Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, Tuesday, April 22, will certainly go down as a very important day in the lives of many school children from northwestern Ontario, because today we have had three visiting groups from that particular area. This morning, sir, we had 35 grade 8 students from the Pinewood Senior Public School at Dryden, and later on we had 21 grade 8 students from the Keewatin Public School. In the west gallery this afternoon we have 35 grade 8 students from the Central Public School at Sioux Lookout. I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that all these groups have been very ably and financially assisted through the government’s Young Travellers programme.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): It was my idea.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The Sioux Lookout group is being escorted by Mr. Barry Jones, Mr. Beal and Mrs. Smith, and I know that all members will join me in giving them a warm welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce to the members of the House a group of ladies from that great town of Oakville, from that great riding of Halton East, who are with us this afternoon. These ladies are newcomers to the town of Oakville who have come down to witness the proceedings here at Queen’s Park.

Mr. J. Lane (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and to the members of the House 35 grades 7 and 8 students in the east gallery from Assiginack Central School, Manitowaning, on Manitoulin Island. I hope you and all of the members will give them a welcome to this House.

Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): Mr. Speaker, and gentlemen, in the absence of our good friend the member for Welland South (Mr. Haggerty), I would like at this time to welcome to the Legislature 45 ladies of the Women’s Liberal Association from the great Welland riding. I would ask the hon. members to give them a royal welcome indeed.

Also, Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to welcome here this afternoon 40 students from the grade 10 class of Welland High and Vocational School. Mr. Simpson is in charge of these students. I am very proud indeed to be the Welland representative in the Ontario Legislature for the last 24 years. I would like to congratulate these young people on their initiative in visiting the Legislature, which is an indication of their interest in the workings of the democratic system. It shows that they care about their great Province of Ontario, the province of opportunity.

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. members join me in welcoming my young friends from the Welland High and Vocational School?

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): That’s the best speech the member has ever made.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker would also like to draw to the attention of the members that there is a group of young people from the Cobourg Collegiate Institute West, under the leadership of Mr. Paul Forhan, in our Speaker’s gallery this afternoon, and we bid them welcome.

Statements by the ministry.

1973 BLUE BOOK

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the publication 1973 Municipal Financial Information or, as it is more commonly called, the 1973 blue book. The blue book contains a great deal of information on the fiscal activities of local governments, summarized from the financial reports of municipalities. The 1973 publication includes, for the first time, an historical analysis of municipal financial activities which should be of interest to all readers. The blue book for 1973 has been printed in a single volume rather than in 11 volumes as in previous years.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. member for Kitchener.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have a question of the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet with respect to information received from the Civil Service Association of Ontario concerning the amalgamation of ambulance services in Metro Toronto. Is the minister able to make a statement with respect to the information which he has received from a goodly number of members of the civil service who are concerned with this particular project, and is he prepared to meet with their representatives hopefully, to resolve the difficulties in the situation?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, following consideration of the material at hand, I will respond and make a statement with regard to that situation.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Can we be assured that the government will meet with these people before it issues an order in council dealing with the amalgamation? Can the minister tell us if there is an order in council in regard to this coming out in the next few weeks?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, there is no such order in council.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): By way of supplementary, when does the minister intend to make the statement, since the ambulance drivers and the CSAO are obviously quite agitated?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: As soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Kitchener have further questions?

RENT INCREASES

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the present level of complaints received by the Metro Toronto Landlord and Tenant Bureau. Can the minister advise whether, in view of the large number of complaints that that office is handling and the others around the province, he is prepared now to reconsider the proposals with respect to a rental review board, which has been called for on this side of the House by both opposition parties, to attempt to resolve some of these problems?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise all hon. members that I’m not prepared at this time to have a rent review board or rent controls, as I’ve stated many times in the past. I still hold to the same position. I believe supply is the answer and we’re endeavouring to have that supply. We’ll have it by the end of this year.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Is the minister prepared, on behalf of the government, to permit or to agree to permit a municipality to inaugurate on a trial basis a rent review procedure within its own municipality if it does so by private bill?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely not prepared to allow a municipality to do this. I think all we have to do is to check the many editorials and news media articles --

Mr. Deans: Where is municipal autonomy?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- which show very clearly that rent review boards or rent controls will not work in the Province of Ontario any more than they have worked in other places in Canada.

Mr. Deans: Rent review has not been tried.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Rent review boards and rent controls have not worked anywhere in North America. They have not worked in Great Britain and will not work in Ontario.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are not asking for rent control.

Mr. Deans: Where does dictatorial action end and municipal autonomy begin?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Etobicoke.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Is the minister aware there is a marked difference between rent controls and a rent review board, and will the minister not reconsider his position in view of the plight of many people here in Metropolitan Toronto?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been answered. The member for Parkdale.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Will the minister, in view of his commitment some time ago that he would personally review some rent increases, review 12 cases which I have collected from Parkdale riding -- 12 people who live at 190 Jameson, whose rent increases have reached up to 30 per cent in six months -- if I send him over the details?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have said to the other hon. members and I will say it to the hon. member now, I am prepared to look at cases that appear to be unjustified as far as rent increases are concerned, but I am certainly not going to investigate every person who feels he has had a rent increase which is not justified, because they haven’t got the facts to back it up. If the member wishes to forward the information to me, I’d be happy to receive it.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): What is the minister going to look at then?

Mr. Deans: The trouble is they cannot get the facts.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of the fact that his deputy has publicly invited members of the public to bring forward their complaints to him? Is the minister’s position different from his at this tune?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for St. George should have recognized what I have said here many times before. I am quite prepared to receive, either by way of delegation or by way of submission, written or by phone call, someone’s complaints in regard to rent increases, or rent control, or a rent review board, whatever it may be. I am still prepared to do that.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): What good does it do? He has no law. He has no control. He washed his hands of it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: My deputy, my parliamentary assistant, my secretary and everybody else has said the same thing. We are going to review the situation from time to time.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s a pile of bull.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I again tell the member for St. George, in my opinion it is not practical to invoke either a rent review board or rent controls at this time.

Mrs. Campbell: Could the minister then tell this House, in view of his previous answers in precise terms, how many units is he going to see built in Toronto or Metro Toronto by the end of the year to overcome this problem, which is his answer to the problem?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. That is a more general question.

The member for Scarborough West.

Mrs. Campbell: Well it’s his answer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask the minister: What right does he think he has as minister to impose such selective discrimination on the renters of Ontario by allowing a chosen few who happen to reach their MPPs to put illegitimate rent increases before the minister for review, but deny to all the others who don’t reach their MPPs the right to a similar review?

Mr. Deans: What is the difference?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, to the leader of the NDP, may I say this, as the Minister of Housing I have every right to bring forth programmes, new initiatives and to take any action I consider necessary to make sure that we have housing for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Breithaupt: Doesn’t he think this is necessary?

Mr. Lewis: But the minister is discriminating in this case. He allows himself to review but no one else to review.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, to the leader of the NDP, he doesn’t know what he is talking about in the way of discrimination. I am not discriminating against anybody.

Mr. Deans: The minister is incompetent. He should be replaced. He is incompetent.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have read somewhere --

Mr. Lewis: He is agitated by the statement that he did nothing for the renters of Ontario, isn’t he?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Who is agitated over there?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the hon. gentleman sit down. Order please. The member for Kitchener with further questions.

PART-TIME JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. Following the special report with respect to part-time justices of the peace that has come to light today, can the Attorney General advise us, how many JPs are there, in fact, on this kind of programme, and when is he going to modernize the system to remove the part-time justices of the peace situation and put justices of the peace properly on reasonable salaries, as requested by the McRuer report four years ago?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, the most up-to-date figures I have, from last August, indicate there were 648 fee-earning justices of the peace qualified to discharge their duties in this province at that time.

I am well aware, as is the member, of the recommendations of Mr. McRuer. Forgetting for a moment the fiscal restraints on us all, the ultimate would be to have full-time justices of the peace serve round the clock because, as the member knows, their services are required on a 24-hour basis.

Mr. Roy: The province has it now.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Under the Criminal Code, as the member knows, the accused has the right to be brought before a justice of the peace very shortly after his apprehension and, in fact, must be, before 24 hours have expired following his arrest.

Many areas of the province would not support the concept of a full-time JP round the clock and it is in that type of situation that the fee-earning JPs have been very valuable. There are other areas -- Metropolitan Toronto for example -- where full-time justices of the peace are on duty, in effect, around the 24-hour period. The per capita cost for fee-earning JPs in Metro is significantly lower than in other areas of Ontario because they do have the full-time salaried JPs on duty in certain Metropolitan areas.

What I am saying in essence, Mr. Speaker, is that it seems at the present time there is a necessity for a blending of the two. When there is a fee-earning JP who is receiving X dollars per year to equal or exceed what a full-time man would get I would agree that probably one must substitute one for the other. I would like to point out that for most of the JPs who earn substantial fees, those are gross, out of which they must pay their secretarial staffs.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I’ll just say that in 1973-1974 there were only five out of 394 who billed in excess of $20,000 for that year. The individual referred to in today’s article in the Star was one of the five.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the Attorney General tell us why this anachronistic system is allowed to continue, notwithstanding the criticism levelled in this House on many occasions; notwithstanding the opinions held by the minister’s esteemed predecessor, Mr. Wishart; notwithstanding the recent recommendations by His Honour Judge Pringle, who caustically commented in the Landmark report that the least the minister could do for the JP out in the peninsula was to give him enough money to let him buy a filing cabinet? Surely the time has come for the minister to get the party hacks off the roll and give a full-time job to people at a reasonable wage.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been placed.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Is the member for Downsview applying for the job?

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): I don’t mind that. It’s when we have part-time registrars of the Supreme Court who don’t know which way is up but the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) recommended them.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Bullbrook: The one the minister had before quit.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: The minister wouldn’t know a writ from second base.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Ottawa Centre with a supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that the fees paid to bailiffs in the small claims courts ranged as high as $60,000 in 1973 and may be higher this year? What plans does the minister have to put these jobs on a salary basis rather than having this antiquated system prevail?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, sight unseen, I would deny that any bailiff received $60,000 in fees in the small claims court in any one year.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I couldn’t hear the hon. member’s question because of the noise in my left ear here. I understand it was not in order.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, it was.

Mr. Speaker: We are talking about JPs. I understand this is about bailiffs and that’s a different question completely.

Mr. Cassidy: It is also under the inspector of legal offices, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the original question.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. Speaker: If the member’s question had to do with what the member said, and judging from what has reached my ear here, it is not supplementary. The member may ask it again as a new question.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a true supplementary? The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question of the minister: Does he have any plans to retire JPs when they reach the age of 65?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I do not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That was not inherent in the first question --

Mr. Gaunt: I thought it was.

Mr. Speaker: Is the member for Ottawa East’s question a supplementary?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary to the minister’s reply, I believe, that there are about 648 part-time justices of the peace across the province. My first question is, has the number increased since 1968, since the McRuer report suggested there was an invitation to a conflict of interest between a justice of the peace and the police to get their business? If there has been an increase, surely there are not 648 areas in the province where we could not have full-time people in light of the fact that some of them are paid $30,000 a year?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I did not quote the figures for 1968. I thought I had made that clear. These are the most recent figures, as of August, 1974.

Mr. Roy: Are they greater than in 1968?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t know what the 1968 figures are, so I cannot make that assertion. I simply say the article in the Star today, which referred to that JP, went on to say that he had paid some, I believe, $12,000 out of those gross fees for certain secretarial services performed by staff for whom he was responsible; therefore, he presumably netted $17,000 or $18,000 a year.

I can say that there are not 648 geographic areas because in many large areas where we do have part-time, fee-earning justices of the peace --

Mr. Breithaupt: Like Brampton.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- there are many on duty over the 24-hour period.

Mr. Roy: In Brampton we could have full-time people.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Maybe we could, and maybe we couldn’t. I share the member’s concern; if a person is available 24 hours a day, that is a very decided advantage over those full-timers who work, say, 9 to 5. We still have to supplement them by a blended system. In a large area like Metropolitan Toronto we do have full-time, salary-earning JPs available around the clock; and that would be the ultimate. But there is no saving in having that sort of a justice of the peace in Rainy River or remote areas of the province where they don’t have the demands on them 24 hours a day. Therefore, we have to utilize the services of a part-time, fee-earning, justice of the peace.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No. Order please. This is becoming strictly a debate.

The member for Kitchener with further questions.

Mr. Roy: That was a leading question, Mr. Speaker. Can I put my case?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Does the member for Kitchener have any further questions?

Mr. Breithaupt: No.

Mr. W. Hodgson (North York): Sit down when the Speaker calls order.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: There is a point of order.

Mr. Cassidy: Since my words were challenged by the minister, I would point out that in 1973 the fees paid to bailiff W. B. Vasey in Scarborough were $58,000; and the fees paid to small claims clerk F. B. Brown in Scarborough were approximately $62,000.

Hon. Mr. Clement: He has three bailiffs assisting him and three secretaries.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

An hon. member: That’s how they let the old Tories fade away.

Mr. Singer: The one in St. Catharines cannot even afford --

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

PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE BY COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask the Premier, if I may, about the 1971 study to which I referred yesterday, perhaps not entirely accurately describing its contents -- I don’t really know, because I haven’t seen the study -- which however, is apparently in the hands of the government and I gather the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) has refused to make it public.

Since the study bears directly on attitudes toward sex and violence in movies and contains a review of literature on public exposure to sex and violence in newspapers, on television and on film, wouldn’t the Premier think it perhaps in the public interest that a study for which Ontario has paid $17,000 or better should be tabled?

Hon. W. C. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the report, nor have I read it. I believe the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations dealt with the matter yesterday, and I would suggest that the member ask him about the report when he returns to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I could, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. In fact, the minister did not deal with it yesterday -- through no fault of his own; he wasn’t asked. I am asking the Premier, as the person who appointed the LaMarsh commission and as a person who talks much about permissiveness and such matters, does he not think this kind of expenditure of public funds in an area where he himself has expressed concern should then become a public document, rather than this endless secrecy about government or commission studies, which I just don’t understand.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not sure on just what basis the study was made, whether it is confidential or not confidential, or whether the results of the study would be appropriate for distribution.

