Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to you, and to my colleagues in the House this afternoon, students from Leaside High School in the great riding of York East, together with their teachers Mr. Allen and Mr. Blaney.

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): Mr. Speaker, I’m happy, this afternoon, to introduce to you, and through you to my colleagues in the Legislature, students from the Waterdown District High School.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to introduce to you the grade 8 students from Maidstone Central School, together with Mr. Hatt their principal.

ESTIMATES

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I have here a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by her own hand. Please rise, gentlemen.

Mr. Speaker: By her own hand, Pauline M. McGibbon, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1975, and recommends them to the legislative assembly, Toronto, April 29, 1974.

Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

METRO TORONTO HOSPITAL DISPUTE

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Premier if it is his personal intervention that is keeping those people negotiating with the hospital workers from offering something more than the $1.30-over-two-years package. A news story quotes a source close to the Premier, whatever that is --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): We had that once before.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- as indicating that the Premier feels anything more than that would “open the floodgate” and would therefore be unsupportable.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): No, Mr. Speaker; to answer the member for Brant’s (Mr. R. F. Nixon) question very briefly, the answer is no.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Can the Premier then explain why government policy is kept under wraps to such an extent that we are going to be presented with a motion this afternoon calling for an emergency debate, since the deadline for this matter is May 1?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether we are going to be presented with a motion this afternoon for a debate. I somehow doubt that we are.

Secondly, it is doubtful that “the government’s position is being kept under wraps,” because as the minister has explained, both ministers, in fact, it is not a question of the “government’s position.” There is a mediator very hard at work attempting to resolve the differences between the two sides -- and those discussions will be continuing this afternoon.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the Premier then assure us that those allegations are incorrect and that he does not feel the $1.30 over two years is an adequate offer? Certainly nobody else does.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member for Brant that the Premier or, in quotes -- and I haven’t seen any quotes -- “a spokesman for the Premier,” has not indicated that $1.30 was too much or too little.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): May I ask, by way of a supplementary to the Premier: I take it the Premier would wish negotiations to continue through today and tomorrow if they can be effective?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Premier aware that the union is willing and ready to negotiate at any point at which negotiations are offered?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that the union is willing; and as I understand it there will be meetings relating to this this afternoon and probably extending on into this evening.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Supplementary: In the event of a strike, has the government taken any steps to prevent any hazard to the public health?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that would be a question more properly directed to the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller).

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Supplementary: In the event of a strike, is the government prepared to enforce the law as it presently stands on the statute books of the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this government is always prepared to enforce the law, unlike some members opposite.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, the Premier has imputed motives to perhaps myself and my colleagues which I think is entirely uncalled for; the last part of that answer, I think he should withdraw.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He certainly should.

Mr. Singer: Yes, it is disgraceful.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Let’s have a ruling on that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Singer: Of all people to do it, the Premier is the last one who should.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wasn’t referring to the member for Downsview at all.

Mr. Speaker: I’m not at all certain the hon. Premier was imputing any motives to any specific person, any members of the Liberal Party or otherwise. That sort of comment, I think, is made in this chamber from time to time on many occasions. I really don’t see any motive that has been imputed to any individual for which I could ask for a withdrawal.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I think the Tories are all rotters -- and that’s not imputing.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t even hear the hon. member for Rainy River. I was speaking to the hon. member for Downsview.

PROVINCIAL CONTROLS ON PETROLEUM PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Premier if he has been following the sequence of events across Canada as various provinces have reduced their tax on gasoline, or in the case of Nova Scotia have put in direct control measures on the price of motor gasoline and heating fuel, and if he is prepared to at least give consideration to the amendments that would direct the Energy Board to undertake a review of these prices and give them the power to control them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed what is going on in some of our sister jurisdictions, quite obviously, and I also of course read with great interest the observations made by the federal Minister of Energy, at what I thought was to have been the provincial meeting of the Liberal Party but which obviously turned out to be the federal meeting of the Liberal Party, over the weekend; and I would only make this --

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): So what is new?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): We are not afraid to be seen with our friends.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well I will tell the member this; when we’re seen with ours at least we have a fair say. Have the Liberal members opposite all got their marching orders?

In fact I was going to ask the member from Brant whether he got to the meeting on the weekend -- was he there?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the Premier do what his federal leader says, and impose some control? Why doesn’t he exert some control?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ll make this observation.

In my view it is very questionable for the federal minister to get up and say to this province we should reduce our tax by “X” per cent a gallon when he has the capacity, along with the federal Prime Minister of this country, to keep oil at $6 a bbl if they had had the intestinal fortitude to do it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ll tell the members opposite something else: If members opposite would stop apologizing for them and --

Mr. Speaker: Order; order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If they had supported us just a year ago and said there should have been a federal policy for energy, we wouldn’t have been faced with some of the increases we are presently facing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Now that the Premier has cleared his tubes with this diatribe --

Mr. Lewis: This is a delicate tactic on the Premier’s part. He is turning into the “Bob Nixon” of the Conservative party, for heaven’s sake.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of personal privilege, I did not ask the federal Minister of Energy to make that statement over the weekend. I really didn’t.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well Mr. Speaker, if we might return to the question, is the Premier prepared to take any action through the clear authority that rests with the ministry of the Province of Ontario to control these prices, which are going to take another quantum jump in the next few days?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, just to answer very briefly; yes, we have noticed what has happened in some jurisdictions. I have noticed that the federal Minister of Energy made some observations that he too, along with the federal government, could do this on a national basis, which would make far greater sense, and yes, we have not yet made any decision to take any action with respect to a form of price control here in this province.

Mr. Singer: Yes, we have no policy.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Yes, we have no bananas.

DENTURE THERAPISTS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On another matter of policy, was the Premier quoted correctly when he indicated he was dissatisfied with the present programme for the provision of low-cost dentures? Does this mean in fact he is joining with his Minister of Health in trying to persuade his backbench supporters to reverse their views on maintaining their opposition to allowing denture therapists to work without direct supervision of dentists?

Mr. Ruston: The government has no policy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure, because I didn’t read the quote, but I can recall, I think with some degree of exactitude, what I said Friday morning when I did say that I personally was not totally satisfied with the programme for the provision of low-cost dentures. I think that is what I said.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the Premier do something to prove it then?

Supplementary. Can the Premier then indicate to the House that the present policy will remain unchanged and that the dentists are going to continue to advertise, using the money provided by the taxpayers of the province, this programme the Premier says is unacceptable, or let’s say something less than perfect?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say this, Mr. Speaker: I think the most extensive advertising that has gone on in the past three or four weeks has really been at the expense of the dental profession, not of the taxpayers of the province. Secondly, if there is to be some statement of government policy the Minister of Health will be making it. I think he has already indicated that to this House on previous occasions.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes he has, but he hasn’t got around to making it somehow.

Interjections by hon. members.

ALGONQUIN FOREST AUTHORITY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a further question of the Premier. Since the present timber contracts and leases in Algonquin Park will expire, or at least some of them will, on July 1, is the Premier then going to introduce legislation establishing the announced Algonquin Forest Authority with John Robarts at its head; and will he consider -- if he is going to move forward as evidently he will, with some sort of announcement or legislation -- expanding the scope of that authority so that it can at least accept the goal of phasing out the exploitation, by the lumbering industry, of that area which should be preserved?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is the hope of the government to have legislation setting up the Algonquin authority during this session, at which time the goals and objectives of the authority will be presented to the House with ample opportunity to discuss them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the Premier announced, or at least it was announced on behalf of the ministry, that the former Premier would head up that authority, there seems to be some question as to whether the former Premier wishes to do so. Can the Premier indicate whether or not Mr. Robarts will be available for this and if he is consulting with him and others on the development of the authority and its scope?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the question of who will form the personnel of the authority and who will be the chairman -- and it had been my hope that it would be my predecessor, because I think he brings a great deal of experience and talent to the job -- will depend on the wording of the legislation; and of course his own personal position at the time that the bill is made law.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the government’s statement announced that he was going to head it up, must we assume then that there is now some question as to whether he will or not?

