member: We do it now.

Mr. Germa: No, they do the opposite. They are not supplying any incentive whatsoever for automobiles or trucks to convert to a clean-burning fuel.

Mr. Samis: The minister is a person choker.

Mr. Germa: He’s a person choker.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): He is choking on his speech now. That is the pause that refreshes.

Mr. Germa: I should like to point out that the Province of Manitoba has also taken steps to encourage people to convert to a cleaner fuel. Under the legislation before us, it would appear there is going to be a tax of 19 cents per gallon on butane or propane or manufactured gas, whereas in British Columbia the tax would be 10 cents, and that is the province where one gets the most incentive to use a cleaner fuel. Alberta has a tax rate on this product of 15 cents per gallon and Manitoba is at 17 cents.

So there are at least three provinces which have seen the light of day and have taken steps to try to get motorists away from diesel and gasoline. I’d like to ask the minister why he didn’t take into consideration the environment when he is levying taxes? One of the simplest ways to clean up the environment is by incentive. It appears he cannot legislate people into mending their ways, but I’m sure if he put a carrot in front of them they will chase the carrot for their own benefit and for the benefit of all the people surrounding them. I would ask the minister to respond to that suggestion.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, I think the point made by the hon. member for Sudbury is a very good one, particularly in view of the fact that there are fewer Btu in a gallon of liquefied petroleum gas and butane than there are in a gallon of gasoline and cars do not travel as far per gallon on those. Therefore, if he is trying to base the tax on the amount of use of a highway that a vehicle makes, than the minister really logically should reduce the amount per gallon, because the car will not travel as far. In addition to the other features of an incentive, it isn’t there to provide the same amount per gallon tax on the propane and the butane.

I would also add that in the case of diesel, although the objectionable qualities of smell are there, the actual residue of gases is far less harmful than it is in gasoline, yet the amount of tax per gallon is a good deal more. It is 25 cents a gallon instead of 19 cents a gallon charged on gasoline. Diesel certainly is charged a good deal more than the 19 cents a gallon. I think diesel is about 25 cents a gallon.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Diesel is 25 cents.

Mr. Deacon: That’s right. The reason for that, I suppose, is the fact that you get better mileage on diesel but, at the same time, the 1976 emission standards are met by diesel motors. Certainly they are in the case of an automobile. We should be encouraging that first vis-à-vis gasoline and certainly even encouraging more propane and butane. I would ask the minister to consider amending this tax so that propane and butane and natural gas which have a lower Btu content and, therefore, will not propel a vehicle as far, be well below that of gasoline on a per-gallon basis.

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

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the member for Sudbury and my colleague from York Centre and I really wonder why this particular amendment, in fact, even included propelling a vehicle on the highway. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that in any event there are very few motor vehicles being propelled on the highway by natural or manufactured gas or liquefied petroleum.

In fact, the tax involved, in view of the work or possibly the bureaucracy and the system of collecting tax for so few vehicles, is really peanuts. There is really no money in it. I would think the savings of the income or the revenue from taxing these particular vehicles would be extremely small. As I understand it, most of these vehicles which are using this type of gas or this type of fuel are in the experimental stage.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Not by any means.

Mr. Roy: I recall, Mr. Speaker, that Pollution Probe in Ottawa for a number of years was experimenting with vans that were using, I think, propane. They were suggesting there is a kit involved to make the exchange. As I understand it, there are still not many vehicles. For the minister to tax them, I would suggest, is inconsistent with the policy of this government, especially in large metropolitan areas, to curb pollution.

I would have thought, if we are talking about consistent policy emanating from a government, surely he wouldn’t even have had to add in there vehicles which are working on the highway. I would have thought the amendment, framed the way it is now. is really not necessary. He could take out vehicles propelled on the highway.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. member wish to speak to this? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A number of questions were asked. I think I may have missed the last one as I was speaking momentarily with the House leader. But if I have missed any points I will be pleased to come back to them.

The hon. member for Riverdale asked about the retroactivity of the legislation to Oct. 30, 1973. That’s the effective date of the last amendment to the Act, as a result of which I think some confusion arose as to whether the tax was intended to be applied to natural gas off-highway. So we’ve made it retroactive to that time. As I would observe, the retroactive aspect provision is included here to remove any doubt as to the taxable status of gases used in stationary engines. I emphasize stationary.

Although some of the hon. members, including the hon. member for York Centre, have indicated some justification for special treatment of the use of LPG on the highway, we are not, at this stage anyway, moving with this amendment to treat that problem. In any event, it was following the amendment which came into force on Oct. 30, 1973, that the ministry became aware that there was a significant increase in the use of LPG or gas-driven turbines and the like off-highway, which it had never intended to tax. So this is really a clarification of that position to make sure it is abundantly clear in the bill.

The member for York Centre was speaking about the tax applied to LPG when used on-highway, and I asked my staff just to verify that for me. It’s likewise 19 cents a gallon, as with conventional gasoline. I do agree that you have roughly 100,000 Btu in a gallon of LPG, and about 155,000 Btu I believe is the figure for first-grade, and roughly the same for second-grade gasoline. So there is a significant difference. If the efficiency of the motor can be assumed to be the same, then one would get two-thirds of the mileage with LPG that one would with conventional gasoline carburetion.

I suppose that’s something we should look at because I, too, would be interested in cleaning up the environment. At this stage, there isn’t any tremendous use in terms of percentage or in terms of mileage of LPG for motor vehicles. Frankly, I would like to encourage it. I think it’s a matter that we should be considering as some kind of incentive. That doesn’t overcome the entire problem. Various fuels have various Btu ratings.

I’m not sure -- well maybe we can deal with it. But under the administrative side of dealing with fuels and applying taxes to them based, not on gallonage -- something that you can physically measure in terms of weight or in terms of volume -- but rather in terms of their Btu component, which means a constant surveillance and testing of the various fuels, it might well be something that we would worry about. I don’t for one minute suggest that it is insurmountable. Indeed, I think that’s the kind of problem we should tackle.

Mr. Deacon: Would the minister move it down to 10 cents a gallon?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well, if one were to apportion it, I would suppose two-thirds of 19 is around 12½ cents, or something of that sort. On the other hand, maybe we should go the other way and increase the gasoline tax to 25 or 26 cents to retain the same ratio. I’m really being facetious on that score.

Mr. Roy: Fortunately, he won’t get a chance to.

Mr. Deacon: Let’s encourage the use of propane.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well, of course. As I say, I’m not in a position to suggest that we do that tonight. But the relationship of taxes to the energy content of fuels, particularly in the interest of an incentive in that area, would be something I think we could well look at.

I guess I have answered the member for Sudbury’s question when he was asking about reference to the environment. Certainly I am as concerned as he is about environment, but this bill is not aimed specifically at that score.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I have run out of the notes that I made from listening to the hon. members opposite and I wonder -- have I covered the points? There may be one point from the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I would like to know from the minister -- he seems to be versed in Btu and this type of thing -- would he have any idea how many vehicles or what percentage of vehicles in this province are operating on liquefied or natural manufactured gas -- liquefied petroleum?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Not in the terms of people, but we do know that we collect $300,000 in tax from the sale of LPG in motor vehicles. That’s the figure my staff have given me. That’s as I understand the figure.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

Mr. Stokes: I hope the minister knows that No. 2 gas is 78 cents a gallon in Schreiber, Ont., at the present time.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves second reading of Bill 35, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): I wish there were some rationality about these bills. I think, according to my merely Euclidean mathematics, never having studied Einstein, that 31 tends to come somehow, as does 32, before 35. But one never knows; the mathematics of the Conservative government allows for a certain relativity as between numbers.