Mr. Roy: He said $22,000.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will find out and discuss it with the minister. I just haven’t read the study myself. I don’t know whether it deals with permissiveness. I have made a few observations about that in the past two or three years; and I could again today, if the member would like me to.

Mr. Lewis: I am sure he could.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Is that a threat or a promise?

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

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Supplementary to the Premier: Can the Premier say whether or not his government has at any time requested in writing that the federal government undertake such a survey as Miss LaMarsh will be doing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t recall personally communicating to the Prime Minister -- I’m sure I’m right in this -- or any other minister requesting such a study be made. I really think that if they felt there was need for such a study, they have the capacity to make this determination themselves. If the member for Carleton East really is saying that perhaps it is their responsibility to do this and they should have provided the leadership, rather than the Province of Ontario, he’ll get no argument from me. But I just state the fact that they have not, and we are.

Mr. Roy: Did the Premier ever approach them?

An hon. member: No leadership.

Mr. Roy: Did the Premier ever approach the feds?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He can talk against it as much as he wants. I am delighted every time he opens his mouth about it.

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

Hon. Mr. Davis: Public concern is the only motivation we have.

Mr. Roy: Credibility is the Premier’s problem.

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

LAKE SIMCOE PROPERTY DISPUTE

Mr. Lewis: What is the Minister of Natural Resources now going to do about the furor he’s created in the Beyak land case?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: What am I going to do? Well, Mr. Speaker, I am meeting this afternoon with the reeve of the township of Georgina. I understand there has been some solidarity expressed among that particular council and --

Mr. Lewis: Solidarity?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, within the council.

Mr. Lewis: I think one could call it that, yes.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: So I want to get his views. I will listen to him before making any decision.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary. How is it that the minister’s parliamentary assistant, excellent chap that he is, the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Maeck) and --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Only the minister is not applauding.

Mr. Lewis: -- a man whom the minister so casually betrayed but an excellent fellow nonetheless -- how is it that the minister would have him put in writing that no licence of occupation would be granted before consultations with the municipality, which specifically requested the minister not to grant the licence, and before the end of litigation, which was continuing? How does the minister issue a licence in direct contravention of what his parliamentary assistant has written to the party involved?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the hon. member, if he would go into depth in that particular file, he would find the reasons for it.

Mr. Lewis: I have.

An hon. member: What are the reasons?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would point out to him that my parliamentary assistant, and I was very pleased he recognized his talents because I think he is one of the finest --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Why doesn’t the minister recognize it?

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Why does the minister overrule him then?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- parliamentary assistants that this government has, and I recognize him for it.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that commitment was given last November by my parliamentary assistant --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- that we would withhold any further decision until the court case was completed or at least taken forward. Since that time, Mr. Slan has been on my parliamentary assistant’s back, literally; he has phoned him on numerous occasions. He has had his lawyer phone him.

Mr. Lewis: He is a citizen demanding redress.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: My parliamentary assistant is tired of carrying him on his back. But it came to a point when Mr. Slan indicated to the public that we would be making a decision and he demanded a decision from us. This was the decision we were prepared to deal with last November provided he went along with the court case. That has never come about and it’s been about two years in the coming.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West has a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have one. Is the minister meeting this afternoon or whenever because he is now prepared to reconsider the decision he gave, which flies in the face of the municipal solidarity and other requests which have been made of him?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s not a change of pace, Mr. Speaker. It may be new information come to light in the public interest and I’m prepared to listen to that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview with a supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: That’s an interesting way to describe a retreat.

Mr. Singer: Would the minister explain why, in face of the positive undertaking in that letter -- and I read the letter -- that there would be consultation with the municipal council before any decision was taken, he made a decision without consulting with the municipal council and flew in the face of the municipal council’s positive opinion?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I was led to believe there was this consultation with the municipal representatives.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

RENT INCREASES

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have a question of the Minister of Housing in, I hope, a non-combative way, if that’s possible.

Mr. Breithaupt: It will never happen.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Pray continue.

Mr. Deans: The minister won’t understand it anyway.

Mr. Lewis: If members of the Legislature bring to the minister cases of what appear to be unreasonable rent increases and he is prepared to review them -- although I know he cannot reduce the rents -- would he be prepared, where he felt it legitimate, to recommend to the landlord a reduction in rent or make a suggestion that the rent was too high?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the audacity of the leader of the NDP again. I have just sent him an article --

Mr. Lewis: I said non-combative. What’s wrong with the minister?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Don’t fight back.

Mr. Lewis: Why is the minister turning my normal restraint into aggression?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am starting off very quietly. I am trying to restrain myself because I know the member’s nerves are at a really high key these days.

Mr. Lewis: I am as relaxed as can be.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t know why, because he won’t be around for too long. Mr. Speaker, I have just passed 15 letters --

Mr. Deans: I think the minister should resign. I think the job is too much for him.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- or so over to the leader of the NDP --

Mr. Stokes: Why the facade? Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- saying to him that there wasn’t enough information provided.

An hon. member: Look who’s talking.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It looks to me as though they are form letters that maybe the member for Parkdale provided to some people in his riding. I’m not sure.

Mr. Deans: I don’t think the minister understands the problem.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In any event, the idea is -- I also pointed out to the leader of the NDP that he should check the Star of April 22 in which it said the poor are the ones who lose when we have rent review boards and rent controls.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are not asking for rent control.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Can the member not understand? How many times do we have to go over this deal? I am trying to ask him again to understand that we’re looking after the poor of Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is looking after the poor in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, and we’re going to protect them by not putting them into a worse box, as the poor have been in London, England, where they had rent controls and rent reviews. All I’m saying to you, Mr. Speaker, and the leader of the NDP --

Mr. Deans: What is the minister doing?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- is that as a socialist he has no idea how to provide housing for Ontario. Why doesn’t he recognize it?

Mr. Deans: That applause was pretty weak.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry; I was asking the member for Parkdale.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, what the minister said doesn’t meet fully with what I have done. I have gone around this apartment building after receiving a call from one of the residents of an apartment that his rent went up by 33.7 per cent.

An hon. member: What’s the question?

Mr. Foulds: It’s a point of privilege.

Mr. Dukszta: I think I have given him enough information. I have responded to a need from my constituents. I see no reason for the minister to imply that I have done anything wrong.

Mr. Foulds: Resign.

Mr. Speaker: I accept the member for Parkdale’s explanation. The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: It was a point of privilege not a question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I couldn’t hear it.

Mr. Deans: The minister doesn’t hear very much very clearly.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the member for Scarborough West wish to proceed?

Mr. Lewis: Forgive me.

Mr. Deans: The minister aggravates me so.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t care what Beland Honderich’s editorial said.

Mr. Deans: He is really incompetent.

Mr. Lewis: My colleague from Parkdale will deal with the minister.

Mr. Deans: The minister should be replaced.

Mr. Lewis: The member is quite right about that.

Mr. Deans: The Minister of Housing is the worst minister in the government.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the hon member for Scarborough West please continue and will the other people please hold their silence. Thank you very much.

Mr. Lewis: The comments being made were to the point. I want to try to ask him again, and I don’t understand why it is impossible to elicit from him a common sense, reasonable reply --

An hon. member: Because he doesn’t know what it means.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member has had that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: If members of the Legislature bring to the minister individual instances of rent increases which he then judges to be too high -- I am assuming a reasonable judgement -- would he, under those circumstances, approach a landlord to reduce the rent or would he indicate himself what the rent reduction might be? That is all I am asking.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, again the leader of the NDP is only about three months behind the times. I have indicated to every member of this House that I have done that in the past and will continue to do so on a selective basis in the future.

Mr. Lewis: The minister would do that, okay.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But not with that kind of nonsense the member gave me today.

Mr. Lewis: Well then, by way of supplementary, if the minister is prepared to engage in what is called a rental review and suggest a reduction of rents, why will he not allow that to be done by authoritative bodies on behalf of all the renters in Ontario rather than just a selected few?

An hon. member: Tell him.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, let the members of the NDP pound themselves into the ground, because that is exactly what they are doing when they talk about a rent review board or rent controls. They will never, never in the world convince me that is the way to provide accommodation for the people of Ontario or any other part of this country.

Mr. Foulds: The minister deliberately misunderstands the point.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am saying to the members that this government will not, as far as I am concerned, subject the people to rent controls which we know won’t work, or to a rent review board which has the same authority as rent controls. I am asking the members to understand the fact that the Province of Ontario has said it will supply housing if it gets co-operation from the federal and other related governments.

Mr. Deans: The minister is not doing that either. His whole housing programme is a flop.

An hon. member: Quiet fellows, quiet.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister of Housing is an impossible minister. He is probably a nice person, but an impossible minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The leader of the NDP is an impossible member.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Rainy River.

PRE-ELECTION LITERATURE

Mr. Reid: May I ask a question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker? Is the Premier aware of a document that has been circulating in regard to the upcoming provincial election which says, and I quote: “The government is alienating practically every segment of the people of the province due to policies regarding teachers, public servants, organized labour, rural people -- ”

Mr. Foulds: Question?

An hon. member: What’s the question?

Mr. Reid: “ -- and alienating municipal reeves, mayors and councils regarding zoning and land severance”?

Mr. Singer: He has already asked it.

Mr. Reid: Has the Premier seen that document?

Mr. Roy: Or the Premier’s office?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted if the hon. member would send me a copy of it. It sounds more like a speech by the leader of the Liberal Party than a document. I mean it sounds like that rather positive, constructive way the Liberal Party is approaching all the issues in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: Careful, it could be a Tory who said it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t know. I know that the members may even find that it was sent out or distributed by somebody who is not totally content as a party member. I recognize that the member has a supplementary question, or he is attempting to make a point --

Mr. Lewis: Just be careful, it is Roy McMurtry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and will probably tell me that it came from a member even. So, if I haven’t destroyed the suspense of who it comes from, all he has to do is tell me who sent it out. All the member has to do is tell me who sent it out.

Mr. Martel: William Kelly.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary: In response to the Premier’s question, Mr. Speaker, this is a document sent out to all Ontario PC members of Parliament from the federal government.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): In the federal government.

An hon. member: By the federal party.

ASBESTOS IN THUNDER BAY HARBOUR

Mr. Foulds: A question of the Attorney General: In view of the fact that the provincial government has had access to the NASA earth resources satellite photographs since 1973, which clearly show effluent containing asbestos from Reserve Mining in Silver Bay. Minn., finds its way into Thunder Bay and into Port Arthur’s drinking water supply, is the minister considering taking action against Reserve Mining of Minnesota under the Boundary Waters Treaty Act of 1909 which prohibits the transboundary movement of pollutants?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t aware of the matter or the study referred to by the member. If he will send me some information on it, I will take a look at it. I wasn’t aware of what he meant to speak of until this moment.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have one question of clarification as a supplementary. If the information bears fruit, would the ministry be prepared to lay such an action in view of the fact that the federal government has said pretty clearly in the House of Commons last week that it is a provincial responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether that Act referred to by the member confers jurisdiction on the Province of Ontario to bring such an action or not. I would have to take the opinion of my law officers. If, in their considered opinion, they felt success was a distinct likelihood, then presumably we would proceed in that direction. But there are so many “ifs” in the question, because I am not familiar with the facts, that I would say I would want to look at it before I would be in a position to advise the member and the members of the House validly as to what action we might consider.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question directed to the Premier. It involves the right of members of this House to get accurate information pertaining to questions on the order paper. I had a question, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the private members of the Conservative caucus who were sent outside Canada on behalf of a ministry or agency since Oct. 21, 1971. The response to my question was from one ministry only, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and it involved the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Allan) going to some horticultural garden inspection and costing $57.92.

Would the Premier undertake, first of all, to see to it that all ministries and agencies respond accurately to this type of question. And could the Premier explain who paid for the trip for four members, the member for Scarborough Centre, the member for Humber (Mr. Leluk), the member for Dovercourt (Mr. G. Nixon), and the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman), to Taiwan and who paid for the trip for the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger) to Louisiana? Would the Premier undertake to get me that information?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Why doesn’t the member ask the question?

Mr. Roy: That was the question. Wasn’t the Treasurer listening?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to get all of this information for the hon. member. I think he will be surprised at just how little, if any, private members have travelled at the request of a ministry.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He may only find one.

NATURAL RESOURCES SCIENCE CENTRE

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Has his ministry had an opportunity now to review the study by Raymond Moriyama on the natural resources science centre proposed for Timmins. If they have had a chance to review it, what position are they taking in the ministry about going ahead with this project?

Hon. C. Bennett (Ministry of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, yes, we have had an opportunity to look over the report that was submitted on the Timmins science centre. As he knows, as the member for that area, we have been having discussions with the municipal council as to the availability of the best location for the establishment of the science centre in Timmins. I have made it very clear to the mayor that until we get some indication from the municipal council as to exactly how we can acquire the land and if it is going to be made available we are not in the position to go ahead with any further announcements on the science centre.

Mr. Ferrier: Supplementary: Has the ministry made a definite decision that it must be the Hollinger property or is it prepared to look at other sites as far as that project is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the report that we have on the science centre for Timmins very clearly involves some of the structures that are presently on the Hollinger site. Obviously, if we are to move away from that site, the project takes on an entirely different view and a whole different type of scheme will have to be designed for the Timmins area.

I repeat, the plan basically would be for the Hollinger site. If we move away from it, it will take time to sit down again with the municipal council, with the chamber of commerce and other interested groups to try to decide how we would approach the subject and in what other location it would serve the northern part of the province even to a greater extent.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Kirkland Lake would make quite an acceptable site.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kent.

CANADIAN BOOK WHOLESALE CO.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Is he concerned by the latest erosion of the Canadian publishing industry, whereby six months ago after a takeover of the Canadian Book Wholesale, at which time it was promised that all orders would be filled by Canadian agents, the company has turned around now and stated that all orders will be filled in the United States with the Canadian Book Wholesale offices only billing and collecting for orders shipped from the United States? Since the government indicated some concern about the book publishing industry two years ago, when a royal commission report came out, is the minister prepared to do anything about this situation, particularly in view of the fact that 56 Canadians are employed and are being laid off at the present time since the United States takeover of this company?