Hon. Mr. Davis:. I think, Mr. Speaker, that question has been raised before. It has been very clearly stated that if, when the legislation establishing the authority is passed into law, the former Premier of this province is in a position then to do it without any question of other responsibilities, that’s fine. If he has other positions of responsibility which might conflict with the task of being head of the authority, then I can assure the members of the House that my predecessor would not want to be put in that position.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is very clear!

Mr. Lewis: The Premier has answered it very well. It is done. We know he is not going to be the head of the authority. Why doesn’t the Premier say that?

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

Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t he simply say that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not necessarily.

Mr. Stokes: As a supplementary, can the Premier assure the people of the Province of Ontario that there will be no renewal of existing licences until the proposed authority has had a chance to review all of the licenses in the park?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that would be a question that would be properly put to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier).

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ENERGY BOARD COUNSEL

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A final question: Is the Premier going to permit Robert Macaulay, who is retained by the government in a number of capacities, to state publicly that a member of the Legislature is impertinent when he asks about the public moneys that are being spent for his services; particularly when the question is based on the probability of it being $1,000 a day and the answer that was forthcoming indicates that’s just about right on?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I just read the report very briefly and I am not sure our former colleague was referring to a member of the Legislature in those observations; and I haven’t discussed it with him personally.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Would he look into this matter and perhaps have one of his colleagues examine it? Because it seems to me that Mr. Macaulay’s statement was the ultimate impertinence, and we shouldn’t stand for it.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier should bring him before the bar of the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Darned right. Put him in the tower.

Mr. Lewis: We don’t play games with the “establishment” around here. Bring him into this House and talk to him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand the member for Brant is issuing an order to have Mr. Macaulay appear before some committee.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I must have had a better weekend than the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I had a very good weekend.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the Premier will instruct the appropriate minister, who might be the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) to table in the House a fully detailed breakdown of the $170,000 -- how the amount was made up, the per diem, or the hourly rate, and whether or not the account was taxed?

Mr. Reid: What is the tax, yes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into a discussion as to the quantum of legal fees on this occasion. I think the member for Downsview might appropriately address that question to the Minister of Energy when he is here.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

PROVINCIAL CONTROLS ON PETROLEUM PRICES

Mr. Lewis: Given the first quarter profits that were just published of Shell Oil on the weekend -- the fifth of the seven major oil companies to show staggering increases when oil was still pegged at $4 a barrel -- does the Premier not think there is an overriding public interest which he must protect, to prevent any of the oil companies, Shell’s declaration notwithstanding, from increasing their cost to the consumer one penny beyond 7 1/2 cents a gallon?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Energy has made some observations -- I made some in this House -- as to the position of the oil companies charging above and beyond that which would be part of the $2 or $2.50 increase with respect to crude oil, whether it be from Alberta or offshore.

I said to the member for Brant just about 15 minutes ago that we are not contemplating at this moment a form of control with respect to the price of gasoline.

Mr. Lewis: I take it, by way of supplementary then, that it doesn’t matter what the oil companies in Ontario charge, the Premier will not lay a finger on them; that is what he is saying to the House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to repeat my answer, but as I recall my answer, that is not what I said to the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since it appears there will be a large increase in these consumer prices within two weeks, wouldn’t the Premier think it would be fair and judicious to give the powers of review to the Energy Board, so that in fact the government has the power so to control if it chooses, rather than to wait until we get into an emergency situation? Surely the people of the province would not be well served if the government were to procrastinate?

Mr. Deans: This government lives on crises.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think there are two aspects: One is the power to review; the other is the power to control. I will just repeat what I said twice this afternoon, we are not introducing, this afternoon, a measure to control price.

Mr. Deans: How about tomorrow?

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, why does the Premier allow the Energy Board to review and control the price of Canadian companies, Consumers and Union Gas, but not to intervene on the question of price-setting by foreign companies? Why are we being prejudicial towards our own companies?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a distinction; and of course perhaps the hon. member doesn’t draw the same distinction. We are referring in one instance to an area where the Energy Board has the obligation by law to review rates when they are totally regulated industries. No question about it. We have not given to the Energy Board here the function as to price, because they are not regulated in the same sense of the word.

Mr. Deans: Why?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, the member for Wentworth would regulate everybody; I know that.

Mr. Deans: I would regulate them.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Mr. Lewis: We would regulate the oil companies; the Premier is damn right about that. We would regulate the entire energy field. Right, no question.

Mr. Stokes: The Premier is inconsistent in his inconsistency.

Mr. Lewis: Let me ask the Premier if this is a deliberate ploy on his part -- with the prospects of a federal election coming -- to let the oil companies manipulate consumers in Ontario to serve Tory interests in a federal election? Is that what the Premier is engaged in?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Ridiculous.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would say this, the federal leader of my party has taken a more consistent approach and apparently is doing something about it, more so than the leader of the member’s party.

Mr. Lewis: The devil he has! He has no approach at all -- none at all, none at all. And he knows it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: I like the way the Premier comes out fighting occasionally these days.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mr. Wardle) on a supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It shows how much influence the member for Scarborough West has at home.

An hon. member: I disagree with that one.

Mr. Speaker: No; well we are dealing with the hon. member for Scarborough West first.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: Highly objective, like all the rest.

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member knows it’s true.

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: He can decide on whether he is going to use tactic A or tactic B -- soft voice or loud voice -- in the answer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I don’t have as many as the member does.

ROUTE OF PETROLEUM PIPELINE

Mr. Lewis: May I ask of the Premier, concerning his intervention on the pipeline route before the National Energy Board on May 15, would the Premier be willing to reconsider the whole matter of a northern pipeline in the Canadian interest, now that it is recognized the pressure on oil and on energy has subsided to some degree since the original decision was made?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member could assure me -- and I would never underestimate his capacities, I am the last one to do that -- that the international oil situation would remain as it is or improve, that we wouldn’t be some day faced with a situation that existed just two or three months ago, I think it would make that question somewhat easier to answer. But in that with all his talent I don’t think he can give us that assurance, I don’t think we are prepared to take that risk in our intervention.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Is the Premier prepared in his intervention to decide that the additional amount of money that might be involved, because now the time is roughly equivalent, is perhaps a worthy investment in northern Ontario and in Canada rather than sticking with the southern route?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think this government has said that ultimately we would support a total Canadian route; that position hasn’t changed.

Mr. Lewis: That’s hypocrisy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not hypocrisy.

Mr. Lewis: There won’t be a Canadian route if the government builds a southern line.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Speak up, we can’t hear the member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are concerned about the immediate situation, and our intervention will reflect that.

Mr. Stokes: Supplementary: Since the Minister of Natural Resources, who formerly had responsibility for reporting to this House for the Ontario Energy Board, has come out unequivocally in favour of the northern route, and since over the past weekend --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where has the member been?

Mr. Stokes: -- the Northeastern Ontario Municipal Association has come out unequivocally in favour of an all-northern route and an all-Ontario route, will the Premier reconsider his decision and intervene before the National Energy Board for the all-Canadian route over the US route?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is not our intention to intervene and say the only thing we would accept would be an all-northern, or all-Canadian, or all-Ontario route. Certainly if the possibilities were there, this government has said, and I have said it personally, our preference would be an all-Canadian route in ultimate terms.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: What precisely is the purpose of the Premier’s intervention then?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, one of the purposes of our intervention, I hope, is very clearly stated, and that is that we are anxious, once the decision is made by the board upon the application, that whatever route is determined the work be done in a way that is environmentally acceptable to the people of this province, with particular emphasis in the agricultural communities. The intervention goes to some length to lay out some of the procedures we are suggesting -- the availability of personnel that we ourselves would pay, quite frankly, to see that the work itself causes as little impact environmentally into the agricultural lands of this province as possible.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

In view -- is the cabinet meeting over?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I am listening.

Mr. MacDonald: Oh the Premier is listening? I thought he was listening to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, that was the problem.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why wouldn’t he?

Mr. Deans: I don’t know why anyone would listen to the provincial secretary, but that’s okay.

Mr. MacDonald: My final question, Mr. Speaker, is this. What prospect does the Premier really think there is for building what he gives top priority to, all other things being equal, and that is an all-Canadian route, if everything is siphoned off into a southern route to begin with?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I look beyond the confines of the next four or five years and suggest that nothing in the southern route is going to siphon off all that potentially might flow through a northern route. No one is minimizing the impact of the southern route, but I don’t think this means there will not be a northern route.