I was primed, in other words, Mr. Speaker, to speak to Bill 31, the Succession Duty Act -- and why on earth the minister doesn’t bring it forward at this particular time to get it out of the way I don’t know. The Income Tax Act is pretty well at the end of the train. We would ask that the Income Tax Act go to committee -- and the minister has to so set it by a nod of the head and that’s fine.

An hon. member: Standing committee.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Standing committee.

Mr. Lawlor: The standing committee. The basic propositions here in this Act -- we’ll approve of it, we’ll affirm it. It does give some alleviation. It wipes a very considerable number of people off the tax rolls who ought never to have been on the tax rolls in the first place -- people who are paying tax of $64, that type of thing.

As the government moves in this area there is a certain sense of suavity, a certain sense of human responsibility. Many of our fellow citizens making $5,600 a year or thereabouts ought not and cannot, with the inflationary pressures that they face today, pay income tax on top of it. Nevertheless, the income tax of this country relies -- falls fully -- upon those people in the brackets from that figure of $5,600 up to $15,000.

Beyond that there are alleviations. I mean there are expense accounts; there are a hundred things with respect to investments in trust; certain benefits being given by way of corporate investment, shareholdings, 20 per cent cutbacks. There’s the business of putting your money into annuity payments, various forms of life insurance where the upper middle class have, through lobbies and through the force of their pressure in legislatures -- in the federal House particularly, but here too; this government assents to the same basic philosophy of taxation -- these people have the burden lifted from them hic nunc, here and there and everywhere.

But between the figure that the government has alleviated and the $15,000 figure, that’s where the weight falls; that’s where the bulk of the revenue for the country comes in. Insofar as income tax represents any kind of weighty taxation scheme at the present time in this province that’s where the government gets its revenue from, it is not from the well-to-do. The minister may argue that there are not enough well-to-do. Well, there are enough well-to-do over $15,000 -- and I call anyone over that figure well-to-do whatever Onassis may think, bless his soul --

Mr. Stokes: He is not thinking these days.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, we will have to go to Niarchos, etc., who is barely thinking, and see where the ripoff comes in the whole situation.

This bill and the Corporations Tax Act are the two bills in which come the election expenses -- credits and benefits to individuals in the election -- particularly the Corporations Tax Act to which we will have to give very severe scrutiny. I mean, at the present time we are being hung up and, to use the vernacular, screwed by the Conservative government over there with respect to trade union contributions to election expenses and to the ongoing life of particularly the New Democratic Party.

The legislation that we will be facing shortly, and that we have here, gives alleviations to individuals and particularly to corporations as to the ambit and the flexibilities that they have with respect to supporting the old-line parties in their continued inviability, as things stand. And that can’t be discussed, Mr. Speaker, with any insightfulness on second reading. It requires committee, where we can enter into the niceties of the legislation.

We agree with the benefits of the tax credit concept as operative here -- the expansion thereof and the limits set forth in the budget papers. But as you can expect, Mr. Speaker, we will say with validity, I suggest, that they don’t go far enough. With inflationary pressures running at 12, 15 or 20 per cent per annum, they are hitting particular income groups very hard because of the selectivity involved in their purchasing power. After all, they are not buying stereo sets, you know; they are buying basic, necessary commodities.

The inflationary pressures on the poor are not commensurate with, identical with or comparable to those on the upper middle class, by no means, although the averaging principle operates in this particular field. They suffer the full impact which I suspect would be closer to 26 or 28 per cent per annum where the real weight of inflationary pressures falls. To the extent that this legislation gives cognizance of that -- although it never does in the budget papers, in the statement by the Treasurer nor in the course of the rationalizations that go behind legislation -- there is some alleviation, and we are therefore forced necessarily to support the legislation under that particular head.

The several principal matters under the legislation are best scrutinized and dissected in a nice way outside this House, rather than in an overall way within it. So we will not be opposing the legislation. Nevertheless, we would hope to give the minister a fairly scappling time when the committee work begins.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add certain comments with respect to Bill 35 on second reading.

We are, of course, pleased that section 2 sets out the reduction for the particular individuals who had been relieved from federal income tax so that those same benefits would apply to the provincial income tax requirement. The 450,000 low-income individuals who were referred to in the budget speech are, of course, persons whose ability to pay the federal income tax has now been decided as being such that they should not be burdened with this particular requirement. As this Act now parallels the federal legislation, we are obviously pleased to support the relief of income tax payments from the Ontario government’s point of view for those particular individuals.

Section 3 deals particularly with those who have been involved with benefits as a result of a convention or treaty entered into by the federal government. There was, of course, that $5,000 treaty exemption for Americans through the treaty convention that had existed over the past. One wonders, and perhaps the minister may have the opportunity to reply, whether there were any attempts to collect the income tax required from the Province of Ontario from those who were otherwise relieved from paying taxes. Certainly if the usual withholding provisions were applied, then this amount of tax could be returned from the federal authorities if the individuals involved were relieved from that particular obligation.

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, there is that mauve or purple-coloured sheet with the income tax return that allows claims, not only for pensioner credit and sales tax but also for the home occupation costs at Ontario s expense, to be deducted from the federal obligation of paying tax. When that total figure has subtracted from it the two per cent credit for taxable income which is paid, we wind up with a net credit balance that is otherwise claimable by the persons who are completing those tax forms. Obviously, since there has been no federal income tax payable to these persons, there should be no tax credit given by the Province of Ontario. This change in procedure follows along and develops this same kind of balance that we are seeing in dealing with the low-income individuals I have referred to earlier.

Basically, the items in section 3 also parallel federal legislation. The federal government has given credit for individuals who give donations not only to the election campaigns of federal parties but as ordinary party contributions and, as well, as individual items to candidates. In this bill, the provincial government’s deduction allowable for election campaign expenses is, of course, deductible from the provincial tax which is payable.

Particularly, from a corporation’s point of view, the $4,000 figure which has been referred to in the legislation is a deduction before the taxable base is struck for the application of federal income tax. With a 12 per cent rate applicable for the collection of tax by the province, this benefit, shall we say, on the $4,000 base allows some $480 which is available as a net benefit to a company which contributes that total amount of money. For the individual, in order to get the $500 total tax deduction, I understand a donation of some $1,150 would be required.

There is one area I would appreciate the minister referring to and that is with respect to associated corporation rules. It applies not only here but perhaps also in the Corporations Tax Act as something that should be considered since, presumably, associated corporations would be able to maximize their beneficial contributions to political parties by having separate contributions from each of the particularly organized companies.

Certainly there’s going to be publicity required for the new election donation possibilities and for the rules which are now going to apply. I presume the organization of the necessary committee under the Election Expenses Act will provide us with many of the detailed decisions and the approach which should be taken by all political parties to deal with this on a constituency basis.

We are, of course, most aware that in the average constituency organization it may not always be possible to have the lawyer or the chartered accountant as a member of the executive of that association, or as a resource person available to deal with the detailed approach that this and the amendments to the Corporations Tax Act are going to require. We’re looking forward, as a result, to the aide-mémoire that at least is going to be provided by the commission, I would hope, to deal with the many kinds of details which are going to arise when political donations come out of the woodwork, out of the dim, dark past and become not only things which should be encouraged but donations which are socially acceptable.