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): What was the name of that company again?

Mr. Spence: The Canadian Book Wholesale Co. in Scarborough Centre here in Metropolitan Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there are many points covered in the hon. member’s question. It is a very legitimate question -- in fact a very important one. I’d like the opportunity to review it, and I’d be glad to provide the member with the information he requests.

Mr. Spence: I will send the publication over to the minister.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Premier. Has it ever been established by any ministry of the government as to whether or not the majority of the high content of mercury in fish in northwestern Ontario was attributable to an industrial source as opposed to natural leaching? If so, in view of the tremendous social and health consequences that it poses for many residents of northwestern Ontario, is the government contemplating recovering at least a portion of the cost of assisting those people from the offending company?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be more appropriate if the member for Thunder Bay were to direct that question to the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Stokes: May I do that then?

Mr. Speaker: Would you redirect it?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Would the member repeat his question, please?

Mr. Martel: That’s an alert group over there.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the high content of mercury in fish and the economic and health consequences that it poses for many people in northwestern Ontario who rely heavily on fish as their main diet, has the ministry determined whether or not the high incidence of mercury in fish was attributable to natural leaching or to some industrial undertaking? If the ministry has come to that conclusion, does it intend to recover at least a portion of the cost from the offending company?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, that’s a very good question. Some of the mercury is in natural form in some of the lakes, as the hon. member well knows, and some of it came from industrial sources which have been cleaned up by ministerial orders. It’s no longer being allowed by the companies to flow out with wastes.

As for compensation, I believe this matter or substitution of some other form of protein is under discussion at this point in time. I believe the member could ask the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. I think he and the Minister of Natural Resources are going up there or are meeting with the native people in the very near future.

Mr. Stokes: Supplementary, just a quick one: Does the minister intend to ask the offending company to assist with the problems, which might solve some of the concerns of the native people in those areas?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, this would all be part of our deliberations.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

QUINN ENTERPRISES

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. Could the Minister of Revenue advise whether he or his department has considered the possibility or the probability of prosecuting Quinn for failure to transmit tax collected by him, as has been done in the case of many people who have failed to transmit? If not, why the delay? Has he consulted the law officers of the Crown to figure out the proper method of proceeding with such prosecution?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, the question of tax collection is something I don’t think I’m free to discuss fully in the House.

Mr. Roy: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I can say that the ministry has taken the necessary steps to protect its interests. Of course in the action by Clarkson which has one of its staff as the receiver and who is, therefore, operating the Quinn Enterprises operation, our interests are known and we are in touch with him and he is conversant with the nature of the interests of the ministry.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, wouldn’t the minister agree that when a person resident in Ontario is able to finance his business by borrowing through tax arrears at nine per cent when he couldn’t do it through the bank, the least he deserves from the government of Ontario is that appropriate charges be laid against him under the appropriate statute?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I have not considered that kind of action at the moment, but I certainly will take a look at whatever provisions there are in the Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

COST OF LAND FOR H.O.M.E. PROJECTS

Mr. Deans: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Is the minister prepared to table in the House all of the costs related to the acquisition and development of the lands used under the HOME programme in Bramalea, in Hamilton, and in Saltfleet Mountain, and the equivalent price charged or appropriated against the lands for the purpose of rental?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: For what purpose, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Deans: For the rental of the land.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t got any reason at this particular time not to table that information. I wonder why the hon. member is asking the question --

Mr. Deans: I am sure he does.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I will look into it and find out whether or not I will table it. There may be something of significance that would be good to table, but maybe not. Generally, when the hon. member asks a question, there is not too much of importance in it. I’ll determine that.

Mr. Lewis: Will the minister stop this? He is very rude, extremely rude.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Relations): We apologize!

Hon. Mr. Meen: We are broken up.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to know whether the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, now he is here, is going to table the report which was the subject of discussion in this House yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Meen: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: Sure it is a point of order.

Mr. Deans: It’s a question he answered outside.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I take that as a question rather than a point of order, and at the present time the only answer I can give the hon. member is, no, I haven’t even had an opportunity to read it yet.

Mr. Deans: What difference does that make?

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Mr. Lewis: Excuse me. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order please! The hon. member asked a question after the question period had expired.

Mr. Lewis: I would like to put a point of order which may be more in order.

Mr. Speaker: We will try it. What is the point of order?

Mr. Lewis: Thank you for letting me try it. I want to know whether it is appropriate for the minister of the Crown outside the House to say no, he will not table a given report, and then to give a rather different interpretation, a lesser interpretation inside the House. Do you not think the Legislature deserves the same courtesy? Can I ask the Speaker to have the minister inform us specifically of his intentions?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. That is beyond the Speaker’s control. It is not a point of order; there is nothing out of order in the proceedings of the House.

Mr. Lewis: Can I have a copy of the report?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No.

Mr. Lewis: No? Why not?

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Motions.

Mr. Lewis: Table it. We challenge the minister to table it. What is in that report that is causing him such anxiety? I had better be with the minister when he reads it, as a matter of fact.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It would be a contest to see who falls asleep first.

Mr. Lewis: Table it, then, if it’s that kind of a document.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Introduction of bills.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ACT

Mr. Martel moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act for the promotion and protection of the Health and Safety of Persons engaged in Occupations.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to consolidate matters dealing with health and safety of workers and place them under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour. The bill also establishes a department to be part of the Ministry of Labour which is responsible for research and the setting and enforcing of standards to protect workers.

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I beg to inform the House that I have received a notice from the member for Ottawa East --

Order please! With considerable background noise in the Legislature, it is difficult to transact the business of the House.

I beg to inform the House that I received a notice from the member for Ottawa East that he is dissatisfied with the answer given to him by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), concerning a list of architects, which was asked on March 26. The member for Ottawa East intends to raise this question again at the adjournment proceedings at 10:30 this evening.

The same member has also filed notice that he is dissatisfied with the answer of the same minister, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, to his question of April 8 concerning the government involvement with the Ottawa teachers’ strike.

Further, I have received a notice from the member for Port Arthur that he is dissatisfied with the answer given by the Minister of the Environment on Thursday, April 17, concerning asbestos fibres in Thunder Bay harbour. The member for Port Arthur intends to raise the matter at the appropriate time on the adjournment of the House this evening.

These three matters will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

Orders of the day.

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

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

House in committee on Bill 30, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

On section 4:

Mr. Chairman: I believe we were dealing with Mr. Renwick’s amendment. With the permission of the House, to refresh the memories of the members of the committee, I will repeat his amendment:

“That section 4 of Bill 30 be amended to delete from subsection 3, paragraph 49, and renumbering paragraph 49a to be paragraph 49.”

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) isn’t here. I was going to reassure her that I will not run in her riding, since I understand she has certain fears about that, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to bring to the Minister of Revenue’s (Mr. Meen) attention the tables that appeared in the budget document itself and ask him, as an errand boy for the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), to maybe draw the matter to the Treasurer’s attention, since by now we despair of getting any substantive reply to this amendment from the minister himself.

The figures on public and private investment that were included in the estimates for the Ontario economy, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair is having difficulty in hearing the hon. member. I’m wondering if we could have a little more order in the committee. Order, please.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): There are a lot of unruly Tories in the House today.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Mr. Chairman, the member called the minister an errand boy for the Treasurer. That is certainly improper.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s true.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: The Treasurer has come in to hear the bill debated.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, the Treasurer is here. I’m glad to see that. Maybe the Treasurer will have some comments, Mr. Chairman. I don’t want to recapitulate the comments that were made last night, but I would point out to the Treasurer and to the Minister of Revenue that the area of investment which is expected to lag the most in 1975 is the area of residential construction. And in 1974 the spending on residential construction was estimated at $3 billion. That was anticipated at $3.3 billion in 1975, an increase of only 10 per cent. In fact, with the increase in construction costs, it would probably be a drop in real terms.

Non-residential construction under this government is expected to rise by 24 per cent in 1975, or by a total of $1 billion from $4.2 billion in 1974 to $5.2 billion in 1975. That’s an increase of $1 billion, compared to an increase of only $300 million in residential construction. The capital investment in machinery and equipment in 1975 was anticipated to be $5 billion, an increase of 16 per cent, or an increase of $700 million.

I’ve searched in vain, Mr. Chairman, to find out whether the figures that are given in these tables are predicated on the budget having been passed and the reduction of sales tax being in force or not; I just don’t know what the case is there. But I suspect that even if the assumption was that the budget was in force, the additional spending on machinery and equipment which might be triggered by this measure, if the Treasurer had his way -- although we doubt it might take place -- but if it were triggered by that it would take place mainly in 1976 and not in 1975. It seems to me that most of the 16 per cent increase in machinery and equipment investment anticipated for this year would be because of investment intentions already formed at the time the budget came into force.

If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, one has to ask why is it that the government is willing to devote $400 million in incentive or investment or whatever you want to call it to the area of machinery and equipment investment on the one hand when it does so little in the area of residential investment, which is rising by only 10 per cent? What sense of social priorities exists at a time of a very sharp housing crisis in the province when non-residential construction -- which is shopping plazas, highrise office buildings and that kind of thing -- increases by $1 billion and the amount being spent on residential construction rises by only $300 million?

That is one of the reasons I’m concerned, Mr. Chairman, because it seems to go contrary to the emphasis or the direction taken by the minister in his budget. The minister seems to stimulate the machinery investment sector. We are saying it is the residential construction sector which could create jobs now, which would meet a social need now and which could help us get out of our economic problems now. We should do it while there is slack in that particular industry rather than ship jobs abroad by additional spending, if in fact any such occurred in machinery investment.

I also wanted to bring briefly to the minister’s attention some rather surprising remarks made in February by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell). We know the Minister of Energy is not a heavyweight within the government; I’m not sure for whom he speaks, apart from himself.

It was a most surprising speech as he said he believes there is little support for doctrinaire socialism in Ontario. He said, “I have become convinced that there is equally little hostility to some government involvement in business when the people are satisfied that it serves their ends.”

He goes on to talk in quite discursive detail about public power; about the Syncrude deal which he calls the wave of the future; about the degree of public ownership in oil, steel, automobiles, transportation and in other major industries in North America, Britain, Europe, Australia and the United States. It is really quite a glowing panegyric to the idea that there is a place for the public sector to go into areas which this government has traditionally reserved for the private sector.

The reason I raise that, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister is sent out as a stalking horse in order to see what the reaction might be to these particular comments and in so doing the government is acknowledging that, as the Minister of Energy says: “Canada is an island which is quite out of step with the rest of the world.” You don’t have to accuse the New Democratic Party of this province of being ahead of its time. If anything we may even be behind our time by comparison with other provinces and other countries. An island in a sea of change is what the minister had to say.

One has to ask what is it about this government that when you have $400 million and you’ve decided you want to put it into industry you put it in the form of a giveaway which goes into industrial profits rather than in the form of an investment which will benefit the public over the long term by giving public participation in this investment which is being made.

If you were adamant about putting it into industrial investment, if you believe there is a genuine need for these funds in order to aid productivity and that kind of thing, it seems to me the public should get a return for those funds. The return should be in the form of some kind of equity or some kind of participation.

Better still, public initiative should be taken in order to create industries in this province which the private sector is not creating now. Public initiative and public funds should be used in order to take industry to parts of the province where the economic opportunities are not the same as those which exist here in the golden heart of Ontario’s economy, within a 75-mile radius of Queen’s Park.

Those are the two points I wanted to raise, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Energy is flirting with socialism. The Minister of Revenue says it is anathema, as does the Treasurer, and as a consequence is giving money out, unbidden, unsolicited one might even say, to private industry in quantities that probably surprises them. The purpose of that is probably linked to the anticipated decline of corporate profits this year from the exceptionally high rate they reached in 1974 far more than to any economic purposes.

We simply find this whole give-away operation unacceptable. We think that lines ought to be drawn between this party and the government party. We think it’s very clear that it isn’t just the government party which supports this kind of unsolicited, unqualified, untied, no-strings-attached handout to the private sector; but it bears mentioning, Mr. Chairman, that that is also true of the Liberal opposition. Last night during the course of the debate there was not a peep of protest against this measure from any member of the Liberal opposition.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Sure, they are supporting it.

Mr. Cassidy: They are just as much in bed with the corporate sector as is the government. It’s the same kind of --

Hon. Mr. Meen: They see the wisdom of it.

Mr. Cassidy: They are in bed with them in the same way the Tories were in bed with the Liberals over similar kinds of concessions to the corporate sector up in Ottawa in the years between 1972 and 1974.

We deplored it in Ottawa. We deplore it here. We believe there are far better means by which you could spend your money and we will not support this kind of handout.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Your whole objection is deplorable.

Mr. Cassidy: The whole objection is deplorable? Well, you can feel that way. I realize the minister disagrees with me, and he will take this to the public. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) will take his position on tenants to the public and the Minister of Revenue his position on handouts to big business and industry to the public, and we will see what the public judgement is when the time comes for the reckoning in a few months.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity overnight to give some further thought to the problem of what we are trying to express to the government. I want to try very briefly to synopsize what the position of this party is as distinct from the mythology of industry, the mythology of the federal Minister of Finance, the mythology of the provincial Treasurer in Ontario and the mythology of some of the leaders of the major segments of industry in the Province of Ontario.

There is no question whatsoever that the economy must operate at a level which will produce the kinds of jobs which will permit satisfying work for those in the labour force and will increase the number of jobs in order to provide jobs that are satisfying to those who are entering the labour force and protect those already in the labour force from the elimination of their jobs by obsolescence and other means. There is no question about that.