Mr. MacDonald: Who is the Premier kidding, now?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the Premier indicate that he is prepared, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food or some other agency, to have inspection on the site wherever the construction takes place to see that the topsoil is put back on the top and the stones are put back underneath the ground?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that was contained in the intervention, which I believe was tabled. There is a fairly lengthy statement as to what we would like to see happen and that we would provide personnel. If the member for Brant wants a more detailed explanation from the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), I am sure he would be delighted to give it to him.

Mr. Stokes: A supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: No, I believe there have been five supplementaries, which surely is reasonable. The hon. member for Scarborough West.

CORPORATION INCOME TAX PAID BY OIL COMPANIES TO PROVINCE

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Revenue. I may have missed his reply while I was absent. Has the minister decided to give the Legislature and the public any information on whether any of the major oil companies operating in this province paid corporation income tax last year?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would advise me as to what he considers to be a major oil company doing business in Ontario --

Mr. Lewis: Oh I think I could do that. I could almost do that now.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Every company that is a foreign oil company doing business in Canada.

Mr. Lewis: What was that?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- I will be pleased to provide him with any information that is otherwise public information.

Mr. Lewis: That is otherwise public information?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Otherwise than derived through my Ministry of Revenue.

Mr. Lewis: Otherwise than derived through his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes; because, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will tell me what public companies he is talking about, it is a very simple process to take a look at their financial statements and determine that information. We will be pleased to get that information for him if he will tell me what companies he is talking about.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): The minister will send him the press clippings.

Mr. Lewis: Oh boy. All right. I’ll come back to the minister on that.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Lewis: One last question of the Minister of Health, if I may: Is the minister aware of the procedure of the government in purchasing private ambulance services, in various parts of southern Ontario in particular, setting them up with new equipment and then returning them to private franchise holders? How does that effect the central co-ordination of emergency ambulance services generally?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to leave most private ambulance systems operating with the original owners, but at times some owners have requested us to buy them out. We have done so and generally had a contract arrangement with another person to operate the service at that time on a global budget, which is really negotiated by our ministry with that person.

Mr. Lewis: But I take it, by way of supplementary, that the government does run ambulance services directly from within the branch of this ministry. I understand that on occasion the government turns that ambulance service back to a private franchise holder. Why would the minister do that? Why would he introduce the profit mechanism there when he is satisfied that he is running it well through the branch of his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, the hon. member has come to a conclusion that I would not necessarily agree with when he says we are necessarily running them well when we run them ourselves. That is an awful admission to make, but I have a great belief that when they are run by the private operators they are run at their best.

Mr. Lewis: I see. Does that mean then that in the case, let us say -- I have a number of cases here -- that in the case of the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St. Catharines, where the ambulance men themselves have requested the government to take it over, the minister is likely, on the contrary, to contract it out to a private franchise holder?.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I wouldn’t say so, Mr. Speaker. I would have to look at the Hotel Dieu operation, if that is one of the hospitals -- and I am not sure that it is -- that operates an ambulance service itself.

Mr. Lewis: It does.

Hon. Mr. Miller: A number of hospitals have found for a number of reasons that being the operator of an ambulance service is not in keeping with their other managerial duties. They have requested us, from time to time, to physically remove the service from their premises.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Beaches- Woodbine.

TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR ORTHOPAEDIC SHOES

Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. As the minister knows, most orthopaedic shoes cost more than $30 a pair. My question is, are orthopaedic shoes free of retail sales tax if the prices exceeds $30 a pair?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, orthopaedic shoes, if designed for orthopaedic purposes, would fall under that appropriate section of the Retail Sales Tax Act and under the regulations, and would therefore be exempt, regardless of price.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

SPADINA CORRIDOR

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. Could the Premier tell us if in his instructions to Metro Toronto to investigate possible alternative uses for the Spadina ditch, he is going to make available to them Buckminster Fuller’s folly, for which I think we paid some $15,000 and which was referred to by the Premier’s candidate during the last campaign as a site that would be the equivalent of the Eiffel Tower in Paris; is that information going to be made available to Metro when it embarks upon it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure if the Metro people doing this assessment wish to avail themselves of that very creative work by Mr. Buckminster Fuller we would certainly make it available to them.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, could the Premier tell us what has been done with -- what did he say? -- that effective work or exciting piece of work?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Creative!

Mr. Singer: That creative piece of work by Mr. Fuller, since at the time he created it out of his old drawings? Has it been used for anything at all as yet?

Mr. Lewis: Where is it gathering dust?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in this government’s rather constant, I think, desire to maintain the involvement of the municipalities and have them function with as great an autonomy as possible -- which I hear from over there sometimes and is contradicted the next day --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): He doesn’t believe that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- it is our desire, of course, to have this done by Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Singer: Well, back to Buckminster Fuller.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I made the offer to Metropolitan Toronto which I will restate -- although I don’t think it will be necessary -- that if Metro would like us to assume this responsibility we would. I sense a very genuine desire on the part of Metropolitan Toronto to do something creative with this very choice piece of real estate, and certainly if Mr. Fuller’s study is of some help to it, it will be more than welcome to it.

Mr. Singer: Has the Premier opened it since he paid for it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is being looked at.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Fuller’s name will be remembered long after the member for Downsview’s is forgotten. Don’t poke fun at Buckminster Fuller.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

FIRING POLICY OF LIQUOR BOARD

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask him about the firing policy of the liquor board specifically in relation to one William Nugent, formerly the vice-chairman of the board. The question I would like to ask is, if the minister wished to get rid of Mr. Nugent why did he not inform him? Instead, when his secretary went down to pick up his cheque she came back to tell him: “I’m sorry, there won’t be a cheque this week because you’ve been fired.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s the way he does it?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for High Park. If he will look a little further in his records he will notice that Mr. Nugent went on pension last July or retired from the board after, I believe, 39 or 29 years of very good service to the people of this province and was retained in a consultant position for a period of about six months following that date. He was not by any stretch of the imagination discharged. He was a very loyal public servant and --

Mr. Shulman: Tell that to Bill Nugent.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- there is absolutely no reason for him to be criticized by any member of this House.

Mr. Shulman: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the minister denying he was kept on as a consultant and then, in January, he was discharged from that position through his secretary? Is he denying that? Tell that to Bill Nugent.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I am denying that.

Mr. Shulman: He had better speak to Bill Nugent.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Let the member and I talk about it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kent.

INCREASES IN PRICES OF AMMONIA PRODUCTS

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is the minister aware of the increase in prices of ammonia nitrate and anhydrous ammonia which are causing great concern to those in agriculture? In 1973 anhydrous ammonia was selling at $95 to $100 and now is selling at $166 a ton; and ammonia nitrate which was marketed at $60 in 1973 is now being marketed at $130 a ton. Would the minister look into these increased prices?

Mr. Stokes: Are they those good corporate citizens the minister was talking about last week?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Yes, I’m well aware of it Mr. Speaker; and I’m also aware of the fact that if that same anhydrous ammonia and urea, the other synthetic nitrogen product the member is talking about, were sold on the world market they’d bring at least $90 to $100 a ton more than they are bringing by being sold right here in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s a lame excuse.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The great problem is that we simply don’t have enough of them to meet the demand for increased acreage which is going to take place here in Canada this year.

Mr. MacDonald: So they are free to gouge the market?

Mr. Spence: The minister agrees we will have a shortage of anhydrous ammonia this year, is that right?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, it looks like that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

ALLEGED SEEPAGE OF POLLUTANTS INTO DETROIT RIVER

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment regarding Fighting Island in the Detroit River in the provincial riding of Sandwich-Riverside: Has the minister recently received any complaints about seepage of pollutants into the river and has he checked them out?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): I have had several comments on several of those islands. I can’t recall exactly what happened on Fighting Island but certainly we have been monitoring it and keeping a close eye on it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside should be entitled to the first supplementary.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, would the minister check on this particular one and let me know what has happened?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, I’d be glad to give the member an up to date report.

Mr. Speaker: There was a supplementary over here.