In sections 4 and 5 we deal with the instalment provisions which basically, as I understand it, parallel the federal legislation. Individuals other than farmers and fishermen are going to be allowed, as they were, to pay their two-thirds income tax before Dec. 31 and the remainder by April 30. Now we have the rules changing somewhat so that the wording and the addition of certain terms in this section are, as I understand it, once again going to parallel the federal legislation.

The previous year has been used by these individuals over the past for their current donations to the income tax funds and, presumably, sections 4 and 5 here are going to allow for instalment paying so that the same basis is available for those paying provincial income tax as exists in the federal situation. As a result, we’re going to have one area of consistency in the rules and that is certainly to be encouraged.

We are prepared to support the bill. I suggest this will at least be helpful to a number of citizens within the province as they calculate their various tax obligations. We are at least dealing with similar items in the same way, under both Ontario’s legislation and that of the federal government.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, could I just say a few words on that section of the bill having to do with tax credits for donations to political parties? I am sure everyone is aware of what has been going on in the past as far as financing parties is concerned. The major corporations, by unwritten rule, have made donations on the basis of 60 per cent -- 40 per cent to the two old-line parties. The party in power gets the 60 per cent and the old-line party not in power, like Tweedledee and Tweedledum, Tweedledum gets 40 per cent.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: Unions don’t do it that way.

Mr. Germa: This has resulted, Mr. Speaker, in a complete farce of the whole political process right across this country for the past 100 years. When corporations finance this façade of Tweedledee fighting with Tweedledum, people over here watching this great debate and this great debacle going on get confused and rattled and think there is a contest between two opposing political parties. You and I, Mr. Speaker, who are quite close to the situation know that nothing is further from the truth, that these two parties have been playing a game strictly to bring in the gate and splitting the gate receipts between them.

Mr. Breithaupt: Let us in on the secret.

Mr. Germa: I think there would have been, or there still is, an opportunity here for the minister, if he wants to be truly honest, to clean up this Act, this façade we have had in Canada for 100 years, this wrestling match.

One can watch on TV two huge wrestlers grunting and groaning and struggling and entertaining the people. It’s a game, and the government has ruined the political process by perpetuating this game, by allowing corporations and rich individuals to make contributions to two political parties. I think before a contribution should be made, the person should define which political party he is donating to and should be precluded from donating to another political party so that this game will not continue any further in the future.

If there is a philosophical difference between a Liberal and a Conservative, I fail to see it. But at least these people will have to identify as one or the other, and maybe one of them will disappear, so that the campaign then can come down to basic philosophical differences. Then the people in Canada and the people in Ontario will have a realistic choice of the kind of government they are going to get.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They are revolutionaries over there.

Mr. Germa: What is the sense, Mr. Speaker, of having these two parties, who believe philosophically in the capitalistic, free-enterprise, profit-motivated system? What choice do the people have when these people preoccupy all the boob tubes, the newspapers and radio and saturate the whole province with their propaganda?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Germa: The people think they have been subject to an election campaign and it’s a farce.

Mr. Breithaupt: A lot of the member’s party have done well in cabinet.

Mr. Germa: it’s an absolute ruse that these people have been participating in.

Mr. Ruston: A member of that member’s party is playing the stock market for profit.

Mr. Germa: There they are. They could, by one stroke of the pen, clean up this façade and put both of these guys in the same bag.

Mr. Breithaupt: Members of his party do all right.

Mr. Germa: I am not fussy which one of the guys comes out of the bag because they are both the same, Tweedledee and Tweedledum. What is the difference between the two people? There is nothing, They are sitting here both --

Mr. Speaker: Order, could we get back to the principle of this bill, please?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He doesn’t understand the bill.

Mr. Germa: I am speaking on the subject of political donations and how dual donations have wrecked the political system in Canada.

Mr. Speaker: That is not what the bill is about. The bill is about certain income tax credits.

Mr. Germa: I am supporting the bill because the bill is a small step to encouraging people to become politically active.

Mr. Ruston: Ontario Hydro is bad enough.

Mr. Germa: I support the principle. At no time did I say I wasn’t supporting the bill. I am trying to show the government how it could have made the bill better.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): He really doesn’t know what he is talking about. We have always known it.

Mr. Germa: I support the proposition of individual donations but I don’t support the proposition of fat-cat corporations buying power in two political parties at the same time.

Mr. Lawlor: Perfectly right.

Mr. Germa: The government hasn’t precluded that from happening and that is precisely what I am talking about. I support the principle of individual donations to a political party, not to two political parties.

Mr. Breithaupt: What about three?

An hon. member: Why does the NDP check them off, then?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: I wasn’t going to get into this debate, Mr. Speaker, but after listening to the member for Sudbury -- and I do happen to carry a union card yet -- I would like to say that I would just as soon have 10 cents from every labour person in my constituency donate to my campaign --

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Voluntary or otherwise?

Mr. Haggerty: -- and over a period of four years, I’ll tell you, I could run a darned good campaign.

Mr. Breithaupt: If necessary.

Mr. Germa: The member for Welland South gets 40 per cent from Inco. He’d take the 40 per cent and make up the remaining 60 per cent.

Mr. Haggerty: In many cases, you know, it’s taken off the paycheque of a person employed in industry without even consulting him --

Mr. Lawlor: He has the full opportunity to make his representation. Come off it.

Mr. Haggerty: If he wants to opt out of it he has to go to the federal NDP --

Mr. Lawlor: Some of the Neanderthal Liberals really deserve to be flagellated. They are worse than the Tories.

Mr. Haggerty: I can tell the hon. member quite a bit about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lawlor: They are purblind backward beggars.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lawlor: What do they think 10 cents will accomplish?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the member for Lakeshore restrain himself? Order please. The principle of this particular bill is not where the money comes from.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: That is out of order, and any response to that is out of order. Does the member wish to speak to the principle of this particular bill?

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the principle of the bill. I’m talking about fund-raising, and I want to tell the members how --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. This has nothing to do with fund-raising. This has to do with income tax deductions.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s fund-raising.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, it affects the income tax. I know of instances in elections where a certain union will support a certain party, in particular the NDP.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. That was discussed in Bill 3. This has to do with income tax deductions.

Mr. Haggerty: This does deal with income tax.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I most point out that Bill 3 had to do with political party financing.

Mr. Ruston: You let the previous speaker speak for 10 minutes. He wasn’t on the bill whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. This has to do with deductions from income tax.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the point I’m trying to make is that there are a number of cases where the unions will go to a certain employee working in industry and say: “Look, we want you to donate two or three weeks of your time -- ”

Mr. Speaker: This has nothing to do with the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Haggerty: I’m coming to that point.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. You’re talking about Bill 3. We’re now talking about Bill 35.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the point I’m trying to bring to your attention is that when they go out and use this method of assisting a political party, they will say to him: “If you take two weeks of your time off from employment, the union will guarantee you two weeks wages.” So in a sense the government is losing income tax. They’re evading income tax.

Mr. Speaker: That is not the income tax we’re talking about. Will you please stick to the principle of this particular bill?

Mr. Ruston: Right on. Right on.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): It’s contributions. It’s in this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further remarks on this particular bill?