The mythology part of it, of course, is that government must in some way grant tax concessions to industry, of inordinately and excessively large amounts on aggregate bases, for the purpose of achieving that basic end. If I can just recapitulate, it is the kind of mythology which is reiterated time and time again by finance ministers, including this minister in his budget this year and in the provisions which he has to extend the period for the fast write-off provisions. Here are the words of the federal Minister of Finance when he gave his budget on May 6, 1974, which of course the federal Conservative Party permitted the Liberal Party to get away with because of the nonsensical economic programmes of the federal branch of the Conservative Party. The Minister of Finance at that time said, and I quote simply to pick up the trend of what I was trying to say last night:

“The first element in our strategy against inflation has been and continues to be the expansion of supply. The central features of that policy have been in place for some time. Our fiscal and monetary policies have been designed to bring the economy up to full capacity growth. We have taken measures to increase the capability of the economy to produce efficiently the goods and services which are needed. This not only increases our production capacity but it also creates remunerative and satisfying lobs, relieves shortages and reduces cost. The reduction of taxes on manufacturing and processing is clearly bringing about just such a massive increase in capacity.”

The tax exemption which is being granted by the government in the course of the bill which is now before us and which amounts to $108 million over the balance of this year and $410 million over the life of the programme, falls within that so-called reduction of taxes on manufacturing and processing to which the Minister of Finance of the federal government refers.

That is mythology. We can’t ever seem to break through to the government that that is mythology, because the government listens only to the constant and continuous remarks which are made by bankers and by leaders of industry, in various parts of the country but mainly in the Province of Ontario.

I refer specifically to the statement by Page Wadsworth, the chairman of the board of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, at the annual meeting on Dec. 10, 1974, as another way of stating the same kind of mythology:

“It is quite clear that only by having an adequate rate of investment can we guarantee the existence of a sufficient degree of productive potential to give us continued growth and prosperity for the future. [It’s a trite saying and we don’t disagree with it.] In fact, dealing with the short-term outlook, there is far too often a tendency to ignore the implication of various policies and developments for longer-term trends.

“Over the past two decades, the three levels of government, either at the initiative of the people of Canada or, more frequently, through their own initiative [which is a delightful phrase] have greatly enlarged their role in Canadian society. Their increased share of the gross national product is to an important extent attributable to the very sharp rise in government revenues, which has resulted from a tax structure with an enormously powerful revenue-generating capacity.”

I go on to quote a little bit further on.

“I have already referred to the major challenge we face in the provision of an assured flow of capital to improve Canada’s ability to produce. Over the longer term, there is only one criterion which can ensure the expansion of capacity -- a fair return on savings and investment within a relatively stable economic and political framework.

“The Canadian economy is now in the midst of an investment boom following insufficient capital outlays in the 1967-1972 period. With the benefit of hindsight the lack of investment in that period was the most undesirable occurrence with serious implications for both growth and price performance. Major contributing factors to the atmosphere of uncertainty that caused this situation were the federal government’s stop-go economic policies and the drawn-out decisions on tax reform.

“We do not want government-made uncertainty, for we have enough uncertainties as it is. When one considers that capital requirements may be in the order of $500 billion over the next decade, responsible actions by all levels of government and society are an absolute necessity. Current federal-provincial squabbles over resource dollars are not in the spirit of the co-operation which is so desperately needed. The resource industries have traditionally been the backbone of our economy and a lack of sufficient new investment in this area could lead to serious shortages and problems in the years to come.”

What Page Wadsworth is obviously saying is, simply, that there is going to be a continuing boom in capital investment because of the demand which is being generated in the economy by the people who are in the economy. That does not require this kind of excessive handout to industry in the Province of Ontario for them to meet the very demand which will be generated by causes other than the reduction in taxes.

I turn now, very briefly, to the remarks which were made by Howard Hart, the president of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, at the annual meeting of that association in January of this year. He states the situation very carefully and very clearly. He doesn’t bemoan the need for tax incentives to be granted to that industry:

“CPPA is currently engaged in compiling its annual survey of the capacity to be added in the Canadian industry. It indicates that there will be an average annual growth of 2.7 per cent between 1974 and 1977. The increase is spread through the various product groups and is occurring almost entirely in existing mills. This is a modest increase, similar in proportion to that going forward in other major producing countries. It is considerably below the long-term average increase of about five per cent in the world paper and paperboard consumption. The current situation is, therefore, quite different from that which we faced in 1970 when a large number of new mills were being completed around the world, just as demand reached a temporary plateau. Having entered earlier downturns with a bad case of oversupply, we entered this one running full.

“My own estimate is that the average operating rate for the industry overall in 1975 will exceed 90 per cent of effective capacity. I see 1975 as the year in which the buyers and sellers of pulp and paper around the world will move to supply long-term supply arrangements that will be advantageous in the years ahead. I see this particularly in the current thinking of customers in the European community.

“Only six months ago we were dealing with the problems of shortages. We will likely have to do so again early next year and thereafter until such time as our products generate a rate of return sufficient to justify major increases in manufacturing capacity. In the meantime, 1975 will be a normal and satisfactory year for pulp and paper operations -- not as strong as we would like it, but certainly not bad.”

He faces up to the fact that on a world market what they depend upon is the price their products can generate, which will determine ultimately whether or not they will expand the capacity of the pulp and paper industry in the Province of Ontario and elsewhere through Canada.

We all know what happened. We read it day in and day out in the press at the period of time. It had nothing to do with the government expenditures; nothing to do with tax measures. Bad judgement caused an overcapacity in the pulp and paper industry during the period to which references were made, in the latter part of the 1960’s and in 1970.

That industry is quite capable of looking after itself. It doesn’t need this kind of incentive with respect to the increase in capacity. Operators know very well that if they apply the kind of intelligence in the oligopolistic market they have in Canada and the major control which they have over substantial segments of the newsprint market in the United States, they know very well that their capacity will adjust in terms of the prices they will get for their products. And they know very well they do not need tax transfers by way of tax concessions through the taxation system, either of this province or of the federal government.

What do we come to then? We come to the mining industry. And we find that Alfred Powis, the president of Noranda, brings himself before the Canadian Club on Feb. 3, approaching the assignment with something of abject terror: He says: “The fact that I am standing up here today is a tribute to the powers of persuasion of the chairman.”

If, in fact, the president of Noranda has a sense of abject terror when he is speaking to the Canadian Club after the results of the Noranda Corp. in its Canadian operations and its worldwide operations during the year 1974, then you can imagine what would happen to him if, in fact, he had had a bad year.

If he was an object of abject terror in January of this year after the results of the mining operations of the Noranda Co. in 1974, I suggest to the minister that I don’t know how he would describe himself if the Noranda empire had a bad year. There is no conceivable way that he could describe himself in any other terms.

What does he have to say? He has a most ambivalent term about their decision. He decries, as they all decry, government deficit. He calls for a decrease in government expenditure.

Do you know what they call for all the time? They call for not only the tax concessions to themselves, which are reverse forms of transfer payments, they are calling for a decrease in the transfer payments which are the cause of and the major reason for deficits in the governmental budgets across the country.

Why are the transfer payments necessary? Because the people in the country in the lower quintiles -- the lowest 20 per cent or the lowest 40 per cent of the country -- don’t have the kind of incomes, the kind of jobs, the kind of opportunities which would increase the kind of demands so that it would be possible for those industries to get by without this kind of concession. You just mark my words.

What they are saying is cut back the government expenditures insofar as they are transfer payments to the lower two quintiles of our population in order that they can exist; but give us further and more tax concessions and we will be fine because government then will cease to intrude upon us.

Mr. Powis goes on and makes this particular ambivalent statement about their own capital investment position. There is no explanation, mind you. He decries ideological statements, but there is not a single fact in the whole of the speech. He says this about Noranda’s capital investment programme, after the kind of year which they had in 1974:

“Noranda’s situation may be fairly typical of what is happening. Looking at 1975, we found ourselves facing a sort of bad news-good news situation.

“The bad news was that in the face of declining cash flow, the inadequacy of depreciation charges to cover needed replacements and the depressed state of the capital markets, we found it necessary to eliminate $100 million from capital spending previously planned for 1975.

“The good news was that with the impact of taxes and inflation on the economics of new development, we had little difficulty in finding projects which were worthy candidates for elimination."

If you could tell me what that particular ambivalent statement means, I would certainly like to have your explanation of it.

Then there was the cry of doom to the Canadian Club. There are a lot of workers who attend those Canadian Club luncheons in the Royal York Hotel or wherever the meetings are now held. His cry of doom is:

“While the mining industry’s problems are serious enough in themselves, in my mind they raise a number of questions of a very much more fundamental nature. Except in terms of degree, are the problems of public and political perceptions referred to earlier unique to the resources industries? Are the problems which compelled curtailment of our 1975 capital programme unique to Noranda, or for that matter to the resource industries? [Beautifully open-ended questions.]

“With profits in disrepute and investor confidence shattered, how can the private sector finance the very large expenditures needed in the years ahead? In fact, does it make any sense for corporations to embark on risky new projects when comparable assets are selling at a fraction of replacement cost on the stock markets?

“Under the conditions we face in Canada today, will the private sector be able to do the job expected of it in the years ahead? If the private sector is to be crippled, what is going to take its place; and is this really what Canadians want? If the vitality of our economic institutions is being eroded, are our social and political institutions secure?”

What a cry of gloom. Why does the government listen to this kind of rot from a man who heads one of the most successful mining operations, centred in Canada and operating throughout the world?

He goes on:

“In the short run, business capital spending is supposed to be the main source of strength in the Canadian economy in 1975. If Noranda’s current experience is being widely duplicated, this is going to be a year most of us will wish never happened.

“About the only benefit which could flow from this might be a renewed public appreciation of the value of profits.”

In strident terms, that’s the message this government took. That’s the message the federal government took. Do you know what he’s saying? He’s saying very, very clearly: “Unless you grant us more concessions, our business is going to contract and contract and contract. The anxiety which will be caused by the loss of jobs, by the depression of the economy, will continue, unless governments give us more and more tax concessions.” In fact, from their point of view, eliminate taxes entirely. And then he said: “We will all come to the final realization of the value of profit in our community.”

What a lot of rot; and why this government falls for it, I can’t understand.

I’m going to end my remarks asking whether or not this minister, or his colleague the Treasurer of the province, would at least do what the Minister of Finance in Ottawa, when forced by the New Democratic Party prior to the last election, agreed to do. That is to provide a method in the Act by which a standing committee of this Legislature could review the result of a monitoring system introduced by this government to find out what jobs will be produced, what industrial capacity will be expanded, to what extent will jobs be lost because of the introduction of technological changes which will eliminate jobs.

What effect will these reductions have on the prices of the end products that these companies manufacture? Is it going to be possible, in any way, to discern how much of the additional revenues that may be generated by these companies, or of the taxes that may be paid, will be paid to foreign countries because most of the companies to which we are referring are substantially owned, in a very real sense, abroad?

Are you prepared to give consideration to that kind of problem? Are you prepared to indicate these things, as was done finally in the federal House before the last election -- and I don’t believe the committee has yet met to assess the report that came out in late November last year about the investment intentions of the 200 largest corporations in the country.

By way of refreshing the minds of the Treasurer and of the Minister of Revenue, I want to refer briefly to the result of the New Democratic Party intervention in the House of Commons on this very issue prior to the last federal election. On May 29, 1973, in tabling the ways and means motions, the hon. John Turner announced his intention to submit an interim report by April 1, 1974, on the effect of the tax concessions, and undertook “to provide an early occasion for this House to re-examine these tax incentives upon the request of 60 members.”

His actual quotation was:

“I am firmly convinced that these manufacturing incentives are vital to our national interests for reasons I have indicated on numerous previous occasions. However, I have been carefully following the public debate on this matter, and I am anxious to do everything reasonably possible to meet the legitimate concerns that have been expressed about the various aspects of these proposals without impairing their effectiveness in achieving our objectives.

“Hence, I wish to announce that it is my intention to put before this House, by April 1, of next year, an interim report based on the review and monitoring procedure which I described earlier. This will give members an early opportunity to begin to assess the results of these measures on the basis of facts and figures. Members will also have an opportunity to make constructive suggestions before the final report is submitted by the end of 1974. In this context, the government will include in the legislation a provision whereby Parliament will have a fresh opportunity to consider the incentives measures, upon the request of 60 members of this House -- ”

And, of course, in this assembly 20 members of this House would be quite adequate for that purpose.

“ -- and after the measures have been in force for a reasonable period of time, namely after April 1, 1974, the government will take the steps necessary to provide an early occasion for this House to re-examine these tax incentives and, if the House so decided, the measures would be withdrawn thereafter in whole or in part.”

He went on at some length, and I don’t intend to set out in detail the actual review procedure which was provided in the appropriate section of the Act. As far as I understand it, there is no correlative provision in the Corporations Tax Act of the Province of Ontario providing for such a review, and there certainly isn’t one in the Retail Sales Tax Act which is before us for consideration.

That’s my first request to the minister, amongst the many others that we have made in the course of the debate last night.

I would simply like to say that the position of the New Democratic Party is and always has been that if you provide the individual citizens in Canada in the Province of Ontario with the kind of economic livelihood which can be provided by providing the kinds of funds which are required to enable the lower 40 per cent, the lower two quintiles of the population in the Province of Ontario and in Canada to live properly, you will provide all of the demand which you need to provide for a domestically-oriented industry which will not be at the whim of the export market but to which the export markets will be a significant and important, but not dominating, part of the industrial trade and the mineral trade and the pulp and paper trade -- in short, of the basic industries in the Province of Ontario.

We cannot allow and we cannot agree to these constant reverse transfer payments by way of tax concessions without any study of any kind. Consider, Mr. Chairman, the attempted studies, the attempted provisions which have been made, the long, drawn-out concern that has been expressed over the so-called poverty level, over the level that people need just to subsist, over the lower limits of the GAINS programme which has been introduced finally into the Province of Ontario; that problem has been studied to death. The problem of the working poor, the problem of the single-parent family, the problem of elderly people on pension, the problems that are faced by people who are unemployable; all of those problems have been studied to death in order to provide them with a mere pittance of the number of dollars required in this economy.

And yet on the other hand, listening to men like Powis, listening to the bankers in their addresses from time to time, listening to the whole mythology of the federal government, without even a single indication of any study to support any of the information which is available, you grant these fantastic concessions.