Mr. B. Newman: Will the minister look over the lease agreement BASF Industries and Wyandotte Chemical have with his ministry concerning the disposition of liquid wastes on Fighting Island, and consider either cancelling the arrangement or limiting the lease arrangement so that it could be terminated within a reasonable period of time?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes; as I said, I will look into the whole matter and get back to the members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North is next.

AIR POLLUTION IN SUDBURY

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. As he has been to Sudbury over the weekend, as he said he would, can the minister tell us now whether or not he is going to insist that Falconbridge, because of their poor record in the last few weeks on pollution, speed up the two-year period that was granted previously to install their pollution abatement equipment; or is he going to let them pollute for another two years?

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): That’s the member for Sudbury East’s (Mr. Martel) question.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Was that the only pollution in Sudbury last weekend?

Hon. W. Newman: One of my main reasons for mv trip was to examine the expanded services or our ministry. Regionalization was to give the north a better service. It was one of my major reasons for going up on this trip.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I didn’t see the minister there over the weekend.

Hon. W. Newman: He didn’t see me?

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: He wasn’t at the Liberal convention.

Hon. W. Newman: I wouldn’t wind up there, I can assure members opposite of that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, don’t be nasty!

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) was there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: It was the worst pollution Sudbury ever saw.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: That’s what happens when the big red machine moves in.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in order to answer the question, I did have a look at some of the situations in Sudbury and some of the other areas. I had some very interesting talks with the new regional staff, and they’re certainly looking into the total matter. I am not prepared at this point in time to give a firm commitment on anything as far as Falconbridge is concerned.

Mr. Stokes: Did the minister visit Happy Valley?

Hon. W. Newman: I saw Happy Valley.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The minister said on Friday he was going to Sudbury over the weekend and would have some answers. Can he tell us, for instance, is the monitoring device at the Inco stack working as of now, and what monitoring information is it gathering at the present time; or didn’t he even bother to look?

Hon. W. Newman: I have looked at all our monitoring devices. We have lots of monitoring devices. We know what’s going on up there. Why doesn’t the member look at it himself some time?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Wentworth.

HOME SALES

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister investigating the rather questionable practices of certain realtors and real estate salesmen in that they are offering for sale HOME houses at prices which are considerably in excess of the price approved by Ontario Housing Corp., a price of which they are aware; and that they are selling other than real property under their real estate licence?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, as you know, realtors or brokers are entitled to sell other than real property. I do not know exactly to what the member refers. They are entitled to sell real property and personal property by way of business brokerage sales or stock on hand in pharmacies and this sort of thing. If the member will give me the particulars to which he alludes, I’ll look into it.

I should point out that certain practices which have been subject to discussion in this House over the past few weeks have resulted very recently in a conviction, I believe, in the Oshawa area.

Mr. Deans: By way of a supplementary question, let me ask the minister if he is aware, in spite of Ontario Housing Corp. having established what the fair price will be for a resale within a five-year period, real estate salesmen and realtors are offering those homes for sale and attempting to sell them for prices at least twice as much as that which has been approved by Ontario Housing Corp.?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: One cant do that without permission.

Mr. Deans: Are they operating within their licence in selling at a price which is illegal in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t know what prices would be illegal within the Province of Ontario. As I take the member’s question, if they are acting contrary to any Ontario Housing Corp. legislation of regulation --

Mr. Deans: That makes it illegal.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- then they may well find their efforts may be frustrated and that they could not complete the sale. But if the member will give me the particulars I’ll be more than pleased to look into it. I’m not aware of any such practice.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary question: Does the minister say he is not aware? My understanding is that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) brought the matter to his attention after I requested him to do so. If he is not aware, then he should be aware.

Secondly, is it proper for a real estate salesman to sell a house for $43,000, or to attempt to sell, to act as an agent on behalf of a seller at a price of some $43,000, when the price approved by the government of Ontario agency is less than $18,000?

Hon. Mr. Clement: One: As to the minister drawing it to my attention, may I point out there are over 5,000 employees of the ministry, any one of whom might have received the directive from the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Deans: I am talking about the minister personally.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I am not aware he drew this to my attention personally. He may well have drawn it to the registrar’s attention or the deputy minister’s attention. I don’t recollect his having drawn it to my attention specifically.

Secondly, my answer still applies, that if it is contrary to any Ontario Housing rule or regulation, then the sale might well be frustrated by the intervention of that regulation. Whether it would be, in fact, unlawful and grounds for the realtor to lose his licence though, I am not prepared to say; but I will look into it and see exactly what the hon. member refers to. If he has any specifics, and I am sure he does, perhaps he will let me have them.

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

DAAL SPECIALTIES LTD.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Has the minister been informed by Daal Specialties Ltd., a subsidiary of Allied Chemical, that they are going to remove their plant from the Windsor area and affect some 400 employees by transferring their operations to Georgia?

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): No, Mr. Speaker, I have had no information from the company itself except, as I have explained last week, rumours that have been heard around Windsor. But I have no formal information from the company.

Mr. Reid: Has the minister checked with them?

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister check with the company itself to find out what its plans are?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: I will, Mr. Speaker.

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

METRO TORONTO HOSPITAL DISPUTE

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: What steps has the minister taken to prevent a health hazard developing if a strike goes ahead?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Health has been talking to the administrators of the hospitals. I understand they have been taking steps as far back as the middle of last week to --

Mr. Shulman: To close the hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, they are not intending to close the hospitals. They are intending to wind down, as they call it, the admission of elective patients, to stand by and utilize all administrative staff for whatever duties they are required to perform. I think the hon. member will have seen the quotations in the press; they are exchanging a pen for a mop and so on. I think they feel quite satisfied that they will be able to meet the emergency demands upon the hospitals in the eventuality of a strike, a strike which I hope and trust will not occur.

Mr. Shulman: We all hope that. As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I will allow one more supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: The hon. minister said they are satisfied. Is he satisfied they will be able to meet the demands upon them?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am not happy at the thought of a diminishment in the supply of help to the hospitals. I don’t think anyone is. As for saying I am happy or satisfied, I believe they will cope to the best of their ability because they are determined to offer the quality of service for those people in the greatest need.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Etobicoke, I believe, is next.

GO TRAIN TO GEORGETOWN

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. Is the Premier aware of the fact that the greater part of north Rexdale is poorly served in terms of transportation and that many requests have been made to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) for the opening of a GO station at Rexdale? Is the Premier further aware that as recently as last week the minister stated there would be no station at Rexdale?

In the light of those two questions, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier if he has been quoted correctly in today’s Star as saying that a station will be opened later in the year at Rexdale in the GO Transit system? Can the Premier tell us if this cabinet decision has been made already? Does the Minister of Transportation and Communications know about it? And if the decision has not been made --

Mr. Speaker: I think there are about five questions so far.

Mr. Braithwaite: That’s right -- and can the Premier tell us exactly when the station at Rexdale will be open?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the hon. member for Etobicoke is making up for lost time --

Mr. Braithwaite: Thanks a lot!

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for York West ( Mr. MacBeth) also asked this question last week of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In my recollection the answer was there hadn’t been a decision, or I don’t think he --

Mr. Singer: He just said no.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He said “no” as of that date. I think it is fair to state that if the Star says that I said there would be one in Rexdale, the Star is perfectly correct, because I indicated this when we made a momentary pause going through Rexdale Saturday afternoon --

Mr. Singer: They reversed. The momentary pause is they reversed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- when that great new service inaugurated by this government left Halton Hills, through Brampton, Bramalea, Malton and eventually Rexdale and Weston to Metropolitan Toronto. We paused at Rexdale and there were two or three people there who showed some interest, so I indicated then we would have a station.

An hon. member: I’ll bet the member wasn’t there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And if the member for Etobicoke had been sufficiently interested and had been at Union Station at about 2:25 Saturday afternoon, I said there would be a GO station late this year on that particular service.

Mr. Singer: But why didn’t the minister know that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: And, Mr. Speaker -- if it will help the member for Etobicoke, because another issue was raised with me and it will save his asking -- yes, I did say I was opposed to any expansion of Malton International Airport, which he should say or he’s in some political trouble.