Mr. Haggerty: I’m afraid to continue in case you won’t allow me --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member must recognize that he is talking about political party financing and not the deductions from income tax as allowed in this particular bill.

Mr. Haggerty: It’s a political contribution to a party; and this is what we’re dealing with. If I want to give $100 to the federal Liberal Party, I can deduct it for income tax purposes. Right?

An hon. member: That’s very true.

Mr. Haggerty: I’m suggesting that there are ways that you can get around it by providing free time to a political party. If you lose that time from industry the union will make up the loss of the wages in that they’re donating almost $300 to a political party and not getting anything in return for it; in a sense, there is a loss of income tax to the government. I suppose we could get into this in more detail but the Speaker probably would rule me out of order. I was thinking particularly of the free advertising that is given to the NDP in union papers, and there are no taxes on that.

Mr. Bounsall: There never is any.

Mr. Ruston: Oh, no? The member ought to read them. I get one every month. I know. Don’t kid me.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Haggerty: It goes on in almost every party, and if we’re going to have equity in the system, then we’re going to have to come forward with a different bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to this bill? The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on this bill in relation to the comments that were made by the Treasurer in the course of his remarks on the budget and draw to the attention of the assembly what I believe to be one of the fundamental inequities of the distribution of income in the Province of Ontario.

Strangely enough, the proposal which is mirrored in the bill which is now before us was referred to by the Treasurer in terms which need to be clearly understood. He stated that these high tax-free thresholds ensure that Ontario’s income tax and tax credit system remain the most generous in Canada. After having spoken about the fact that these persons are not now going to be subject to income tax and therefore they will be entitled to further tax credits, he states that this represents a further significant advance in the total equity of Ontario’s tax structure.

What it doesn’t deal with, of course, and what is missing entirely from the budget of the Province of Ontario, in any significant sense, is the question of whether or not sufficient people have sufficient income to pay the income tax; or have sufficient income which, together with the credits to which they are entitled, raised them to a point where they can pay the income tax. This bill, you see, Mr. Speaker, deals only with the question of whether or not you have sufficient income and at what marginal level you escape tax.

One of the major problems in the province, one of the problems recognized by the former Treasurer (Mr. White), was the question of income distribution among the people in the province. The former Treasurer stated, and the chairman of the present Ontario Economic Council has emphasized, that one aspect of the assembly of information with which the Ontario Economic Council is concerned is the question of the distribution of personal income in Ontario and the impact which all three levels of government have upon it.

When you consider, Mr. Speaker, the levels of income at which persons in Ontario are going to be freed of tax, what the Treasurer has stated, so far as I can understand it, in relation to his tax cost of $11 million, is that it will remove 450,000 individuals from the income tax rolls. That means they are persons paying something less than $25 a year in personal income tax. They are, on the average, the ones who will be removed from the tax roll; that’s how low their income is at the present time.

When you state that you are going to remove those people, Mr. Speaker, you forget that below those people there are still, in the Province of Ontario, a substantial number of persons who are nowhere near the level of income where they will be in a position to make any payments of income tax.

I want to quote to the minister, if I may, some of the figures which were available at the federal level about the distribution of income in Canada. To my mind they are shocking.

I quote from some figures which were used by the hon. Marc Lalonde who is the federal minister responsible in the field of health and welfare. I think the assembly would be interested, and I know the minister would be interested, in this income distribution problem; because as the minister has said, the budget is a package, designed not only to relieve people of taxes but to assist in the distribution of income so that we will have something called a more equal society.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Equality in the taxes.

Mr. Renwick: Listen to the figures. Using the latest family income data available, which is for the year 1972, there was a total of five million families, including couples without children. If we divide the incomes they received into five groups, that is five slices of one million families each in Canada, we will find that 20 per cent of the families, one million of them, received less than $5,516 a year. Of these one million families, 345,000 received less than $3,000 a year.

Another 20 per cent, that’s the second quintile of one million families, received incomes of from $5,516 to $8,941 per annum. Still another 20 per cent, that’s the third one million families -- the third quintile -- received incomes of from $8,942 to $11,698.

Of the highest income Canadian families -- that’s the top two quintiles, the top two million families -- 40 per cent received more than $11,698 with half of them having incomes of from $11,699 to $15,432 and the other half more than $15,432. Of the one million families earning more than $15,432 there were 190,000 who received more than $25,000 a year.

Let me state the impressive facts about those particular figures. Twenty per cent of the families in this country were living on less than $5,516 in 1972. This figure was 49 per cent of average family income in Canada, which means that one-fifth of all Canadian families were required to live on incomes of less than one-half of the national average family income.

Even more striking is the fact that the share of total Canadian family income being received by this bottom 20 per cent of the families was less than six per cent. Twenty per cent of our families received less than six per cent of all family income. Compare this with the fact that the top 20 per cent of Canadian families in 1972 received 39 per cent of all family income.

When we move from families to individuals the discrepancy and the bias is even greater.

I would simply like to draw also to the minister’s attention that when we deal with the people who have the lowest income, it is only because of the transfer payments which have been made that they received that six per cent. Without the transfer payments, the lowest 20 per cent of the families in Canada -- one million families -- would receive only 3.4 per cent of total family income. They are dependent, therefore, for a substantial part of their income on the transfer payments made through the taxation systems in this country.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Can the member break those down for Ontario?

Mr. Renwick: I’m not in a position to break them down.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That would be helpful.

Mr. Renwick: I tried to get the information. I asked the former Treasurer about it but I was unable to get that information. Roughly speaking, it is somewhat slightly better than a division of one-third would produce; slightly better because there has been a slightly higher increment. I hope the minister, with the resources which are at his disposal, might get the exact equivalent of these figures for Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It would be interesting to compare it, wouldn’t it?

Mr. Renwick: It certainly would be very interesting to compare it. The other fundamental fact that he drew to the attention of the audience to which the hon. Marc Lalonde was then speaking on that occasion, was to state that the share of family income going to the bottom 20 per cent of Canadian families has not increased nor has the share going to the top 20 per cent decreased, and similarly the shares of the middle 60 per cent have remained relatively constant.

In 1951, the families in the bottom 20 per cent of the income scale received 6.1 per cent of total family income. In 1972, they received 5.9 per cent. Their share did not increase. Taking the families in the top 20 per cent of the income scale, their share of total family income went from 41.1 per cent to 39.1 per cent over the same period, and the share of the 40 per cent just below that went up from 39.4 per cent to 42 per cent. The significant thing is that the shares of family income enjoyed by these several income classes have remained stable over a period of 20 years despite the enormous increases in social security payments.

I am looking forward to the information which the Ontario Economic Council may produce, but let us always remember that when we are removing people from the tax rolls -- 450,000 of them were removed by eliminating on the average $25 of provincial income tax -- below those persons there is a substantial number of people who are receiving so little income, on the basis of this statistical information, that they pay no tax and will not ever, for practical purposes, be in a position to pay tax.

We’ve had a series of measures put in front of us dealing with the benefits which are to be received by the corporations through, as my colleagues have pointed out, the motor vehicle fuel tax. Dealing, as we are purporting to deal here, with those persons who have been paying marginal amounts of income tax, nothing in this programme of the government -- nothing over the years has indicated during the course of the rule of the provincial government in Ontario that there has been any relative change in the quintiles of the families earning income in Canada. The lowest 20 per cent are still receiving the same relative percentage, relative to those who are in the top 20 per cent.