When we ask that social planning studies and other studies done by the government in the Ministry of Community and Social Services be tabled, they are usually tabled. At the federal level, all kinds of studies -- the poverty study -- are tabled. But when we ask the government of the Province of Ontario to justify in number of jobs, in price decreases, in support for export-oriented industries, in support of employment and its commitment that the replacement of obsolete equipment by technological equipment will not eliminate jobs; when we ask for that kind of information, you can read the budget from beginning to end and you can read the answers of the Treasurer and of the ministers to questions which have been put to them, and we have absolutely nothing.

All I am saying to the minister is to reorient the economic thinking of this government away from what the banks are saying and away from what the major components of industry are saying. Get around to understanding that these tax concessions are transfer payments to industry in excessively inordinate amounts, and that they are not required by industry; and that that same industry is calling for the elimination of government deficits, by the only way it sees as possible, which is to eliminate the transfer payments to those persons who need the transfer payments to maintain their relatively insecure economic position in our society. When that time comes you will begin to understand what we are talking about. As I said before, it is a difficult argument; it’s hard to make. It’s very difficult to be understood, but our position, and the position of this caucus, is so totally different from the conception of the provincial Progressive Conservative government in the Province of Ontario and the federal government at Ottawa, that we have taken up the time of the House in order to clearly state to you where we differ fundamentally and in essence from the attitude of the Tory government towards industry.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I can see, just as clearly as the member for Riverdale and all the members would have me see, I suppose, the very clear difference between the two parties, the NDP on the one hand and the government on the other.

The NDP would hand out money without any particular recognition of the capacity of that same money if used in other ways to create jobs, to create a better balance of payments on the foreign market. The member for Riverdale refers to the reduction in tax on the purchase of production machinery by way of concessions, and calls them transfer payments. They’re nothing of the sort. They’re related to acquisition of manufacturing equipment, which by its very nature will create new jobs, new products, enable our industries to compete better in foreign markets, improve our balance of payments, improve the lot of Ontarians in every respect; and enhance and support the other thrusts which the Treasurer has put forth in his budget.

I think it’s an extremely myopic approach. One would think the hon. member was wearing blinkers to hear him talk in terms of transfer payments on something as fundamental as the generation of new jobs and the expansion of industry and commerce to put ourselves in a better position in the economy. Not just here in Ontario; we can’t live in isolation. We don’t live in isolation from the rest of Canada, and we don’t live in Canada in isolation from the rest of the world, as he would have us believe. The forces in the marketplace around the world affect us -- they affect us adversely in many respects -- and we’ve got to be able to compete in order to sell our wares. If we don’t sell our wares it makes it even tougher for our people at home to get jobs --

Mr. Renwick: They don’t need your concessions.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- to be able to have the money to be able to buy the properties they want and to be able to live the way we would want to have them all live.

Mr. Renwick: They don’t need taxpayers’ money in order to compete, and that is what you are giving them.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Renwick: It is a private-enterprise economy.

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

Hon. Mr. Meen: I listened very politely to the member for Riverdale throughout most of his remarks, and I would ask him to extend the same kind of courtesy to me.

Mr. Renwick: I apologize, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The suggestion that he made for modification of the Act for some sort of standing committee to review the effect of the Act is an interesting one, although I don’t think it need be in the Act. Any kind of select committee set up for the purpose some day could have those as its terms of reference. I think it is rather interesting.

He talked for three quarters of an hour without ever giving the Treasurer, who was in his seat, an opportunity to respond to some of the many questions that have been raised throughout this debate yesterday and today. Now, I regret to say, the Treasurer has had to leave as he did have another meeting to attend. I had hoped he would be able to stay to the end --

Mr. Renwick: All the Treasurer had to do was to stand up and we would have been delighted to hear from him.

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, he was never given the opportunity.

Mr. Renwick: I have never heard of his being that immodest.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The member didn’t even direct one remark to him; he was quite clearly in his seat and listening to what the member was saying.

Mr. Cassidy: He could have entered the debate 10 minutes after it began.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I would suggest to the members that the federal approach where they agreed to set up this committee -- whether it has ever been asked for, I don’t know; but I can tell you that the committee, I am advised, has not met to determine the effect of the federal budgetary proposals of last year. So whether it’s of any use or not, I don’t propose to accept the amendment until that sort of thing is brought into the Act.

Mr. Cassidy: That is because the Tories are so indolent, that is the indolence of your federal colleagues.

Hon. Mr. Meen: But I think it would be appropriate at some time in the future to review the effects of budgetary frontal attacks on the economy, as we are making them in this budget. It would be interesting to analyse the Treasurer’s various thrusts here. I am not unmindful of the fact that the Ministry of Treasury and Economics has staff that presumably are doing this on an ongoing basis. But it would be nice to know just what the effect was, from sources such as the business community. I also understand that the Treasurer, before he finalized his budget in late March and early in April, met with virtually all significant quarters of the business and investment community, and all others who could give him an input.

The Treasurer didn’t develop this budget off the top of his head, so to speak, or in isolation just here in government circles. He went much farther afield than that in the level and extent of communication with the business and economic community. Certainly, he went as far as any Treasurer in the past, to the best of my knowledge; I venture to say perhaps further. He has had input from many quarters to determine what the needs were in order to get this economy turned around.

This element we are dealing with in paragraph 48 is for the reduction and removal for a period of time of the retail tax on production equipment. This is the one we are debating at the moment. It is clear that he has taken this route in concert with his other thrusts in his budget. It’s one of many, and I therefore do not accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Riverdale, that paragraph 49 be deleted.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I hope we may pursue this. It is not really just an interesting proposal; it’s already in effect.

I agree that the committee has not been convened in the federal House of Commons to deal with the question of the impact of these tax measures that were introduced some time ago, but at least they did try to monitor the industries that were the beneficiaries of these particular tax advantages.

They sent out a document, a questionnaire, which was to be returned. It asked most of the major questions which had to be asked. True, one can quarrel with the wording of some of the particular questions. One could be concerned that there might be some questions omitted that could be added.

If the minister is at all serious about the suggestion that a standing committee of this assembly or a select committee of this assembly would look into the effect of these concessions, which are granted to industry year in and year out it becomes -- after a very short time -- such a immovable part of our tax structure, then will he give consideration to the kind of questionnaire that was used by the federal government to obtain information? Not through the federal government, but directly from the major segments of industry here, to find out to what extent these measures and the correlative measures of the fast write-off provisions to be included by extension in the Corporations Tax Act will produce the kind of results the minister and the government say they will.

We cannot take it any longer on faith that those results flow. You can’t either, because you don’t have that information -- other than a kind of a blind Boy Scout optimism in the way in which this particular system works -- and it doesn’t work that way. The sooner you learn it the better.

The way to learn it, the way we can all learn it, and then we can have a kind of intelligent debate about it, is to adopt, with the necessary changes, the kind of review procedures, the kind of questionnaires, the tabling of the kind of reports that are an essential ingredient before there can be any intelligent study by elected members of this assembly through a standing committee or through a select committee,

If I may just say a word about the Treasurer. I know he’s a very important public member of the ministry. It’s his problem. We are in this House performing our function. All he had to do was to indicate he wished to comment in this debate and we would have, out of recognition of the public nature of his duties as a minister of the Crown, gladly granted him an opportunity. He knows it and you know it -- and we won’t listen to that kind of nonsense.

We’ve tried to have an intelligent debate on a question the minister wants to keep within narrow mechanical limits. I will give him credit for the fact that he has permitted the debate to be enlarged beyond that mechanical wall. He had very little alternative, but I give him credit for at least listening to the contra-position of this party, which is a major difference, as I have stated, between our party and the government party.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that clause --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): No, the minister hasn’t had an opportunity to answer.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, I’m sorry.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman, that my ministry does have, within somewhat limited facilities, the capacity to explore with the taxpayers reporting to the ministry certain elements of the administrative side of the taxing statutes. I think I would like to give some consideration to the possibility of expanding the exploratory nature of various circulars which my ministry sends out to industry, possibly in the interests of covering that end of things. It’s a different role, as one can imagine, for the Ministry of Revenue, but it is an interesting one and has direct impact, of course, within the taxing statutes.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for River- dale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, assuming that the minister will give, as he has stated, some thought to it and that he has the capacity in his ministry, if he wishes to use it, to obtain that kind of information which is required, then I would suggest that the appropriate time we might deal with it, both from the point of view of the Retail Sales Tax Act and from the point of view of the Corporations Tax Act, is when the Corporations Tax Act is out in the standing committee of the whole House.

Perhaps we could discuss it at some length there and see whether or not under the Corporation Tax Act, as was done in the federal Income Tax Act, an appropriate amendment couldn’t be drawn up to provide the kind of guidance and assistance we need in order to come to grips with this question.

I know the minister disagrees with my conception that these concessions to industry are reverse transfer payments. I know he does. I think it’s a viable position, but that is what our position is. The magnitude of the amounts does not disguise the fact that they are transfer payments to industry. They are grants to industry of moneys which would otherwise be collected by the Ministry of Revenue. And in that sense they are direct transfer payments.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves --

Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Chairman --

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

Mr. Lewis: just before you put the vote, I want to say to the minister that our reason for voting against the bill on second reading was as much for this clause as it was for the only-interim reduction in the sales tax. We wish that the five per cent be made permanent rather than have a terminal date of Dec. 31, 1975.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well, in fact, I thought you felt more strongly on this one than you did on the other one.

Mr. Lewis: And we were very profoundly opposed to this as well, so that’s why we stood our ground as we did on second reading; and our feelings about this, as you can see, persist into the debate on clause by clause. I was, unfortunately, unable to be here last night, but I have conscientiously read the entire Hansard proceedings of last night. That’s quite a contrast -- having read that report on pornography this morning and Hansard this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Meen: You must be a fast reader.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Did you notice much difference between the two?

Mr. Lewis: Well, Hansard is a little more erotic, but other than that it was much the same.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s far more explicit.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): There is far more violence in Hansard.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t understand some of the processes in the House, and I suppose on an amiable Tuesday afternoon at 10 minutes to 4, when nobody is rushed, I might as well tell you parts of what I don’t understand. I don’t understand the process in the House that has the Minister of Revenue adopt the pretence that he is responsible purely for the mechanical collection of a tax, the kind of simple arrangement of enforcing or administering a statute, and is not at all responsible for the interpretation of that statute or a debate on the contents in ways beyond those that are purely mechanical. It’s a very strange conception of parliament and a very strange conception of the ministerial role and I have never quite understood it. I suppose it’s possible to say that the Treasurer fashions his budget in conjunction with a small coterie, probably a group of four. The same people who option land in Spencerville probably pull the budget together without sharing it with their colleagues until it is given to the Legislature with the full panoply of press and attention.

It seems to me, to the minister, through the Chair, that after the budget becomes fact and we move into a debate on the substantive legislation, the tax legislation, there is kind of a political and moral obligation to engage in matters of substance as well as matters of trivia. It becomes an obligation of the Minister of Revenue to be able to give the substantive arguments behind the government proposal for certain tax legislation without always hiding behind the proposition that he is merely the administrator perhaps.

In a sense you do yourself a great injustice because you understand, as much as anybody understands, the import of the bill. You have sat in cabinet and talked with the Treasurer and others about the reasons for the various statutory changes. You have discussed privately and at formal cabinet meetings, I am sure ad nauseam, the various economic decisions that have been made and the rationales which underlie them.

You would do that because you are naturally a curious man and you would do that because you’re a cabinet minister and you share the confidences of the government. It seems to me most peculiar that the opposition should have to be debating a bill as fundamental as this one and be unable to elicit from you the reasons which underlie the legislative changes. That bothers me. I guess it bothers many of us in this House.

It’s not simply an ideological difference. I’m not conveying it well; I’m trying to put it in more appropriate language. I’m not asking you for a clash of ideologies. Yes, we as socialists would not give handouts to corporations needlessly and you as Tories might feel that is a benefit. There’s the ideological difference but there is something more important than the ideological difference here.

What is important is the need and obligation of a government to document publicly why it has made certain changes in tax law. The reason for a clause-by-clause debate in this House is to give us the opportunity to learn of the government’s rationale, methodology, investigation of the documentation you have, the material you have and the work you have done. That’s what this is all about and it offends that you find this process so irrelevant that you look upon this chamber with such contempt that you won’t deal seriously in this kind of debate.

Don’t smile at me, I tell the minister. If that is the role to which you are rendered by virtue of being a lesser, a kind of junior cabinet minister, fair enough, be man enough to admit it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I’ve already said that.

Mr. Lewis: If you have said it, it doesn’t mean we have to simply accept it at face value. I read through the Hansard; I don’t know -- were you embarrassed last night?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Not really.

Mr. Lewis: Not really embarrassed? A little embarrassed? Felt a trifle awkward? Thought to yourself, “How come I’m always the man who carries through the Land Speculation Tax Act and the non-resident Transfer Tax Act and now the Sales Tax Act? How is it that I inherit the fray? What have I done to deserve the tempest, I, modest, friendly, unassuming Arthur? Why does all of this heat descend on me?” Don’t you ever ask yourself that? Where is your self-respect in broad terms? Why isn’t it possible for you to deal with us in substantive terms on an item like this? I don’t understand the process.

Mr. Chairman, I have some specific questions. I’ll wind it up but I want to make this observation in passing, that this debate, this kind of exchange is what destroys this Legislature. It is one of the things the Tories haven’t understood in more than the 12 years that I have been here but particularly in the last four years.

This chamber is not used for an intelligent exchange of information. This chamber seems never to be used as a forum where the best that can be within a parliament is seen -- a government defending its position on giving its evidence; an opposition probing the evidence and seeking more, and providing an alternative. This chamber is never used for that any more. This chamber is either used -- I guess we participate in it too; I know I do -- for the hurling of epithets or it is used for the simple position you took last night which is, “I don’t know anything. Don’t ask me.”

For the New Democratic Party it is simply not acceptable. The Treasurer has refused to answer the questions in question period. That’s fine; he can get off the hook by saying that. But when the Minister of Revenue is asked questions of the kind we have been asking of you, it is wrong that you will not reply. I assert it categorically. I know you don’t agree. It is wrong that you do not reply.