Mr. Braithwaite: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, it’s a pleasure --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

An hon. member: The member will have to come back another day next week.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the estimates of the Ministries of Colleges and Universities, and Community and Social Services be referred to the standing social development committee.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

MEDICAL DATA BANK ACT

Mr. B. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish a Medical Data Bank.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes a medical data bank in which would be stored the medical histories of persons in Ontario. The data bank would be of great assistance to doctors and hospitals where a patient moves to another city, changes doctors or is involved in an accident. Participation in the use of the data bank would be on a voluntary basis only.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise before the orders of the day --

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin first.

Mr. Root: Before the orders of the day, I would like to draw to the attention of the House something in which I think the members will be interested. Last evening 75 young people returned from a 10-day visit to Ireland. This group -- a choral group -- was comprised of students from Erin and Eramosa. They went to various places in southern Ireland and took part in various concerts.

They entered the International Festival and Competition at Cork, Ireland, and I am pleased to advise the hon. members that these musical ambassadors from Wellington county and Ontario won first place in the competition, for singing the Hallelujah chorus.

Mr. Reid: Sing something for us.

Mr. Root: They sang under the direction of Mrs. Roberta Hoy, a director of music for the Wellington county school board. I felt that in this troubled world it is worthy of note that our young people are able to go abroad, harmonizing as ambassadors and bringing honour, credit and setting a good example to all of us.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Hallelujah!

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain of the section of our standing orders that covers that, but I believe it’s in order.

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I rise on what I think may well be a point of privilege.

As is known to most members of the House, I had served notice with you, sir, of my intention to raise a matter which I consider to be one of urgent public importance. Some members may well have prepared to debate that matter, but in the light of the difficult situation that has now arisen, in that negotiations have begun again and the possibility there will be a negotiated settlement, and my desire not to inflict any outside pressures on that settlement and to ensure that negotiations are taking place in the most amicable possible form, I am not going to proceed with my intention to have an emergency debate today on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: It certainly is no point of privilege --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: -- nor is it a point of order. Again, I’m not sure which section of our standing orders covers it, but we’ll accept it as being in order at this time. I might say I did receive the notice to which the hon. member referred, and as long as no motion is made at this time that takes care of the matter.

Orders of the day.

CITY OF CORNWALL ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves second reading of Bill 31, An Act to provide for the Annexation of Certain Lands to the City of Cornwall.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, in this bill its interesting to see that, as I understand it, the consequence of this annexation will be to further the development of the DREE agreement which has been signed with the city of Cornwall. As it is the first municipality within Ontario to be able to take advantage of this legislation, we’re certainly pleased to see this bill coming forward. We hope this annexation will certainly bring the benefits which are looked for in the redevelopment of Cornwall and we certainly will support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in this debate on second reading? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, very briefly may I thank the member for Kitchener for his words. Certainly we look forward to the economic development of Cornwall continuing at the earliest possible moment. Thank you.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 31, An Act to provide for the Annexation of Certain Lands to the City of Cornwall.

LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves second reading of Bill 25, An Act to impose a Tax of Speculative Profits resulting from the Disposition of Land.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr. Speaker, before we embark upon the debate, I wonder if the minister could throw a little --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It should be the member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): I think my friend from Downsview is on the same point.

Mr. Singer: I’m not positive about what his point was. I didn’t hear it.

Mr. Speaker: It is the custom of this House to call on a member from the official opposition first, which I did do.

Mr. Renwick: There’s always a point of order which would give me an opportunity to put my point of view.

Mr. Lewis: That’s simply bowing to precedent, for heaven’s sake.

Mr. Singer: What is it they are doing? Are they filibustering? Are they angry?

Mr. Lewis: What is this nonsense, perpetuating the official opposition?

Mr. Singer: Thank you so much. I’m so glad I have the member’s permission and I will proceed when I’m ready to proceed.

Mr. Renwick: If we can get on with the debate -- is the member going to ask for the amendments?

Mr. Singer: Yes, I’m going to ask for the amendments. Is that all right?

Mr. Renwick: Fine.

Mr. Singer: Now that I have the member’s permission, Mr. Speaker, I have heard varying estimates of the number of amendments we’re going to have. The best rumour I’ve had is there are going to be 83. Before we start the debate could the minister make available to us the 83 or however many amendments he has? This is particularly important, Mr. Speaker, because some of the amendments really might change the principle of the Act we’re being called upon to debate now. I think it would be only appropriate and in the true democratic process if we did see the amendments.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could speak to that point of order?

Mr. Singer: It wasn’t a point of order. He’s out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There was no point of order. I recognize the member to take part in the debate on second reading.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to protect the hon. member for Downsview’s right to --

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Riverdale have a point of order?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, I do.

Mr. Speaker: Would he state his point of order?

Mr. Renwick: And it is in the interest of the member for Downsview that he recognizes it as a point of order or he will have given his second reading speech already.

Mr. Lewis: In fact he has, and it wasn’t bad.

Mr. Renwick: But I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Singer: That’s not a point of order at all.

Mr. Renwick: -- as the minister did, in the case of the Land Transfer Tax Act, on a point of order, provide the members of the assembly with copies of all of the amendments --

Mr. Lewis: Well, the minister provided an outline of them.

Mr. Renwick: -- and indicate very clearly to us whether or not they affect the substance of the principle of the bill which we are now going to debate, because if they do I would think that perhaps, while we wouldn’t be embarrassed, because we can debate anything on a moment’s notice --

Mr. Singer: Certainly the member for Riverdale can; he has the same speech for all the debates.

Mr. Lewis: Well, it is serviceable.

An hon. member: The same words, too.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): I do not have copies of the proposed amendments here and would not expect that I would have them in suitable form for debate in the House until we get into committee of the whole House.

There are three areas in which I have had quite a number of submissions made to me, and I know my colleagues and many members opposite have also had a number of these points made to them as well. None of them gets to the principle of the bill itself --

Mr. Renwick: The minister is sticking to that, is he?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- as I assess the principle of the bill.

We have had submissions by and on behalf of companies that are essentially involved in land development and maybe do some building on their own serviced lots. They have indicated to us that were there to be a speculative tax applied to lots which they chose to sell off to other builders, the net result might be counterproductive in one of our major objectives, getting more houses on the market. So we are presently looking at this particular area of submission.

There have been submissions made to me and to my colleagues also by municipalities which think that they and their boards of education and the like, should not be treated in the manner in which we have proposed to treat them. But again, if we were to do this, that would not amount to a departure in principle from those set out in the bill.

We have also heard from apartment owners who say to us that they are providing rental accommodation, that they are not speculating. So we are looking at that kind of situation because there again, the results which they suggest -- and I am not convinced this would occur -- but they have suggested that to treat them the same way as rank speculators might well be counterproductive in the interests of providing more rental accommodation on the market.

And so in those three areas anyway, my staff and I are giving consideration to the submissions made. It may be that when we get into committee I will have some suggestions to offer the committee at that time, but none of those, as I just simply repeat, goes to the root or to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, with that very clear and explicit explanation coming forward from the minister one is clearly able to enter into a meaningful debate about what this bill involves. One has to really follow the minister very closely, because in the debate on the Land Transfer Tax Act he did insert a phrase relating to this Act saying that subdivided lots would be able to be sold. Now this afternoon he has retreated from that position. He says it is under careful consideration and he may have something to say about it before we pass the bill through committee of the whole House, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is entirely unsatisfactory.

This bill was introduced to the House on April 9. Today is April 29, the better part of three weeks later. The bill has been here; we have all had a lot of submissions about it, we all have ideas about it. If there are major changes that the minister proposes to introduce we would like to know, and I think we are entitled to know, what the changes are going to be, because frankly, Mr. Speaker, I must say that as a parliamentarian I don’t trust this minister. I don’t trust this minister because he wants to remove to himself absolute authority to do legislation by way of regulation rather than put it in the statute books. He gave himself away in this again in the earlier debate on the Land Transfer Tax Act when he said: “I would hope that I could really have the power by regulation to determine the amount of tax rather than to do it in the statute.”

This minister, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, reminds me of someone who is bothered by the whole legislative parliamentary process. He wishes the whole thing would go away and that he could just pass a sort of general taxing Act, saying the government has the right to impose whatever taxes the Lieutenant Governor in Council wishes to proclaim from time to time, and it would make the task of this minister much easier.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order and indeed a point of privilege. I do not believe I ever suggested to this House, either here or in committee, that I wanted to do any more by regulation than I absolutely had to.