There has been no significant advance in the determination of the equality of income distribution in the Province of Ontario. The incremental changes which have been made have had the sole result of maintaining the relative levels and not depreciating the persons who are in the lowest quintiles further than they were depreciated over the long period of time.

I admit -- we do not have the research facilities to get it and I haven’t been able to get it -- that I do not have the Ontario figures, but I am satisfied the Ontario figures will show that after 20 years, if we divide the families into their five quintiles in the Province of Ontario, the relative distribution of income to each of those quintiles will be the same. The only result that has been achieved, without the marginal transfer payments that this government in conjunction with the federal government has carried out, is to maintain the same relative poverty of those in the lowest 20, 40 and 60 per cent of the population.

Those are, to my mind, significant and important policy questions which remain for the government of Ontario, regardless of the party that is in power, because that distribution of income has to change radically and significantly. There has to be a fundamental change in policy and this government has to discard the incremental changes which it is making which lead only to marginal changes in the relative levels.

We will be dealing a little later this evening, of course, with what is left of the remnants of the so-called tax on wealth in the Province of Ontario in the inheritance taxes and in the Succession Duty Act.

It appeared to me to be the appropriate time when we are dealing with the Treasurer’s statements in his budget about this income tax cut that we clearly reflect that, while it may remove some persons from liability for income tax, there is nothing in that provision of the budget which will change in any real sense the distribution of income to the lowest 20 per cent and the small percentage which that group received -- the small percentage which the lowest 40 per cent received -- as compared with the highest 40 per cent in the income distribution of the province.

I think there is a significant policy problem for the government of Ontario when it is considering its expenditure programme. I hark back to what I said earlier, that a substantial part of the expenditure programmes of the provincial government must be and must continue to be in an ever-enlarging scale the kinds of transfer payments, which will guarantee to people the kinds of income which will produce some relatively greater degree of equality in income distribution between the families in the top two quintiles of the population and the families in the bottom two quintiles, and the individuals in the top two quintiles and the individuals in the bottom two quintiles of the population distribution insofar as it relates to income.

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

Hon. Mr. Meen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct my remarks to those offered by the member for Riverdale, particularly. I found them particularly interesting. I wonder if I could have a copy of the material from which he was quoting the figures. I wonder if he could also clarify for me, because I wasn’t sure whether he was speaking about taxable income or the total family income in the various five quintiles.

Mr. Renwick: Just income. Just income distribution.

Hon. Mr. Meen: This was total income before quotation of tax and before taxable allowances --

Mr. Renwick: That’s right; and I will certainly be glad to let the minister have that.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, I would like to see that. I don’t know whether we can do a breakout on that as to Ontario, but I would be surprised if the lowest quintile and the second lowest quintile did not demonstrate a somewhat improved factor here in Ontario because of our GAINS programme and our tax credit provisions and so on.

Mr. Renwick: But not in relative terms to the top.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well, possibly not relative to the top, but I am talking about the assistance to those in the two lowest quintiles. I am sure we are very much better off here in Ontario as a result of our various tax credit programmes -- the OTC working for people of all ages, and of course, the GAINS programme working in largest measure, apart from those blind and disabled, in largest measure to those aged 65 and over. So I think that goes a long way toward alleviating the kind of difficulties the hon. member was referring to --

Mr. Cassidy: A long way?

Mr. Lawlor: It goes a tiny way.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- experienced by those in the lowest income brackets, at least here in Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: A long way -- does the minister say that seriously?

Mr. Lawlor: It is a recognition of the problem.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In short, coming back to the basic principles of this bill, we are endeavouring to parallel the measures enacted recently in the federal income tax scheme.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The removal of 450,000 from the tax rolls is, of course, one illustration of the paralleling of the federal government since the last election.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Meen: And, it’s at an expense of some $11 million.

The member for Kitchener was asking about the commission and the guidelines, which we all expect. So, to answer him in short; yes, I expect that commission, when appointed, will be issuing guidelines. I sincerely hope they will issue them soon. As soon as they are appointed and get down to work, I would expect that would be task No. 1, to give all of us some guidelines as to political donations and how we would live within the Elections Act and within the income tax provisions of this Act, which are designed to parallel the federal provisions.

The member for Kitchener referred to corporate donations at 12 per cent working out at $480; and in the case of individual contributions maximizing at $1,150, to a total allowable deduction from income tax of $500 from the 30.5 per cent provincial portion of the tax.

Mr. Speaker, I have told the hon. members that this is one bill I would like to put into the standing committee to be dealt with by the committee when that committee is finished with its deliberations on Bill 3. I want to thank the members from both parties opposite for their support. When the bill has been given second reading, I would request that it be directed to the standing committee.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: It is the Chair’s understanding that this bill will be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

Agreed.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 33, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act.

Bill 34, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1973.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not prepared to proceed further with his bills because of some technical reasons. I have been in communication one way or another with the House leader of the Liberal Party in an effort to bring the member for Ottawa East in. I would ask if we are able to locate him.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, we have sent for the member.

Mr. Lawlor: Does this mean his high dudgeon is not sufficient unto the day?

Mr. Breithaupt: It would appear that we are ready to adjourn somewhat earlier than might otherwise have been the case. I understand the member for Port Arthur, as well, is on his way; because he, too, wishes to involve himself in the late debate, that might otherwise take place on adjournment with respect to the standing order with which we are all so familiar.

If we could have perhaps one moment, Mr. Speaker, to attempt to locate both of those members, who perhaps are not otherwise aware we were coming on so quickly in this matter and that the House was otherwise adjourning somewhat earlier than might have been presumed, then we could no doubt deal with the particular answers to the questions, which were expected to take some time.

I think that I have attempted, other than to spend the additional few seconds giving those kinds of pauses that do occur in one’s speech from time to time, to add --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The late show.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- at least, Mr. Speaker, to deal with this particular problem. If the members would otherwise prefer, perhaps this particular matter could be put over on this occasion, if wanted by the members who were involved, to another time.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, we’re just dying to hear the late show, this form of infantile petulance over his bloody questions.

Mr. Breithaupt: If that was not otherwise satisfactory, both with respect to the member for Ottawa East --

Mr. Lawlor: He hasn’t got anything better to do than abuse the rules of the House.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- and the member for Port Arthur, then perhaps we could deal with the matter directly --

Mr. Lawlor: Every time he doesn’t get an answer he goes off and pouts in the corner. Then he drags everybody else back here at night to listen to him and he doesn’t show up.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- as soon as the member for Ottawa East was available to us. I am aware, Mr. Speaker, of course that our colleague, the member for Lakeshore, is most anxious to enter into the hearing of the details of this area as soon as that is possible.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He doesn’t have anything to say anyway.

Mr. Lawlor: There are too damn many prima donnas around here.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The member should talk.

Mr. Breithaupt: Indeed, he may choose to join in at this time to allow us all the benefit not only of his remarks or his comments during the motion, but also thereafter.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Someone should send him the Gideon Bible and it would be a lot easier.

An hon. member: Let’s adjourn the House.

Mr. Lawlor: Adjourn the House. Cut him off.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe I caught a suggestion that this might be postponed to Thursday evening. Is that a proposal?