You are delinquent in your cabinet responsibility and you are delinquent in your public responsibility because you know what you are asking us to do and you understand that.

Let me enumerate it for you without having written anything down. You’re asking us in this clause to approve for the corporations a special exemption in effect; a special tax remission of $108 million in this fiscal year and $410 million by 1977. It is the single biggest economic undertaking in your budget. Fair? Is that true? Is there a single other economic initiative in the budget which approximates $410 million? No, sir. Even the sales tax reduction to five per cent by Dec. 31, 1975, totals, if memory serves me, only $330 million --

Hon. Mr. Meen: In that time period.

Mr. Lewis: -- in that nine-month period or the 8½, eight and three weeks period. Fair enough. This is in dollar terms the single most dramatic initiative in the entire budget.

Does it not seem inconsistent to you that there should be therefore no evidence to support it? How can that be? To what has power reduced you? To what has this obsession of divine right brought you that you can put through a budgetary change of $410 million and feel you need account for it to no one? That you can simply account for it by saying with a jocular wave of the arm it will create jobs and stimulate the manufacturing sector?

Do you expect us, as a responsible opposition party, simply to endorse that kind of thing?

You may wish to demean the process. We are not going to demean the process. We understand the way the game is played around here. We know that when we stand, the five of us who do, to call a vote on this issue and divide we will lose. We know that. But don’t ask us to abdicate our responsibility as an opposition in precisely the way you abdicate your responsibility as a government.

Of what does the abdication consist? You are not able to tell us, Minister of Revenue, how many jobs this programme is designed to create? It is $410 million the single strongest initiative of the government and you can’t tell us how many jobs it is designed to create. You cannot tell us whether it will create one additional job -- $410 million.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): It will likely eliminate some.

Mr. Lewis: You are not able to give us an appraisal, as my colleagues asked you last night, of the tax credit programme of 1971-1973. You are not able to indicate to us today whether that created jobs or the impact that it had upon the economy.

How can that be? How do you take $410 million of public money and never feel constrained to give an accounting of that which underpins the programme? You have been getting away with it for time immemorial, but we will not let you get away with it without at least demanding a reply even though we are met with stony silence. It makes no sense, I say to the minister. You don’t deal with public matters in that fashion.

My colleague from Riverdale during his remarks last night showed you the increases in employment that have occurred from 1971 to 1973 as the result of your tax credit investment introduced in Ontario. We at least went back and looked at the impact. Did you? No. We went back and looked at the impact and what did it show? I am working from memory.

In 1971 over 1970, when the tax was introduced, the employment increase as a percentage in manufacturing was 5.1 per cent. In 1971-1972, after the tax credit was provided, employment went to 5.2 per cent as a percentage increase. In other words, the remission of something like $36 million or $40 million in tax credit in the first year had resulted in an increase in jobs in the manufacturing sector of one-tenth of one per cent.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It might have gone down.

Mr. Lewis: How do you know it might have gone down? In 1972-1973, after the full impact of the $90 million in remission had been experienced, the percentage increase in jobs was 2.3 per cent, a dramatic decline from the year before. I know that it seems odd. A government has a public responsibility to provide a case which underpins its tax measures. You have taken the budget document, which should be an economic statement, and turned it into a political manifesto.

You may think that that’s a comic thing to do in an election year and you don’t care. But governments that are reduced to that kind of activity usually find themselves in trouble. It means that you have lost your judgement, you no longer have a sense of your priorities and you no longer recognize your public responsibilities. You can’t tell us how many jobs will be created. You can’t tell us whether one job will be created. You can’t give an assessment of the previous investment tax credit and whether it created any jobs or its impact.

My colleague from Wentworth last night spelled out to you, item after item, the possible economic consequences of this legislation. You were not able to tell him whether machinery and equipment would be replacement or new. You were not able to tell him how you arrived at the figures of $108 million or $410 million. You weren’t able to tell him the Statistics Canada investment intentions on which were based the analysis.

Do you realize that? You bring in a tax of $410 million and you cannot give us even the arithmetic calculation which arrives at the figure. You were not able to tell him whether more jobs would be created in the country of origin rather than in the province of purchase. You were not able to tell him where that additional money would go, whether it would go into further investment or simply, as we believe, into the profits of the corporations involved.

Has there ever been such dismal failure in the explanation of a taxing measure as in this case? Do you realize you are giving to one sector of the economy $410 million, and in no area -- not one -- have you given us a public accounting, any reason for what you are doing, any indication or prediction of impact?

You are an incorrigibly irresponsible government. You are taking public money and handing it to the corporations without even thinking that you need accountability. At least John Turner, for whom I have relatively little use as a political antagonist, felt enough public responsibility that he said, “If, at the request of 60 members of the House of Commons the whole tax must be reassessed, or if there is a need to monitor it, we’ll do that.” Not so the provincial Tories. Heaven forbid that anyone in the world should hold you accountable for what you do. You didn’t give any money to the GAINS programme; didn’t find any money for that; didn’t raise that at all -- well, $4 a month, up to $240 a month in total. And you certainly didn’t do more than take some people off the income tax rolls to correspond with what the federal government had already done.

You gave to small business $15 million, and to large corporations $410 million. You gave the farmers how much? It must have been in the range of $15 million to $20 million.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): About $20 million.

Mr. Lewis: About $20 million? And to large corporations $410 million.

Hon. Mr. Meen: They will spend billions to get that.

Mr. Lewis: In every other single tax change you made you gave a documented rationale, but in this tax you gave no rationale at all. As I say, the federal Liberals did a similar thing, but John Turner felt it necessary in the public interest to provide both a monitoring and a rationale. You people here, you have such an indifference to the public and to a sense of public accountability that you have been unable to answer a single question in this entire debate, and that’s why you are incorrigibly irresponsible.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That’s your opinion.

Mr. Lewis: No, it’s not my opinion.

Mr. Deans: It’s true.

Mr. Lewis: I read the Hansard last night scrupulously, and you were an awkward and embarrassed man last night. You admitted publicly that you had no answers, and you knew no answers. You said you were the mechanic, you were the man who administered the tax law, and you didn’t have to provide any of the answers at all.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): He blamed it on the Treasurer.

Mr. Deans: It proves they shouldn’t have split the ministries.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what we in this party and in the Legislature, because I’m sure it is shared by all of us in the opposition, call the failure of political leadership in Ontario. You don’t understand any longer what political leadership consists of. It consists, in one instance, of bringing in a tax and explaining its rationale. That’s what we call the absence of straight talk or candour in Ontario; your unwillingness to be direct and forthright about your intentions and about the reasons for arriving at certain decisions.

Your single greatest tax measure, $410 million -- with which, as my colleague from Wentworth pointed out, you could build 20,000 homes --

Mr. Deans: And get all the money back.

Mr. Lewis: -- and get all the money back -- the single greatest tax incentive in the budget, you have refused to, in any sense, document. You don’t know whether there’ll be jobs. You don’t know whether we’ll lose jobs. You don’t know where the additional investment will go, if it goes anywhere. You don’t know whether it’s replacement machinery. You don’t know whether it’s new machinery. You don’t know of past experience. The minister doesn’t know a blessed thing about the tax that he’s piloting through in this House; not a blessed thing! You’re an apologist for the government and for the corporations whom the government serves.

I don’t say that because I’m a New Democrat who says those things easily; I believe it of you. But I see it in this legislation more in evidence than I’ve seen it for a very long time. And it’s all catching up with you -- the bad judgement, the arrogance, the lack of public accountability, the absence of political leadership, the prevarication, the dissembling, the deceptions, the refusal to talk straight, the refusal to answer the opposition when asked perfectly legitimate questions, the feeling that any tax measure you wish to bring in you can simply put to the House and pass.

All those things are catching up with you as the Tories scurry to read the polls in response to the budget, to see if anything is changing. Nothing is changing, Mr. Chairman. Nothing changes unless there are changes on all fronts simultaneously. You can’t have a good energy conference on Thursday and bring in a tax like this two weeks later, and expect public favours suddenly to adorn you.

Those are the reasons, very simply, why we’re opposing this section of the bill. I’ve simply tried to summarize the position which my colleagues have put well and avidly. I’m not going to try to prolong it, because you, sir, as a minister, are neutered. You are a politically impotent minister. You take this portfolio and you hurl it in the face of the opposition by saying “I am the ritual mechanic. Ask me no questions, I have no answers.”

Well, you don’t forgive a tax of $410 million to one small sector of the economy and provide no answers. And the violence that you do to the legislative process in reducing debate to this kind of thing is the same violence you do to yourself politically by removing public trust. And that’s what you are doing.

You think no one listens; you think no one cares. But these things are cumulative, my friend. This clause is a totally unacceptable clause. This tax change is a perfidious change. You are incorrigibly irresponsible, I repeat, to persist in its implementation without answering a single, legitimate question put to you by the opposition when, in fact, you have some of the answers and refuse to share them with us or with the public; or, indeed, with those few back-benchers who are here to support you.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I don’t propose to repeat the arguments that I advanced last night, and which the member for Scarborough West seems to have conveniently disregarded. I have outlined the reasoning behind this section, as it is part of the overall thrust of the budget. It is not a giveaway programme. The corporations will have to spend billions to recover this kind of money over this period of time.

The intention is to create an incentive to get these purchases, these companies, these business expansions going at a period of time. It is essential to the economy of Ontario that a shot in the arm be given to them.

Mr. Deans: To the economy of Ontario, yes.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I don’t consider myself an apologist for the government on this bill, nor in any role in which I happen to work as the administrator of a taxing statute. I said last night that there were times that it would be nice if the Minister of Revenue and the Treasurer were wrapped up as one and the same person, as they are in some jurisdictions in Canada. I guess, from the other side of it, from the administrative side, there is too much work then to be reposed in one man. I find myself pretty busy looking after the administration of the various taxing statutes. The hon. member for Scarborough West is nodding his head.

The difficulty, of course, is that these taxing statutes, being budgetary matters, are matters which implement decisions by the Treasurer. I think, perhaps, the member for Scarborough West is also accurate when he says a relatively small group of people make the decisions as to the various fronts upon which the province will move in its endeavour to turn the economy around to get things rolling again.

I have not had the benefit of all the discussions the Treasurer and his colleagues and staff in Treasury and Economics have had in talking to the business community, and so I don’t feel that I know all of the background resulting from which have come the various thrusts. So it is $400 million; that is a lot of money; it is a lot of money. When you consider the overall budget of the province, it is five per cent. So, it is a significant amount. But it means for the companies to get this money, they have to spend an enormous amount in plant expansion.

Mr. Deans: None of it here.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Now that isn’t so.

Mr. Deans: That is so.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The member for Ottawa Centre --

Mr. Deans: He was wrong. There is 80 per cent purchased outside.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The member for Ottawa Centre -- and he is an economist -- the member for Ottawa Centre suggested that it was maybe 50-50.

Mr. Deans: It is 80-20.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- between purchases here and across the line. Whatever the percentage, there will be substantial purchases made here of production machinery.

Mr. Deans: There will not.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In addition, as I pointed out to him and to the member for Wentworth, they’re losing sight of the fact that whether the production-related machinery is purchased here in Canada or is purchased elsewhere, it would certainly be purchased here in Canada if it were available here in Canada.

Mr. Deans: But the time limit that you have allowed won’t permit the companies to tool up in time to make it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: If it’s purchased elsewhere and brought into Ontario, then of course more jobs are created because no manufacturer in his right mind is going to buy machinery that isn’t going to be put to use. And it will require people to operate those machines; it will require other products to transport them; and there will be the retailing of them and their ultimate use all the way through the economy.

It’s an extremely narrow-visioned approach which the hon. members opposite have taken in attacking this part of the Treasurer’s budget. I’m convinced -- and I’m no apologist when I’m saying this -- I’m convinced that this part, however expensive it may be, will play a very significant part in helping turn this economy around.

Mr. Lewis: Before debate closes, I want to try to clarify something, because I don’t follow the logic. The $410 million represents a remission of seven per cent on the purchase of machinery and equipment. If you divide seven into $410 million, that works out to about $60 million on a percentage point. And if it’s $60 million on a percentage point it’s $6 billion on 100 per cent. Is that correct? So what you are assuming is the purchase of $6 billion worth of machinery and equipment by 1977, for which the corporations will recapture some $410 million. All right, you don’t need to be a blessed genius to know that. But let me tell you something: Do you know how much the investment intentions are of all the corporations in all the sectors for this year? Do you know that?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Do you?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I do. Do you? No. You’re only the Minister of Revenue. Why should you know? Well, it ranges between $17 billion and $19 billion. That’s what it is. That includes everything. That includes every sector. It doesn’t apply merely to manufacturing. What you have done is you have isolated certain portions of manufacturing to which this exemption would apply -- and you may be right. I don’t know quite how your arithmetic was done. I wish I did. If you saw $15 billion this year, $21 billion the next year and X the year after, I wish I knew how you arrived at the $6 billion for manufacturing machinery and equipment. But I don’t, because you won’t share that with us.

What you’re saying is that the corporations will recapture $410 million. What we’re saying to you is, what guarantee do you have that the $410 million will be reinvested in the purchase of further machinery and equipment to create new jobs? You see, you’re engaging in a neat sleight of hand in this debate -- it’s not deliberately misleading, but it’s a sleight of hand.

The $6 billion figure, on which the $410 million estimate is made, is a figure that is already committed. Those investment intentions are registered. They represent nothing new. So don’t talk to us about the billions that the corporations have to spend. They have already made their decisions to spend that money.

The big question is then, will the $410 million which you are giving back to them be ploughed into the economy? And we’re saying, on the basis of past experience and on the basis of what we know, it will not be ploughed back into the economy. It will go to the profit coffers of those corporations and be dispensed largely to the shareholders. That’s what was learned in the United States, that’s what was learned federally and that’s what was learned between 1971 and 1973 in your investment tax credit. And you haven’t any answer for that. You haven’t any answer for that at all.