Mr. Singer: The minister wanted to fix the tax rate by regulation and it is in his speech.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In fact, I indicated the converse situation, that I would prefer to have it in legislation.

Mr. Singer: Oh he did not. Let him read his speech.

Mr. Renwick: He indicated he wanted a fluctuating tax rate.

Mr. Singer: That’s the trouble, Mr. Speaker, as you get into the regulatory powers that so many of the ministers want to take on to themselves, and particularly this minister, you get a clause such as 20(1)(2), where the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations:

“exempting from tax any designated land or class of designated land or exempting from tax any designated land with respect to which disposition or class of disposition occurs.”

That is one thing that is very, very wrong with this legislation. If the minister wants this kind of a tax, and there may be some justification for it, surely, Mr. Speaker, he should have the appropriate knowledge of legislative process to write into the statute when the tax is going to apply and not reserve to himself by this vehicle of an order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the right to make the statute nugatory insofar as anybody he chooses to exempt.

The minister invites and the Legislature invites, when it passes this kind of a section, taxation by prejudice. If he doesn’t like the colour of somebody’s hair they can be taxed, and if he does like the smile on their face they need not be taxed. That is wrong and that is in keeping really with what the minister has put forward. I wish he would read his own speeches and see what he does in fact say. He can rise on points of order and points of personal privilege until he’s blue in the face, but it doesn’t change what, out of his own mouth, seems to be his basic approach to legislation.

This is one of the very serious things that is wrong with this statute because it doesn’t clearly explain the basis on which the taxes are going to be levied. A few moments ago he said we have been discussing three particular fields of change. Maybe before the debate is over, he will be kind enough to let us know what kind of thinking the department has done in connection with these three kinds of changes. Then, maybe, we will know before the Act becomes the law of the Province of Ontario what in fact it means.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that’s just not good enough. What the government did with great sound and fury was to say at budget time we’re going to tax speculators. I don’t think anybody really can say that speculators shouldn’t be taxed. People who push pieces of paper around and exchange cheques and add nothing to the common good of the Province of Ontario shouldn’t be allowed to take advantage of the present emergency situation, created to such a large extent by the government of Ontario, that they can make inordinate fortunes out of it. In principle, if this is just a tax on speculation that adds nothing to the public welfare, fine, and if that’s all it says, again fine. Certainly my colleagues and I are going to support that principle. But even in supporting that principle, Mr. Speaker, I express our gravest concern about the looseness in the drafting of this statute, about the innuendoes that the minister throws for- ward from time to time and about his inability to bring before us a taxing statute that says what is going to happen within that taxing statute. People have lost their heads over bad taxing statutes: the Boston Tea Party, the Ship Tax and the Salt Tax. I don’t know; does the minister ever read parliamentary history?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Singer: Does the minister wonder about these things at all? Does he not know that one of the most jealously guarded rights of any Legislature has been that the taxing statutes of governments must be exact and specific and that people must know what they involve. If the minister does and if he is that much of a student, how can he have the nerve to come before us with a taxing statute that is as loosely worded as this one?

I say the minister is making a mockery of the whole legislative process in bringing forward a bad statute, even though the one underlying principle seems to have substantial merit.

Dealing again with the one underlying principle, Mr. Speaker, one would have thought, listening to the Treasurer (Mr. White), and perhaps even listening to the minister -- although it is very hard to draw any single train of thought out of what the minister says -- one would have thought that accompanying this bill and the Land Transfer Tax Act would have been companion legislation that would indicate the way in which we are going to produce more houses, because that, apparently, is the second important principle that should be embodied at least in the theory put forward by the Treasurer.

We are going to stop foreign speculation in land -- that bill has gone through -- and now we are going to tax speculative profits resulting from the disposition of land. That, theoretically at least, is supposed to produce more housing. Nowhere along the line, Mr. Speaker, has there been any indication in this bill, or the remarks of the Treasurer or the remarks of the Minister of Revenue that the taxes garnered from this bill are going to be devoted to providing serviced land; are going to be devoted to building watermains and trunk sewers and sanitary sewage disposal plants, and that sort of thing. As yet the government hasn’t recognized the basic law of supply and demand and the government just doesn’t understand that the way you are going to bring housing prices down is not by taxing speculative profits, and not by taxing land transfers to foreign owners. But you are going to bring housing prices down when there is a supply of serviced lots on which people can build houses.

Mr. Speaker, here is the first thing that I don’t understand in this statute with the imposition of this tax. For instance, supposing a person has assembled a large acreage of land, say a couple of hundred acres or 500 acres, and has worried his way through the jungle of red tape that involves the development of land. And he has gone and taken part in what is now being called, ho ho, the speedy process that the government was going to work out. This is the speedy process where you can get a subdivision plan quickly processed.

When he has arranged for an official plan change and a zoning bylaw change and a plan of subdivision -- and these are some of the steps that are involved, Mr. Speaker. You are familiar with municipal processes, and I don’t need to elaborate to you as to how many local meetings of planning boards and councils are necessary.

I am sure the process applies all over the Province of Ontario, but in one borough of Metropolitan Toronto, first you meet informally with the aldermen and the ratepayers. Then, after the staff has carefully examined the draft plan of subdivision, maybe, if there is a good planning report or a favourable one, you can have a private meeting to which you are summoned. Then, if you pass the private meeting, maybe then you can have a public meeting to which notices go out and the ratepayers come. And then after you have gone through a public meeting on the planning board level, then after, if you push the municipality hard enough in three or four months, you can get it before the council.

Then the council has reports of the public school board and the separate school board and the high school board and the engineers and the roads people on their own level and at the Metro level and there is another public hearing and the ratepayers can come again. Then, maybe eight months, 10 months, or a year after, when this has all been done maybe the council will pass a resolution saying, “Good idea, good plan; let’s go forward.”

Then, if you push hard enough and sign the right agreement and you negotiate backwards and forwards with the local solicitor and the agreement is signed and you put your money up, maybe two or three months after that you can get a bylaw passed. And if you are unfortunate enough -- and in most cases you are unfortunate enough to get caught up in an official plan change -- something goes off to the minister at the same time where it seems to sit on a variety of desks while the minister circulates all the same people and gets reports from the traffic people and the Ministry of the Environment, the pollution people and the --

An hon. member: It works on.

Mr. Singer: It works on and on and on. Then maybe, Mr. Speaker, you get to a hearing before the Municipal Board -- if the minister’s pieces of paper have caught up with your zoning bylaw change and notices have gone out again, and if one protestor happens to appear then you have to get a public hearing before the OMB. I don’t particularly blame the OMB, but their schedule of public hearings is lengthy and if you can’t get on for a hearing before then, it’s another six or eight months.

Well, if you survive this speedy procedure and you have someone knowledgeable enough who can bother the necessary civil servants along the way maybe you can get your plan of subdivision approved two or three years after you’ve started.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): This century.

Mr. Singer: Now no one can afford that unless they are able to hire the most expensive planning talent and the most expensive legal talent. So it is really impossible and ridiculous to imagine that any small person -- I don’t like those words “small’ person” -- any person whose ambition to develop land runs anything lower than 100 lots is able to em- bark upon this at all. People who want to get into either the development business or the building business and do it in anything other than a grand capacity with unlimited funds at their command and who are prepared to carry the expenses for 2 1/2 or three years, even under the new speedy process that we’ve got, are just unable to do it.

Where along the way, Mr. Speaker, does this bill or any companion legislation help to remedy this terrible situation that this government of Ontario has allowed to come about?

In fact, what the bill says is that the small builder is out of business. The small builder is effectively prohibited by the provisions of this bill from going to the developer and buying three or four or five lots on which he can put houses because no developer is going to be able to sell it to him without the payment of this 50 per cent speculation tax.

That was why I was particularly interested in trying to elicit responses from the minister, because he did have that phrase in the earlier debate that this was going to be exempted. If it is going to be exempted and he is going to let the small builder carry on -- and there are thousands of them in the Province of Ontario -- if he is going to let these people carry on in business, for goodness sake why can’t he say so and say so now? Why couldn’t he have said so a few minutes ago when he was specifically asked that question?