Mr. Breithaupt: I would suggest it because I presume, Mr. Speaker, that the time for adjournment has come somewhat earlier than might have been expected by the two members who were going to speak on this particular matter.

Mr. Lawlor: We have to sit through the preliminaries.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s just a slow clock, that’s all.

Mr. Speaker: If this is a proposal, does the hon. House leader have anything to say?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly grateful for the co-operation I have had this evening.

Mr. Mattel: We are always co-operative on this side of the House.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’m not really terribly concerned about the remarks of the member for Lakeshore. However, I do have some sympathy for his cause this evening. I’m sure that he’s prepared to go home now.

Mr. Lawlor: I am not very much concerned about them, either.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He was going to see the chiropractor.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Inasmuch as we have tried to the best of our ability to --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They dredged up the member for Ottawa East somewhere.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- accommodate those within the hours of sitting of this day, I think, Mr. Speaker, with your consent and the consent of the House we might now proceed to that special order.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28(a), I deem a motion to adjourn the House to have been made. I now recognize the member for Ottawa East to speak for five minutes on the matter of a list of architects, which question be raised with the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch).

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES

Mr. Roy: I start with the architects first, do I? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I never thought that I’d be so --

Mr. Haggerty: Sought after.

Mr. Roy: -- sought after and have people waiting for me with breathless anticipation --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He is not sought after.

Mr. Lawlor: He imposes himself.

Mr. Roy: -- including the government House leader. I feel very honoured, Mr. Speaker, to receive this treatment in the House. It doesn’t happen to me very often.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Well, let the member not waste his time. He has only got 10 minutes.

Mr. Roy: Quit interrupting me and I’ll put it in 10 minutes.

Mr. Deans: Five minutes.

Mr. Roy: I’ve got 10 minutes total. I’ve got another one after this.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, we know that very well.

Mr. Deans: I’ll see him on Thursday.

Mr. Cassidy: We’re debating whether to leave now or later.

Mr. Roy: Would you bring these members under control, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The clock is running. The member will get on with his speech.

Mr. Lawlor: Did the member hear what I called his position? I called it infantile petulance. Why doesn’t he grow up?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has five minutes and one of them has already gone.

Mr. Roy: Is he for real? Is he serious or what is he?

Mr. Lawlor: I am for real. The question is whether the member is imaginary or not. It is a pure piece of delusion.

Mr. Roy: He should go back to the days of Shakespeare and maybe he might fit in. He doesn’t fit in here.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, get on with it. We have to get home.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, at that time I had raised a concern that had been brought to my attention involving the fact that certain architects had been on a list in relation to the construction of a hospital in Hawkesbury. At that time, one particular architect was competent. He was from eastern Ontario, and apparently was wanted by a number of members on that hospital board to participate in that project. Because his name was not on the list, I got in touch with the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) and apparently he got in touch with the local hospital board and said that these people who were architects could be chosen if they were not in fact, on the list.

When this architect went back to the board they said there was no way he would be considered if he was not on that list. At that point, I asked him to get in touch with the member for the area, the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger). Apparently he did get in touch with the member for Prescott and Russell and asked why his name was not being considered when he had proved himself in the past. For instance, he had done work on the mall for a hospital in Ottawa and a number of other projects in eastern Ontario and, in fact, projects in the riding of Prescott and Russell.

At the time he approached the member for Prescott and Russell he was advised that he would see about getting him on the list so that he could be given consideration along with the other architects who are on this list.

Unfortunately, during the discussion apparently he was asked if he had made a contribution to the party. Mr. Speaker, I have great admiration and sympathy for the member for Prescott and Russell. I think he was possibly pressured by some of the people in his area, because this particular architect had not contributed and at that point did not end up on the list.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise the question is that I wanted from this minister, or the Minister of Health possibly, a statement that that is not a consideration when people being considered for government work. We have had experience in the past and we have seen not only this government but governments in other provinces which have limited --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Tell us how the Liberals do it. How do the Liberals choose their architects?

Mr. Roy: It’s wide open. The Liberals are wide open.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Wide open for the Grits.

Mr. Roy: That’s right. The Tories know they have got their lists. Mr. Speaker, I find it important that people should be considered for their competence and their experience --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Come off it. Of all the phonies, this member has to take the cake for all of them.

Mr. Roy: -- and not based on whether they have made a contribution to the party.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Who is he trying to kid? We’ve been around long enough to know. He’s still wet behind the ears.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: The comments of these two ministers, Mr. Speaker, clearly indicate I have reason for concern and that they do have their list. Surely, Mr. Speaker, in this province, in 1975, the time has come when government work should not be limited to friends of the party. This has been going on for too long. I think it is incumbent upon a minister when a legitimate complaint is made, that we get some --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: He’s as phoney as a $3 bill and he knows it.

Mr. Roy: -- responsible response that these lists will cease and that the criterion for consideration for government work is not contribution to the party but competency and experience in that field.

What is of more concern, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that most of these architects were not from eastern Ontario. Is that just a coincidence? There are a lot of competent architects in eastern Ontario. My point, Mr. Speaker, is I think it is important that the minister make a statement.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Phoney as a $3 bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: He should make a statement that this practice does not exist and that if it did exist it will cease and that directives are sent out to hospital boards or any other agency of the government that these should be open. The basis for choosing people should be competency not whether they made contributions to the party.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member’s time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The member ought to know. Tell us about the prosecution hearings. He is on the federal list of people.

Mr. Roy: These two ministers confirm what I am saying. They do have lists and they follow their lists.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. minister wish to reply?

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): The Minister of Agriculture should save his energy for the horse and the plough.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, on March 26 the member for Ottawa East asked the following question:

“In the absence of the Minister of Health and the Premier, I would like to ask a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Would the provincial secretary give an undertaking to this House that the government will cease the practice, when awarding contracts or jobs to architects, under which the architects are chosen on the basis of a list, and that the only way they get on the list is to make a contribution to the Conservative Party? Would she undertake to stop this practice?”

Mr. Speaker, at the time I considered that question inappropriate and improper.

Mr. Roy: That is the Speaker’s job, not the minister’s.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: It was also considered improper by the Speaker and was ruled so.

Mr. W. Hodgson: It’s like those Liberal members on the CMHC list.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I would like to present the facts to the member.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Was the member’s cigar loaded?

Mr. Lawlor: The member is only a criminal lawyer. He wouldn’t get on a list.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as an approved list of architects issued by the Ministry of Health.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Hear that?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: A list of firms was sent by the ministry at the request of the Hawkesbury Hospital Board of Governors after a meeting with the administrator and some of the board members. At that meeting, the ministry representative expressed reluctance to name persons as requested by the board. However, the board members indicated they had no knowledge of architects who had built hospitals, and asked for a list of architects who had hospital building experience, preferably in building hospitals around 90 to 120 beds.

The letter from the ministry on Feb. 18, 1975, noted that the choice of firms was a prerogative of the hospital board. The letter says, in part, and I quote:

“These are only some of the architects available and, of course, you may have the names of others you may wish to contact. After your board has chosen an architect, the draft terms of agreement must be submitted for ministry approval prior to the hospital formally entering into any contract. That list included firms from Montreal, North Bay, Collingwood, Ottawa, Sudbury, and four from Toronto. I’m sending over a copy of that letter to the hon. member for Ottawa East.”

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Very good.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I now recognize the member for Ottawa East concerning the government’s handling of the Ottawa teachers’ strike, which he raised a few days ago.