Hon. Mr. Meen: There is the corporations tax, among other things.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, I see. You are going to take some of it back through the corporations tax. If you want to take it back through the corporations tax then raise the tax by one point or by two points and recover it for the province. What we are really saying and what my colleagues have put to you very neatly, and I think unanswerably, is that you have no knowledge of this.

It’s kind of amusing that nobody has brought to you the Statistics Canada material on investment intentions in order to see how figures relate to the total investment intentions. The first thing that occurred to this caucus was to look at the Statistics Canada figures. You would think that as the minister piloting through the legislation you might have the same interest, but you don’t. You simply take on face value the assumptions that have been placed in your hand to pilot through and you refuse to give us any answers. I just didn’t want anybody in the world to think upon reading Hansard that somehow the seven per cent was stimulating billions of dollars of investment.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well, it is.

Mr. Lewis: That’s all committed, all of it. Just look at your investment intention statistics. It is all committed. What you have to be able to tell us is how come. What are they going to do with the $410 million? What guarantees have you on that score? And you haven’t a thing to say to us -- not a word.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I said it.

Mr. Lewis: You have hope and you have the commitment that comes with being a corporate appendage.

Mr. Deans: Faith, hope and charity.

Mr. Lewis: But you have no knowledge, no documentation and no evidence. So don’t ask us to support the cost.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): You don’t have a dog’s chance.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: What was that? Can I repeat that?

Mr. Stokes: No.

Mr. Lewis: My colleague from Thunder Bay has some of the finest, the most exquisite railroad expressions, all of them worthy of a report on obscenity, which this Legislature has ever heard.

Mr. Breithaupt: John Colombo would like to hear them.

Mr. Lewis: One day, Mr. Chairman, as a way of bringing some life to this chamber, I am going to list them for you; epigram by epigram; colourful or otherwise. Then I shall retire, because I shall have to retire.

Mr. Breithaupt: With example.

Mr. Lewis: But I would not wish the chamber to go through life without having heard of the railroadese to which others of us are subjected during the course of these debates. It won’t get you off the hook though. Your friend, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) there doesn’t even find his blood running when he reads a report on pornography. What use to waste upon him the jewels that fall from the member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour --

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, might I just ask before you put this is it presumed that as a result of the vote to be taken this section will be dealt with, or is there still the opportunity to deal with it? We have a few points.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair indicated last night that we would consider Mr. Renwick’s amendment first and then we would consider Mr. Haggerty’s on the same section.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is fine, Mr. Chairman. There was one other point that I just wanted to raise as a matter of information. So perhaps we can then carry on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Renwick’s motion will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall this vote be stacked?

Mr. Deans: No, we will vote on it.

Mr. Lewis: This one we will vote on now.

Mr. Chairman: Call in the members.

The committee divided on Mr. Renwick’s amendment which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 13, the “nays” are 63.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.

We have another amendment to the section.

Mr. Haggerty has moved that section 4, subsection 3, be amended to include a new subsection following the preamble “but no exemption may be claimed under this paragraph for any machinery or equipment,” and subsection (e) to read (f), “which is imported into Canada if such machinery or equipment -- ”

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): On a point of order, sir. A point of order.

Mr. Chairman: I think the Chair --

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m putting a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair should be able to finish reading the amendment first.

Mr. Bullbrook: No, because the point of order takes precedence over the motion that you are putting at the present time. I understood that the vote was to be on Mr. Renwick’s motion only.

Mr. Chairman: That’s right.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to know whether my colleague wants to speak to his own motion.

Mr. Chairman: If the hon. member had been listening, the Chair gave the concurrence that we would entertain any debate on Mr. Haggerty’s motion, so I shall continue reading the motion as put by Mr. Haggerty: “which is imported into Canada if such machinery or equipment for the same purpose can be manufactured in Canada.”

The member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of the amendment --

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Does the member for Sarnia have a point of order now?

Mr. Haggerty: -- is to ensure that the province, through the Ministry of Revenue, provides the motives to maintain present employment and to increase employment wherever possible, and particularly to establishing guidelines for the manufacturing and purchasing of production machinery when such production machinery can be produced and manufactured here in Canada.

I talked previously, before the division bells rang, with the minister and my main concern was with paragraph 49, which deals with the fabrication of equipment. Dealing with the fabrication of equipment, I could interpret the section here to mean that any company could bring in fabricated equipment to perhaps construct or build a new mine in Ontario, and I think this type of production equipment could be produced in Ontario, again creating jobs.

I’m also concerned about the problems that we have in labour disputes here in Ontario, for example in the automobile industry, where companies, perhaps not too happy with a labour dispute, will pull out the production machinery and back it goes to the States -- of course, again creating unemployment here in Ontario. I think there should be some guidelines put into the bill to protect employment here in Ontario.

I think it was some two years ago that one of the ministers came in with a similar bill. In introducing the bill, he stated that “with this type of a programme we are going to produce some 42,000 jobs.” To this day I haven’t seen those 42,000 jobs. In this bill, hopefully, it is to increase employment -- but I think there have to be guidelines to protect the Canadian workers who can produce such equipment.

I am well aware that there is equipment that cannot be produced in Canada. I can think of computerized machinery, such as lathes, drills, jigs, milling machines, and of that type of production machinery. But, I am sure we do have skilled tradesmen here in Canada, and particularly in Ontario, who can produce much of the machinery we are talking about. I would like to see the minister provide guidelines or some direction to the industry to say that if they are going to get into the market buying new machinery, then buy here in Ontario or in Canada and protect the Canadian labour force.

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

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, at the moment I don’t have a copy of the amendment which the hon. member did provide. But I had a chance to look at it, and I want to thank him for giving me the opportunity to reflect on its significance during the period when we were waiting to take the last vote.

Although I found myself in very considerable sympathy with the hon. member and the view he is expressing as to buy Canadian, buy locally wherever possible, I am concerned that that kind of amendment would be, first of all, difficult if not impossible to administer. There would be cases in which, if it were established that similar machinery was available in Canada, it might well be the delivery time on that equipment was impossibly long and far off and couldn’t meet the schedule of the Canadian manufacturer whom we were attempting to assist in getting further production machinery in operation. It might be that it was of inferior quality. I think we have to leave that sort of thing up to our Canadian manufacturers to buy locally wherever we can.

I understand -- though I don’t have the particulars of this -- that there are certain tariffs on foreign-produced machinery. I think it would be a matter for the federal government to determine whether tariffs were sufficiently large and of great enough significance as to operate as an appropriate incentive to our people to buy locally where the equipment is available. It might just be that in the interest of getting on with establishment of a new product line, or the installation of a new piece of machinery, that it would be necessary to go afield beyond Canada, although we would certainly hope that they would buy locally.

So, as I say, I find myself in complete sympathy with the member’s suggestion. I regret that at this stage, at any rate, I don’t see a way in which we can build an amendment into this section that would accomplish that without considerably hampering the operation of the section itself. I think both he and I are in agreement that the section itself is good. We should give it a try, and I don’t think we want to put any impediments in its way.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to speak on this before the question?

All those in favour of Mr. Haggerty’s amendment say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Anything before section 5?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I made a suggestion to the minister last night --

Mr. Chairman: Order, the member for Waterloo North has the floor.

Mr. Renwick: I am sorry.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): This is on section 4, paragraph 49(d), (e), and (f). It has to do with the requirements for the exemption form when equipment over $500 is rented.

Mr. Renwick: We are not there yet.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I am sorry. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Could the member repeat that? I missed his reference. What’s he talking about?

Mr. Good: It’s 49(d), I think it’s carried right through, regarding the necessity for an exemption form for any machinery rented, that is machinery over $500 in value, during the period from April 7 until Jan. 1, 1977.

It has been drawn to my attention that the procedure initially laid down for the signing of these exemption forms will require an individual exemption for each piece of machinery rented. This exemption form must be signed by an officer of the company renting the piece of machinery and as well as the renter.

One particular company in my riding rents over 100 pieces of equipment a day to the contractors in the area. It’s Suntract Rentals. They find this a most cumbersome procedure. They now have to have a duplication on every bill of rental as well as an exemption form signed by an officer of the renting company.

I have spoken to the minister’s officials and I believe they are looking into the matter to see if they can find a less cumbersome manner of doing it. I draw this to the minister’s attention so that he will give priority action to this so that there will not be undue hardship on these large rental companies having to try to get an exemption form signed by an officer of the rental contractor when the machine may be picked up by some employee of the business.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I agree. I think we should have some adjustment on that form and I confirm what the member has been saying. We are looking at this and I would hope we can come up with an appropriate amendment to the form to do that.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale. Just a minute. Do you want to speak on the same?

Mr. C. J. S. Apps (Kingston and the Islands): On the same thing. I would like to ask the minister if on rental agreements signed prior to April 8 with payments made after April 8, you would have to pay that tax still.

Hon. Mr. Meen: .The tax would be calculated up to and including April 7, at the rate of seven per cent, Mr. Chairman. Thereafter it would be apportioned from that date, April 8, and on to the next rental payment date at the rate of five per cent. It would be five per cent through the balance of the term right through to the end of this year or to the end of the rental period whichever first occurred.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on item (f) of this particular clause I had suggested and provided the minister with a copy of a proposed amendment to that clause.

One of the conditions of obtaining the exemption is provided in item (f) and I don’t think it is sufficiently broadly drawn. It does not refer to the direction for the fabrication or manufacture of products, which is of equal force in obtaining the qualification for the elimination of the tax as a contract for the rental or acquisition of the equipment. I had thought from what the minister said last night that he was perhaps inclined to accept it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to accept it, subject to a small amendment. I take it that we haven’t yet passed subsection (3) of section 4? Since we are still debating this with, perhaps, the member for Riverdale’s concurrence I could read this because I have made a minor amendment to it. I have only one copy. I don’t know whether he has a copy in front of him?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, I have.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I will deliver this to you in a moment, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

Hon. Mr. Meen moves that clause 4 of Bill 30 be amended by amending item (f) of paragraph 49 to read as follows:

“If the contract for the rental or acquisition of which, or the direction for the fabrication or manufacture of which, is in the option of the minister made for the purpose of obtaining the exemption conferred by this paragraph in substitution for or as the result of the cancellation of a substantially similar contract entered into or direction made or given before April 8, 1975.”

Do you have a copy now, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Renwick: Not of yours.

Mr. Chairman: I have a copy of Mr. Renwick’s amendment.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I don’t think the chairman has a copy of this as I have just read it. He is most welcome to have my copy. I might just explain that the words added at the bottom simply lock in with the first reference to the amendment proposed by the member for Riverdale. We find that satisfactory and I think it is an improvement in the Act.

Mr. Renwick: I find that quite satisfactory, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Can we now move on to section 5 of the bill?

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr. Chairman, before we move on to section 5, might I ask the minister to clarify section 4(5) relating to vessels under 500 gross tons? In checking the Act, Mr. Chairman, I find there’s an exemption given to commercial fishing boats and their construction. The explanatory note on this particular subsection indicates that an exemption is going to be given to commercial vessels of less than 500 tons for repairs and refitting.

I just wonder if the minister could clarify this for me, as I do have a small but very active shipyard in my riding that builds tugs for the CNR; it built the Maid of the Mist and so forth. Will there be an exemption on the actual construction, or is it simply on the refitting?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think the section says: “Vessels, as defined by the minister, that do not exceed 500 tons gross and that are operated for commercial purposes, repairs to such vessels, and machinery or equipment purchased to refit such vessels.” I would have to read that in the context of the entire section. I think that’s a total exemption, rather than just referring to repairs.

It came about because it came to my attention there were a number of vessels of less than 500 tons that were operating in competition with other vessels that were over 500 tons. One was exempt from the beginning and for all its repairs. The other, less than 500 tons, performing essentially the same service, was subject to tax, not only on its purchase but on all its repairs.

It seemed unfair to apply the tax in that rather heavy-handed fashion, so what I’m proposing here is that we simply designate them as tax-exempt if they’re beneath that tonnage and operated for commercial purposes; then the two vessels, one of 250 tons, say, and one of more than 500 tons, would be treated the same way; would be both free of tax.

Mr. Paterson: For purpose of clarification, the word “refit” means the manufacture of a new ship, rather than the refitting of an existing one?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I would have to check that, but I believe that’s right. Under section 66, it would apply to the initial vessel as well as to all refitting and repairs.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I didn’t wish to interrupt the member for Essex South when he moved to that particular clause. I think that what the minister says is quite clear because the way it is worded in the Act, referring to vessels over 500 tons, would cover both the construction of the vessels as well as the repairs.

If I may revert to paragraph 49a about returnable containers to be used to hold milk that is sold at a retail sale in Ontario, that’s another exemption. I noticed in the regulations, which appeared in the Gazette within the last few days, that there was a definition of returnable containers in its broad context. Is there any relationship between that definition and the limited application of the exemption that’s provided in this Act?

As I read the returnable container definition that was in the Gazette of a week or two ago, it was very broadly expressed, and I wondered whether the minister was going to begin to move to exempt all returnable containers from sales tax.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I don’t have a copy of that regulation before me but I think the intention was the exemption from retail sales tax of any container for which a deposit was charged would act as an incentive to have it returned, whether it was re-useable or whether it was simply returned for recycling. The old definition for the application of tax was based on the re-useable side rather than returnable. I made a statement in the House a few weeks ago when we first brought that forward. Members will recall the difficulty we were having with deposits on things like beer cans and that was really what started it in the interests of the environment.

Section 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: The minister has an amendment on section 5.

Hon. Mr. Meen moves that clause (b) of subsection 1 of the enactment of section 11, proposed in section 5 of the bill; be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“(b) the aggregate of:

“(1) three per cent of the tax collected by the vendor in such period, and shown in a return that is made in accordance with this Act and the regulations and in which the tax shown to have been so collected is $67 or more.

“(2) $2 for each return with respect to tax collected by the vendor in such period that is made in accordance with this Act and the regulations, and in which the tax shown to have been so collected exceeds $2 and is less than $67, and

“(3) the tax collected by the vendor in such period and shown on a return that is made in accordance with this Act and the regulations and in which the tax shown to have been collected does not exceed $2.”