If that’s what he is going to do with this big, broad broom that he is bringing in to sweep away and attack evil speculators, then I say it is very, very wrong and it is going to set back any programme of housing in this province very substantially.

What is going to happen is that the minister is going to turn developers into builders; many developers don’t want to be builders and many small builders are quite prepared and happy to build their four or five or six houses a year. There is nothing in the statute that is going to allow these people to continue.

Then, Mr. Speaker, having reached this point, I am amazed at the goodness of the minister when he says, “as far as we know the federal government will allow this 50 per cent tax to be deducted as a cost of doing business.” Now that “as far as we know” is a very, very interesting phrase, because I can add to that my comment that as far as I know the federal government is going to make no such allowance.

In fact I had an opportunity over the weekend of talking to a few of my friends in Ottawa. They said as far as they know there is no such allowance contemplated by the Parliament of Canada. Now when the minister gets to the point that we are going to have to legislate on the basis of “as far as he knows”, rather than upon what is fact, I think again there is something very seriously wrong with the legislative process.

While there was in the budget some interesting graphs which showed that where these speculators became involved, taxes could run as high as 81 per cent in the case of a private individual or 86 per cent in the case of a corporation, that was based, Mr. Speaker, on the minister’s speculation that this 50 per cent tax was going to be allowed as a cost of business. In fact, relying on the minister, and I don’t know why, one of the prominent real estate firms said in an article this weekend that this was the way the tax was going to work.

It’s a shame, Mr. Speaker, that we can get to this state. We are having articles written by people who apparently know what they are talking about -- and in this case they didn’t -- based on the statement by the minister that “as far as he knows it is going to be allowed as a cost of business.” That is no good, because if, as far as the minister knows, he is wrong, then the tax runs as high as 112 per cent. Just pause and think about that. If it is not allowed as a cost of doing business and it is added on and you are taxed on the full amount of that profit, then the cost is 112 per cent.

Consider for a moment with me, Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen, say, to a widow whose husband when he died left her a small estate, and she took whatever her husband left her, took some advice from the member for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly), or from me, or from someone who said, “Why don’t you buy a duplex or a triplex. This wall be a hedge against inflation, you’ll get some income from rent and this is a way that you are going to protect the small estate that your husband has left.” Fine, good, out she went and she did it.

Now the same lady is getting older and perhaps her arthritis is bothering a bit, or perhaps she is sick and tired of fighting with tenants who call her up in the middle of the night and complain about the leaky faucets, or the plumber’s bills are too high, or, for whatever reason, she has decided to liquidate her assets here and move to Florida or California or somewhere where it’s warmer and the winter won’t bother her so much. What happens? Our friend the minister comes along to that lady and says, “Tough. If you happen to have made a profit between April 9, 1974, and any future date you are going to have to pay 112 per cent of that profit, as far as we know. If you are lucky it won’t be 112 per cent, as far as the minister knows, because if those terrible guys in Ottawa change their minds and allow it as a business expense you’ll only have to pay 86 per cent of that.”

This is the way one has to read this statute, Mr. Speaker, and I say that is most unfortunate, because it is certainly a legitimate and logical conclusion one must draw. The member for Eglinton and I talk about these things frequently. I think this is the kind of reasonable advice we would both give to someone who is faced with that kind of a problem. There are a lot of people who do it, and they are not really speculators. There are people who are benefiting from the work that was done in this community over many, many years by their husbands and themselves, and they are now trying to take some reasonable protection for themselves against the inflating costs that have beset our society.

But that’s not good enough for the minister. He wants to get them, and he will get them if this bill goes through in its present form, because that’s what is going to happen to this lady. I say that is grossly, grossly unfair, and if we are talking about amendments then we are going to talk about them in that light. That is why the minister should have had the decency to tell us in advance of the start of this debate exactly what the changes were going to be, but he hasn’t seen fit to do it. Let the record then speak for itself.

He wants to do things behind the scenes and he wants to reserve unto himself the power of God, power greater than the Stuarts or the Charleses or anybody else who had their heads cut off as these parliamentary struggles went on. He wants to reserve that power to himself and change the statute by permission of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which is really his recommendation. I say that is wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Givens: Why don’t the Tory members tell them this in caucus?

Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Would the hon. member for Downsview calculate the 112 per cent for us?

Mr. Singer: I have got the calculations and I will check them with the member privately. I am satisfied that they are reasonably accurate.

Mr. Reilly: I have 110 here using my figures.

Mr. Singer: Yes. I am satisfied that they are reasonably accurate.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): As far as the member knows they are reasonably accurate.

Mr. Singer: And I am not using this as a scare tactic; I am using this based on the minister’s reply, that as far as he knows this will be an expensive business.

Well, one doesn’t bring legislation in based on “as far as I know,” or based on the decision of another jurisdiction. If you are going to bring in legislation you bring it in based on facts, not on idle speculation by this minister, because it is just as easy for me to speculate on the basis of a couple of casual hotel corridor conversations I had over the weekend. As far as my federal friends know, there is going to be no such allowance, and that’s not authoritative either.

But when we are putting taxes on the people of Ontario it should be based on fact and not on my speculation or on the minister’s speculation.

There are several other things that bother me about this very, very badly, badly drafted legislation. Let’s look for a moment, Mr. Speaker, at some of the enforcements. Let’s talk about farmers for a minute. I am not one who has been the strongest advocate of more benefits for farmers, and some of my col- leagues can tell the House that, but I think in this statute the government is picking needlessly on the farmers. He is saying to a farmer who has had a farm in his family for several generations that only if he sells it to his sons or to somebody who is going to continue the farming use is he not going to get caught up in this taxation.

Why? Here’s a farmer who has carried on a farming business for several generations and the minister says whether it’s a good farm or a bad farm, whether the farmer and his family are able to sell it to somebody else for farming uses, we are going to pounce on them, too. And like the widow I was just telling members about, his incidence of tax can go the 112 per cent route, too. Is that fair? Of course it is not fair.

The exemptions in this Act insofar as they apply to farmers are quite ridiculous. And the alternative? Obviously, the minister said, “We’re not going to be that bad. We’re not going to be that mean. We’re not going to be that unconscionable. We’re going to use the general regulatory power and if you can come into my office and tell me you’re a good farmer and maybe you belong to organizations populated by certain friends of mine, maybe we’ll reconsider.” There are no guidelines set down as to the basis on which the minister is going to exercise his great favours or bestow them upon people of the Province of Ontario.

Let me talk for a moment, Mr. Speaker, about the enforcement provisions here. I think these are about as bad as anything I’ve seen in any statute, be it taxing or anything else. The Act, in its plan, allows the minister’s officials to go into somebody’s office, to gather information and to see his documents and records. Theoretically, at least for the purposes of this Act -- and that part is fine -- if there is reasonable ground to believe that an offence has taken place under this Act -- as is done in relation to income tax and certain other taxing statutes -- sales tax -- they can go in, seize the documents, seize the papers for the purposes of this Act, But is this minister content with that? No, sirree.

These provisions go on to say, for instance in 18(4), that once the documents are seized -- and perhaps it may be found that their suspicions about the purpose of this Act being breached are not in fact correct -- do you know what they can do with the records, Mr. Speaker? They can take them to any other department of the provincial government which is concerned with taxing matters. I don’t know what being concerned with taxing matters really means.

I suppose the Attorney General’s ministry is concerned with taxing matters. If the documents seized under the powers given in this Act seem to relate in some manner to a law enforcement problem which can be interpreted as relating to taxing matters all of the information and books and records can be turned over to the Attorney General. They can be turned over to any other department of the Province of Ontario which is concerned with taxing matters.

As if that were not enough, the statute goes on to provide that the same information, the same documents and the same records, can be turned over to any other department of the federal government which is concerned with taxing matters. Again, without going through the whole train of thought, there is the federal Minister of Justice, the federal income tax people, whatever other department of the federal government may be interested in taxing matters -- perhaps the Ministry of Agriculture which gives subsidies. As if that were not enough, Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say that the information, records and documents can be turned over to any department of another provincial government with whom we have a reciprocal agreement.

All of the same dangers flow from that. What kind of legislation is it which allows the government to come in, investigate a particular offence which it must have reasonable grounds to presume is taking place and then dissipate this information to all sorts of other agencies of all sorts of other governments?