OTTAWA TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. Cassidy: He is a bear for punishment. isn’t he? Does he want legislation to send them back to work?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, would you get the member for Ottawa Centre to get hold of himself, or to control himself?

Mr. Cassidy: I fully expect the solution will come from the Liberal Party. They do it on every pretext.

Mr. Roy: Would the member for Ottawa Centre pull himself together, as my friend would say?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the member carry on?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, possibly I can explain the situation. At the time the question was raised about the Ottawa situation, the people had been on strike and the schools had been closed in Ottawa for five weeks.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s incredible that the member should have the effrontery, the damned presumption, time after time, to come forward with his questions in this House at this particular time. Has he no sense of feeling for his fellow members?

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Lakeshore please restrain himself?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Roy: Tell him to pull himself together. His face is red; and he’s getting excited.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Give it to him, Pat.

Mr. Roy: Is the member afraid he will lose his seat?

Mr. Lawlor: Who does he think he is; a prima donna?

Mr. Roy: “What are these, so withered and so wild in their attire, that look not like the inhabitants of the earth and yet are on it?”

Mr. Lawlor: Is he going to do a little dance? Get up on the desk and do it. Do the tarantella in the moonlight. Give us a rest. Who does he think he is? Choose some of these members.

Mr. Roy: Does he understand that? I’ll recite a bit of Shakespeare. He might understand that.

Mi. Lawlor: Somebody should tell him.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The five minutes is rapidly flitting away. The hon. member should continue. The hon. member for Lakeshore surely should restrain himself.

Mr. Lawlor: Tick away. It couldn’t matter less.

Mr. Cassidy: Nothing has been missed.

Mr. Lawlor: Tarantellas in the moonlight.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the strike in Ottawa has been settled, but the fact remains that in the past year in Ottawa, we’ve had four strikes on different occasions. These strikes, in fact, can be attributed in large measure to that particular administration over there.

The prime reasons for the strikes, Mr. Speaker, are the ceilings that have been imposed since 1971, the fact that the government has tried to save money on the backs of the teachers and the teachers are trying to catch up. The government has refused, and still refuses consistently to bring in legislation to define the scope of bargaining. Why do they refuse to bring in this legislation?

Mr. Cassidy: When they do, he will oppose it because it doesn’t bring in a compulsory arbitration.

Mr. Roy: It seems to us, Mr. Speaker, that the government would have avoided much of this, and strikes right across the province. I see the minister shaking her head. There have been strikes in Windsor and strikes in --

Mr. Deacon: York county.

Mr. Roy: -- York county. There have been strikes in Ottawa.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. That has nothing to do with the question that was asked of me in the House.

Mr. Roy: Never mind. I wanted some response from the minister as to what she was going to do.

Mr. Cassidy: That is typical of the member.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s the general background.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, is there a quorum here?

Mr. Speaker: It doesn’t matter. The motion to adjourn has been made.

Mr. Roy: You still need a quorum.

Mr. Speaker: You are wasting time. You have now another minute.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We all ought to leave and let him talk into a vacuum. It wouldn’t matter anyway.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the strikes in various areas of the province can be attributed to the government’s policies here. And it has not accepted its responsibilities. When the strike started --

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, may I read the question that was asked?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. minister should not interrupt. There is a very short time, and she will have the opportunity to reply.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: He is way off base.

Mr. Roy: I’m right on my question; that’s not for the minister to decide, that’s for the Speaker to decide.

The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that the first involvement of the government in this strike was to make statements to inflame the situation rather than get the two parties together. In fact, Mr. Speaker, during the seven-week strike --

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): The government has inflamed the situation many times.

Mr. Roy: Not this minister, she didn’t inflame; she’s a gracious lady and all that; but her leader and the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) went around inflaming the teachers and the people in the bargaining process.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: None of that male chauvinism.

Mr. Roy: The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that the talks broke off in two different instances for a period of a week. The government should have been involved at that point, should have tried to get the parties together. Where was the Minister of Education? He was sunning himself in Florida.

Mr. Cassidy: This is like our fighting the Second World War on a sand table.

Mr. Roy: I have nothing against people taking holidays, but this timing, Mr. Speaker, in a situation where we faced the seven-week strike, in my opinion, was highly improper. He should have been there trying to get the parties together. In fact, when he seriously got down to it and got the parties together, the strike was settled.

Mr. Cassidy: When it was on he couldn’t stand the heat and he said send them back to compulsory arbitration.

Mr. Roy: But he got involved four weeks too late.

So, Mr. Speaker, even though the strike has been settled, it is important to point out to the government, and to this minister, the reason for strikes across this province and the fact that the ministers should accept their responsibility.

Mr. Bullbrook: Right.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member is abusing the privileges of the House.

Mr. Roy: In fact, Mr. Speaker, since we’ve had the seven-week strike, some students have quit school and some other students who were weak stand a strong possibility of losing their year.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Cut him off.

Mr. Roy: I had a situation, for instance, Mr. Speaker, in family court, where some students apparently were getting involved in trouble. The crime rate had increased in that period of time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Roy: There is no way this government should allow the situation to go on this way, it should have accepted its responsibility.

Mr. Bullbrook: Well spoken.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member has expired.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the question that was asked on April 8 by the hon. member for Ottawa East was, and I quote:

“Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary: Would the provincial secretary advise how long the situation in Ottawa is going to be tolerated and what is the deadline for taking action here? Secondly, why has the minister waited so long to intercede personally in this dispute?”

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I consider the tirade from across the floor tonight to be totally irrelevant to that particular question.

Mr. Speaker: I now recognize the member -- order, please! I recognize the member for Port Arthur concerning asbestos fibres in Thunder Bay; he has five minutes.

Mr. Roy: If the member for Ottawa Centre doesn’t interrupt him.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Don’t drink that water.

ASBESTOS IN THUNDER BAY HARBOUR

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): The Minister of the Environment has treated the question of asbestos fibres in Port Arthur’s drinking water with an irresponsibility that is frightening. Last Thursday’s refusal to answer my request for funds for a filtration plant is only the latest in a long series.

I first asked the minister to have his ministry actively involved in asbestos testing in Thunder Bay harbour on Oct. 29, 1974. He reported to the Legislature, on Dec. 17, that samples taken by his ministry indicated that Thunder Bay had one of the lowest counts of 22 Ontario cities sampled. According to the minister, Thunder Bay displayed only 0.87 million asbestos fibres per litre, compared to Sarnia which had the highest level of 3.87 million fibres per litre. At that time the minister indicated that his ministry would ensure that Sarnia had a filtration plant operational by the spring of this year.

What is deceptive about the minister’s statement on Dec. 17 is that it is based entirely on samples taken 2½ years ago, in August, 1972. It is 2½ years out of date.

On Dec. 18, 1974, I asked the minister for a continuous programme of testing for asbestos in Thunder Bay with a view to establishing a filtration system. The minister gave no commitment.

On Feb. 3 I brought to his attention that research by scientists at Lakehead University indicated asbestos in the Port Arthur ward’s drinking supply showed fibre counts of 10 to 100 times greater than figures released by the minister. The minister stonewalled again by saying: “May I tell the member that in dealing with testing in water one must be very careful.”