Mr. Renwick: I take it it is still subject to the $500 limitation?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. This is a refinement of the original section, if I can find my notes on this. Mr. Chairman, do you already have a copy of that amendment?

Mr. Chairman: I have a copy.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps while you are looking for your notes, you could advise us quickly as to the numbers of persons who are presently in the category of those who will be able to make a claim. Secondly, how many do you expect will be achieving the maximum figure of the $500 amount?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Off the top of my head, the following would apply, Mr. Chairman. There are roughly 131,000 retail merchants. Of those, I believe, about 10,000 or so would achieve the maximum; 121,000 or so, give or take, would be ones operating within this range of $2 minimum to $500 a year.

I have an extra copy of this amendment. Does the member for Kitchener have a copy?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, he has a copy.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I have one, thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Has the member for Riverdale?

Mr. Renwick: I don’t need one, thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 5 carry as amended?

Section 5 agreed to.

Mi. Chairman: Is there anything further? On any further clause, section, subsection? Shall the bill be reported?

Mr. Renwick: If I may, let me briefly make a comment. I am delighted to see the lien disappear for the tax and I notice the transitional provision with respect to that disappearance of that lien. I am rather intrigued by the provision of section 10 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Just a minute. Do all sections before section 10 carry?

Sections 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Renwick: I am really intrigued by section 10 because that was a recommendation made by the Smith committee back in 1967, I believe. I am curious -- it’s really idle curiosity -- as to why the minister in 1975, so many years later, could decide to make the change which was recommended by the Smith committee. It is such a momentous change changing the three per cent to the four per cent.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Perhaps it is the fact that the Minister of Revenue of this present day happens to have been a member of the select committee that reviewed the Smith report.

Section 10 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other section any member wishes to speak on? If not, shall the bill be reported?

Sections 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 30, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Meen moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 30, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves second reading of Bill 33, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, there are just a few comments to make with respect to this bill. I don’t think it will bring the problems and the detailed consideration that Bill 30 has, but there are a few points of clarification which perhaps the minister can refer to in his response so that we may not have to have this bill go into committee.

I understand that the amendments proposed here are with respect particularly to what is called off-highway use. This, I presume, Mr. Speaker, involves not only the use of various fuels with respect, say, to operations in a logging camp or the use of a generator for electricity in a rural or northern part of the province. It also involves, for example, the purchase, perhaps by a hospital, of certain requirements in fuel or, indeed, even the operation of a fork-lift truck that may be done by some manufacturing company all within the confines, either the building or grounds, of that company.

What we are particularly looking at, then, is the off-highway user, whomever or wherever that may be. Perhaps the minister could give us some further examples of the kinds of parties that are going to be able to benefit by this particular reduction in the tax and clarify for us just the procedures that he intends to follow. I notice that, of course, there are certain certificates of registration which are going to be required and I think it would be worthwhile if we could have some comment from the minister to elucidate exactly the sorts of things that he has in mind.

It may be that if we go to committee there will be certain further comments, but we on this side of the House are prepared to accept this bill as a refund, and a worthwhile one with respect to the particular areas in off-road use that hope to be benefited by the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that when the minister was considering the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act, because of the high cost of fuel in northern Ontario he would have considered reducing a portion of the 19-cents-per-gallon tax in those areas of the province where it’s altogether too high.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): This is diesel fuel.

Mr. Stokes: This is diesel fuel. Has it anything to do with heating oil?

Hon. Mr. Meen: There is no tax on heating oil.

Mr. Stokes: What about a situation where a mining company, as was the case recently or within the past couple of years in the Timmins area, had to generate all of its electric energy by diesel generation?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I know the case. This would exempt them.

Mr. Stokes: It is totally exempt now. How would the minister differentiate between a motor vehicle operated by gas and one operated by diesel? There are a good many trucks used in the mining industry, as is the case in the forest industry, which are propelled by gas motors. Some of the larger units are propelled by diesel fuel. Is there any differentiation between the two? Is the minister lowering the exemption, or are they completely exempt, too? Are those which use gasoline as a means of propulsion completely exempt at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Meen: They are exempt now, I believe.

Mr. Stokes: All the minister is doing then is bringing the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Act to apply in the same way where the fuel is diesel oil and give them the same kind of consideration that presently exists for those propelled by gasoline?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think that is essentially correct.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The concern which was expressed in our caucus about this bill was not, of course, with respect to the present exemption as I understand it, which exists for farmers and for commercial fishermen. Perhaps the minister would nod and indicate that exemption.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I’m sorry; I didn’t hear the question.

Mr. Renwick: I said our concern, as expressed in our caucus, was not with respect to this bill so far as it applies to the exemption already granted for farmers and commercial fishermen; nor, necessarily, for institutional users or those engaged in the maintenance or construction of roads.

We were concerned as to the extent of the loss of revenue which, of the $19 million, will be attributed to industrial users including the manufacturing, mining, forestry and construction industries. It would appear to us that a substantial portion of the $19 million as set out in the budget statement on page 11 as the tax relief will be because of the relief of the tax to the industrial users. This was our major concern with respect to the bill. I know my colleague, the member for Sudbury, has other comments he wishes to make about it.

Mr. Stokes: Could the minister give us a breakdown of the $19 million and how he hopes it will effect a savings?

Hon. Mr. Meen: All right, when I reply.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to speak first of all? The minister can answer the questions all at once.

Mr. Stokes: When he replies? The debate is over when he replies.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): I’m not sure if this is the bill that applies to a mine way out in the middle of nowhere which has to generate power by means of diesel fuel. I’m not sure whether or not this would apply to that situation.

There is a mine in my riding which, as I understand it, had operated and then closed down after the minister put this tax on. Now it may be in a position to reopen. If it is to help the Texmont mine or similar places which are way out from the major centres and have to generate their power by diesel I think, in this situation, it has some beneficial effect. In terms of the large scoop trains and the diesel equipment that are used underground in some of the big mines like Inco or Texasgulf, I don’t suppose they need any more of tax break than they have now. They’ve got enough exemptions to look after anybody. But in terms of the little operation -- and I think of that Texmont operation -- it’s good for them. I think the move is worthwhile in that regard.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the implementation of this bill. It’s one of the continuing thrusts of the government to put gifts into the hands of various large corporations. They are going to be the major benefactors of this exemption from the motor vehicle fuel tax.

Even though there is a red herring drawn across the trail that hospitals and educational institutions will also have a saving, I think that thrust would have no validity in that there is really no money to be saved. It does not cost the province of Ontario any money to charge a tax on heating fuel for a school because it is, in fact, only a transfer payment. There really is no expense or saving to the province as it relates to this particular bill. This was put in, as I see it, as a ruse to try to confuse the opposition into accepting that the government was, in fact, trying to relieve expenses on hospitals and schools and various other institutions.

The major benefactors are going to be, as my friend from Cochrane South said, the large corporations who use an extraordinary amount of fuel in mining operations and woods operations. If we take a look at how the mining companies and the logging companies have been doing in the past, they have been doing quite well lately. I think the incentive the minister is supplying here is really unwarranted in that this will just turn into another $19 million of excess profits in the hands of companies such as the International Nickel Co., whose profits last year were something like $330 million, an increase of better than $100 million over the previous 12-month period.

Any company that can increase its profits by better than 35 per cent in a one-year period certainly doesn’t need a handout from the taxpayers of the Province of Ontario. For this purpose, then, I will have to vote and reject the implementation of this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other hon. members to speak to this? The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I’m not a northern member, Mr. Speaker, and I don’t know the north nearly as well as I would like to, even though I have been through it on a number of occasions, but one has to ask oneself that if the government intends to enter into this field of motor vehicle tax, and if it intends to take an action that affects the north, why is it that the consumers of the north are left out of this particular measure?

Why has the government dallied so long in arriving at an equality of prices for gasoline between people who are in northern Ontario and people who are in the rest of Ontario? Why should people in my part of the province, for example, pay anywhere from two or three cents to as much as about 17 and 25 cents a gallon less for our gasoline than people up in the north? Why doesn’t the government intervene in order to ensure this kind of equality between the northern part of the province and the rest of the province?

The minister has heard me talk on a number of occasions of the way in which eastern and northern Ontario tend to get forgotten by the government and left behind. This is a particular instance where eastern Ontario benefits from the lower prices which are available through south-central and southwestern Ontario as well, and northern Ontario is left out.

It’s colder up there. The distances are longer. The incomes are nothing to write home about. People have to rely on their automobiles because in most parts of the north there are no alternative forms of transportation such as public transportation. A car is an essential and yet they are penalized --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I fail to see that this has anything to do with this particular Act.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this is a means of reducing the cost of off-highway transportation, mainly in the north, and I’m suggesting that the bill --

Mr. Speaker: That is what the bill is.

Mr. Cassidy: -- should be extended to include the cost of on-highway transportation in the north.

Mr. Speaker: Of course we can’t deal with that in this bill. This bill has nothing to say about that. We were discussing the principle of this bill, not some bill which the member may wish to introduce privately.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I’m suggesting that the principle of the bill is flawed because it benefits only corporate users of fuel in the north and does not benefit --

Mr. Speaker: The member may only discuss the principle of this bill.

Mr. Cassidy: I think I made the point and I hope the minister will be given enough leeway by the Speaker in order to reply to it. The question always comes up in this House -- who protects the consumers? Who protects the people in the north? Who protects the tenants? We know who protects the corporate interests -- it’s the government; whether it is the Retail Sales Tax bill or this particular bill. Let’s see the government stand up for some consumers for a change.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to speak to this? The member for Sudbury East.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr. Speaker, when I heard the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) announce this, when he read that great budget of his, I was amazed. I thought, at last. I read that clause which says “provide for full refund of tax on fuel used for industrial and institutional purposes and not in the operation of a motor vehicle on the highway or for recreation or pleasure.”

Do you know who is going to benefit, Mr. Speaker? Inco, Falconbridge, Abitibi, Brown Forest. It’s another straight giveaway. I’m not sure, maybe it’s going to create jobs, but I don’t really think so.

One has to be amazed, because I looked at Inco’s profit statement. The profit as reposted for the last year was, I believe, $330 million after tax; which means the profit was probably in the neighbourhood of $500 million. And the government is going to bestow some more largess; yet another write-off to go with the one-third off the top for depletion, depreciation, exploration, new equipment and capital. That isn’t enough for the Tories’ friends. We just give some more. I don’t know why they just don’t give them the province. If the Tories had their way, they would say: “Here, take it, lock, stock and barrel. Don’t even pay a cent tax on it.”

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): How ridiculous can he get?

Mr. Martel: That’s what they are doing. I’ve been here now --

Mr. Carruthers: I am going to have to get out. I can’t listen to this.

Mr. Martel: It wouldn’t be a bad idea if the member did get out because he’s not benefiting the province at all.

Mr. Cassidy: Let him just keep on going.

Mr. Renwick: Does that mean the member for Durham is resigning?

Mr. Germa: He’ll make sure he comes back for his pay cheque.

Mr. Carruthers: I earn mine.

Mr. Martel: I don’t know how he earns it, but I have heard that cry whenever I have complained about the lack of taxes the mining companies are paying. I heard that cry many years ago when they used to pay one per cent of the total of the value of production. All those members over there used to say I didn’t know what I was talking about.

I can recall last year the Treasurer standing in his place and saying: “We’re going to increase taxes against the mining corporations at last.” For six years, like dogs in a manger, they followed; and now here we have some more. I guess it’s just another way of bestowing on the companies yet another handout. I guess that’s to offset the problem that the federal government might be taking a shot at them through the royalty payment; maybe this is a way of getting some of the money back to them.

What is the purpose? Does the minister intend to tell us what the real intent of this is other than, hopefully, somehow to fill up the Tory coffers?

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): For shame.

Mr. Martel: It is true.

Mr. Carruthers: That doesn’t become the member at all.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I can’t see any other reason. We build the roads for them. I say to my friend, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Maeck), we build roads to resources, we build the roads for them and now we are not even going to tax them to use the roads.

There is something awfully perverse over there. Perverse is the word. We build roads for the mining corporations and we build roads for the pulp and paper industry. And now, with that largess not being sufficient, we then say: “You are not going to pay fuel tax.” That’s perverse, and I am not sure what the minister’s response is going to be as to why he is doing this.

One might suspect that the reason is: “They don’t use the highways, and therefore we don’t tax them as other users of highways.” But, in fact, we build many of the roads they are utilizing in the north -- particularly the pulp and paper industry, also for many of the mining industries. We’ll drive a road in for them. There is the roads to resources programme and so on.

Mr. Stokes: Sort of a shared thing.

Mr. Martel: Yes, kind of a shared thing. We don’t have much of a share though. The only benefit we get is to pay.

Mr. Maeck: Is the member for Sudbury East asking us not to do that any more?

Mr. Martel: No. I suggest frequently that we do it -- that we stop developing townsites and build a road to tap a resource, even if it meant 50 or 60 miles, one hour’s travel. But I am saying once you build it and you put it in place, surely to God there is an onus on those people to pay for the usage of that road. Just as we, who drive across great distances of northern Ontario and the other highways, pay a fuel tax. Surely, that makes abundant sense. But you don’t build them a road and then say: “You use it for nothing.” We charge a tax for all the other industries in northern Ontario who are using those roads.

In fact there is an interesting report that has come across our desks from the Ontario Motor League, which I just started to go through. It says that the taxpayer in Ontario is taking a real lacing on fuel tax. I don’t know if the ministry’s people have read that report -- a great green volume that just came across our desks within the last week. It says we are overpaying for the use of the highways in Ontario, considering the amount of tax we pay.

Here we are building roads and we are not even going to charge them. We are going to give it all back to them and say: “Here, we are going to allow you to use them and we are not going to charge you a cent.” That is what disturbs me. We are building many of them. If they were building them themselves it might be a horse of a different colour, but in many instances they are not.

So I would urge the minister to reconsider and remove this from the list of legislation we are considering, because it is merely a handout to the corporate sector.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to speak to this bill on second reading?

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member for Windsor West will leave it until after 8 o’clock.

Mr. Bounsall moves the adjournment of the debate.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.