Last week came the shocking news that research conducted by Lakehead University indicated that tap water in Port Arthur ward this past February had asbestos fibre counts of 14 million to 15 million fibres per litre. These readings are two million fibres per litre greater than the levels obtained the same day from samples of tap water in Duluth, which admits that it faces a dangerous situation.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): In Duluth?

Mr. Bullbrook: Can’t keep it up.

Mr. Foulds: The latest CBC independent tests indicated on one occasion readings of 60 million to 80 million fibres per litre; and a subsequent test showed much lower levels but still very high -- higher than Sarnia -- of five million to six million fibres per litre.

The ministry has had, since 1973, a clear indication from the NASA earth resources satellite photographs, ample evidence that effluent from the Reserve Mining Co. in Silver Bay, Minn., was finding its way into Thunder Bay. This alone should have been sufficient reason for an immediate programme of continuous monitoring of Port Arthur’s tap water. Published research by R. D. Pontifract and H. M. Cunningham indicates that ingested asbestos fibres can cause malignant tumours in rats and baboons.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Then the member should be worried.

Mr. Henderson: The member is the baboon over there.

Mr. Foulds: If the minister has no sympathy with the rats, he should have some understanding of baboons.

As well, it is clear that inhalation of asbestos fibres is carcinogenic. There is widespread use of vapourizers, clothes dryers, humidifiers and steam baths in Thunder Bay. Any asbestos in tap water will, through these appliances, be put into the air and be inhaled daily by men, women and children in my riding.

This ministry must take two steps immediately. No matter what the cost, it must take daily samples of tap water in conjunction with Lakehead University. Health warnings should be issued and announced on this basis as they are necessary.

Second, the Ontario government should move to provide funds immediately for a filtration plant in Thunder Bay.

A potential health hazard exists. Why does this government continue to fool around with people’s lives? I don’t want to be responsible for government inaction if the life of one single human being can be saved.

Are we going to wait for 20 to 25 years to see if Port Arthur’s residents start dying from intestinal and lung cancer at unduly high rates? A filtration system for Port Arthur’s drinking water is an insurance policy. On those days when storms and turbulence cause outrageously high asbestos counts it could filter out 90 to 95 per cent of the fibres. It can also be a protective device against other accidental spills and pollutants. If the minister thought it important enough to proceed with a filtration plant in Sarnia, with counts one-quarter of those in Thunder Bay from one sampling taken in 1972, surely it makes sense to do so now for Port Arthur.

At the turn of the century, Mr. Speaker, the great Norwegian dramatist Henrik Ibsen wrote a play about a man, his conscience and an attempt by his community to cover up a pollution problem. He ironically entitled that play “An Enemy of the People.” I say that this government is an enemy of the people by its continuous attempts to run away from this problem and its attempts to hide the problem from the people of Thunder Bay.

There is no panic in Port Arthur. There is anger and deep frustration. Anger and frustration because the ministry has not done continuous and comprehensive testing; anger and frustration because the ministry has not acted as it should act, as a tough and active protector of the people’s health and safety. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister has five minutes.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am just somewhat disappointed that the member for Port Arthur would stand up here tonight and make a political speech; a man who --

Mr. Breithaupt: We can’t have that in the Legislature, surely.

Hon. W. Newman: -- doesn’t even know what is going on in his own riding, who doesn’t even understand what is being done.

Mr. Foulds: Okay. How many tests has the ministry done?

Hon. W. Newman: I listened to the member. He should sit down and listen to me for a minute; he might learn something. This government is covering up absolutely nothing in that area at all.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. W. Newman: Will the member be -- no, I won’t say it.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated that research on asbestos was started in the Province of Ontario in 1972. We published in Water and Pollution Control magazine, in September of 1973, readings of the 1972 sampling. This indicated in the Thunder Bay area, as the member said -- he was a little bit out -- approximately 30,000 fibres per litre. In November of 1974 the testing that was done indicated 87,000 fibres per litre; and in February of 1975 it indicated 40,000 fibres per litre.

We were advised by the Ministry of Health that available research indicates that the asbestos level in the drinking water of the cities we sampled does not constitute a human health hazard. While a vast majority of available research indicates there is no threat to human health, we are nevertheless continuing our research to develop methods of removing asbestos which can be applied to conventional water treatment plants and facilities.

I have figures in front of me here tonight which show the incidence of stomach cancer, which has been reported in the Province of Ontario from 1930 to 1972, has gone down among males -- to give one example -- from 27.30 deaths per 100,000 to 12.81 per 100,000. It has gone down in that period of time.

I would also like to point out to the member that we did testing in 1972 and November of 1974 and February of 1975.

Mr. Foulds: Three tests.

Hon. W. Newman: Something quite obviously the member doesn’t even know is that today the Ontario Research Foundation --

Mr. Foulds: I know that.

Hon. W. Newman: -- under a Dr. Pullman, director of applied physics for the Ontario Research Foundation, with our own lab experts and the dean of science at Lakehead University, were meeting and will continue to meet tonight to discuss this matter in the member’s area.

Mr. Foulds: I know that.

Hon. W. Newman: Well then, why did the member talk the way he did?

An hon. member: Where’s the filtration plant?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He wants to scare everybody to death.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We think Port Arthur is a pretty good town in spite of its member.

Mr. J. A Belanger (Prescott and Russell): That’s typical.

Hon. W. Newman: We have suggested that joint samples be taken. We discussed with Lakehead University as to how they should be taken and the methods of testing.

The Ontario Research Foundation is an independent organization which I think has done a very fine job in the province of Ontario. They have come up with different figures than Lakehead University; that’s why they’re meeting today, to discuss this particular matter.

The member has talked about Reserve Mining. I have copies of correspondence that I have had with Mme. Sauve of the federal Ministry of Environment outlining my concerns to her about the Reserve Mining Co. And I must say I received a letter from the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Rhodes) long before the member for Port Arthur ever got into the act, asking me to look into it. So the member opposite shouldn’t start making critical hay. The member for Sault Ste. Marie was on it long ago.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): The member doesn’t look after his people up there.

Hon. W. Newman: In case the member doesn’t know, the city of Thunder Bay has hired consultants to look at treatment methods for the water in their area. They will be setting up a pilot project to look into the best means of treating their water supply in the Thunder Bay area.

I could go on and on. I have reports here in my hand which overwhelmingly show there is no major problem to health; they are verified by the Ministry of Health. But on top of that, this ministry is continuing to test. We have an experiment now going on in our labs under controlled conditions to find the best and most efficient way to remove asbestos from the drinking water supplies of this province.

The member can’t stand over there and say we’re not doing anything, we’re not involved, we’re not concerned about people, because we are. I make my reports public, I make the results public, and I say to the member if he really wants to represent his people properly, let him go up and find out what’s going on in his own riding and not stand here and make political speeches.

Mr. Speaker: Just before I announce the adjournment of the House, the hon. House leader --

An hon. member: They know he’s not representing them. They won’t send him back.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Interjections by hon members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The debate is completed.

Just before I announce the adjournment of the House, I believe the hon. House leader wishes to make an announcement about the forthcoming programme.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I just want to confirm, Mr. Speaker, that we’ll deal with items number 8, 9 and 13. Then possibly we will move onto items 14, 15 and 16. Failing those ministers being available to me, I would call the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter) for the balance of his estimates.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order; I deem the motion to adjourn to have been made.

The House adjourned at 10:35 o’clock, p.m.