My colleague here said “gestapo” and it sounds to me that that is exactly what it is. It is a gestapo arrangement which the minister is setting up. It allows his officials to go in to anybody’s business on a fishing expedition to gather together whatever information they find and if it isn’t enough to allow some action under this statute, to disseminate it to any other department of the provincial government, the federal government or the government of another province.

I say that this is as bad -- and I tried to get at it in the question period, and the Speaker ruled, perhaps with some merit, that I was out of order at that time because this debate was on the order paper. Well, I’m not out of order now, Mr. Speaker, and I say, that these kinds of search and seizure provisions in this statute are worse than anything that was in Bill 99, and have to be changed before this bill goes on further.

The limitation period is six years, and I think that’s too long. I think if the ministry is doing its job, it should be able to determine whether or not it feels there has been an offence under this Act in a much shorter period than six years. I see no reason why, unless some kind of criminal offence has been definitely proven, and we don’t need a limitation period for that, this minister should be given six years in limitation.

Another section, section 10(9), states:

“No assessment shall be vacated or varied on appeal by reason only of an irregularity, informality, omission or error on the part of any person in the observance of any directory provision of this Act.”

Well, what does that mean? That means the ministry can be as sloppy, as inexact and as incomplete as they want to be. Then, if they’ve made bad mistakes in drafting their informations or in any formal procedure that they’re required to follow, they’re excused by these exculpatory provisions in section 10(9).

Again, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how much parliamentary history this minister has studied and whether or not he knows that the courts have always interpreted taxing statutes in their strictest possible sense, and that where formalities are laid down for any ministry, those should be strictly and absolutely adhered to; and if they’re not, then it’s the fault of the ministry.

Surely we don’t need an exculpatory provision of that nature in a taxing statute brought forward by this government which says, in effect, if the government have made some mistakes in their forms, their methods, their dates or their procedures, “don’t worry about form, we’ve got section 10(9), which will excuse them.”

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that before proceeding really any further, this bill should be taken back to the drawing board to satisfy the very serious concerns put forward by people who really want to build houses. The small builder who wants to build three, four or five houses is going to be put out of business unless the bill is changed. I say that we’re not going to do the job properly unless we change it in the legislation. And we have the right to know whether or not the minister is going to do that.

The problem about the municipalities and the boards of education certainly should be attended to and should be in the statute. And we should be able to see the method by which the minister is going to do it, and not let it be reserved to the royal prerogative that this minister now wants to assert for himself and to be changed by regulation at a later date.

The questions of apartment owners, the vacancies of apartment units, the accelerating rates of rent -- those should be dealt with right now, before this bill goes another step, I think, Mr. Speaker, that there’s got to be some provision in this statute for allowing an exemption from this tax on the basis that once a subdivision is registered, if the developer takes a piece of raw land, turns it into a subdivision and makes buildable lots available, there should be an availability of selling those lots to an individual builder and allowing him to go ahead and build without this 50 per cent tax being thrown in the middle. That’s the least that can be done. If we don’t do that we’re going to drive all those small builders out of business. Or else they’re going to become the employees of the developers.

We’re going to get to the stage very quickly, unless some of the very basic things in this Act are changed, where there are going to be perhaps five builders and developers, because the developers will turn into builders. There will be five, eight, perhaps 10 of them in the whole Province of Ontario. That’s what’s going to happen -- and it just shouldn’t. So that has got to be written into this Act before it goes much further.

There are also provisions for farmers and for the person who invests in a small income-producing property and then wants legitimately to get away from it. Well, those are some of the main points.

There are the enforcement provisions, the limitation period, and search and seizure, which means, “Go in and have a look and see what can be found, and if there is an offence being committed” -- they should absolutely be changed.

Mr. Speaker, having said that and having expressed my very great disappointment in the ministerial approach, in the lack of exact draftsmanship, and in the lack of concern with true parliamentary principles, I am going to say as well that a bill that will tax people who are true speculators and who do nothing more than push pieces of paper around is in principle worthy of sup- port. On the whole, before the bill becomes law, we think this is all that will come out of the bill, not the removal of the rest of the iniquities.

We will support it on second reading, but if we don’t see by the time it gets to the next stage the kind of changes that we have talked about, we may change our approach.

Don’t let the minister smirk because he is not going to catch us on that kind of an approach. We have been at this far longer than he has and we can tell from his own remarks the kind of approach he wants namely, to leave it to good old Arthur and he will fix it by regulation. We are not satisfied with that. We will let him get this far and see what he writes in the Act by way of amendment.

For the time being, Mr. Speaker, we are going to support the principle of the bill, but my colleagues and I are going to watch very, very closely the kind of amendments that are brought forward. If they are not good enough, by the time it gets into committee and on third reading we may completely change our approach. We think this kind of legislation in principle makes some sense but it has got to be done properly. Let’s hope the minister will make it sensible before it goes any further.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say right at the outset, and I think the reasons for our decision will be clear by the time the course of debate has run, that we will oppose this bill on second reading on a number of basic fundamental grounds. Having said that, let me talk a little bit about the bill itself and the taxing provisions of it, so that we can lay the framework within which we are concerned that the government should even for a moment consider the introduction of such legislation for the purposes that the Treasurer has stated in his budget address.

I want to associate myself, before I deal with the first four sections of the bill, with what the member for Downsview has said about the departure of this bill from any semblance of adherence to the traditional principles which govern taxing statutes. That’s one of the major points that we want to make about the bill, but it is only one of many points. I share with the member for Downsview not only an absolute concern but an abhorrence of a taxing bill which is so misconceived that it provides such regulatory powers, even though the regulatory powers are to be exercised by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or by the cabinet.

If they are exercised by the minister or by the cabinet it makes no never mind to the point that I want to make about it. I do not know and I am not aware of, and perhaps the minister will be in a position to answer during the course of second reading debate, on what conceivable principle this is based. I hope that he will be able to justify his position, because I consider it unjustifiable to point to some other taxing statute of the Province of Ontario which contains a regulatory power such as that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations “exempting from tax any designated land or class of designated land or exempting from tax any designated land with respect to which any disposition or class of disposition occurs -- ”

Mr. Singer: King Arthur the First.

Mr. Renwick: -- or a bill which contains a regulatory power which provides that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may pass regulations “providing for relaxing the strictness of this Act relative to the incidence of tax hereunder in special circumstances where, without such relaxation, inconvenience or hardship might result or the development of designated land might be impeded.”

If there is one thing about taxing statutes it’s that they should be so clear and so precise and so accurate that they do not lend themselves to special-interest lobbying, be it for a meritorious purpose or be it for a business or some such other purpose. You just do not lobby the government on the question of whether or not you can be exempt from the tax because of special circumstances, Mr. Speaker.

I recognize that that particular problem is a difficult one to put forward as a matter of major concern, but the constitutional principle is quite clear that the taxing statute, not the regulation, must not only levy the tax it must contain the precise definite framework within which that tax is to be levied so that one knows on what the tax is levied; in respect of what the rate is determined; by whom the tax is going to be paid; that the tax should be paid by all persons who fall within the particular framework of the statute; that it cannot be deviated from; it cannot be altered; there can be no special consideration given to one taxpayer over another taxpayer. The bill is flawed in principle if only because of the inclusion in the bill of those two provisions.

I want to say this very clearly and we will deal with the point when the bill comes to committee of the whole House -- I assume the minister is not going to put this out to a standing committee? Perhaps he would nod or otherwise indicate what committee he is going to send this bill to as we will be asking that it go to committee. Is he going to send it to a standing committee or is he going to deal with it in committee of the whole House? Perhaps the minister would indicate which committee he is going to ask that the bill go to if he has made up his mind?

I see the minister has not made up his mind. I assume from that that he may be going to withdraw the bill at some point because he does not know which committee it is to go to.

I make this specific request, Mr. Speaker: That the bill go to a standing committee of the Legislature and not to committee of the whole House in order to allow persons who have a concern about the bill to express their views in connection with it.

The second point on which I share the concern of the member for Downsview is with respect to the disclosure provisions relating to the information which comes to the government in connection with the matters related to the enforcement of this taxing statute.

I share that concern; that again is a second principle on the basis of which we would oppose the bill. I do not know how, with those particular clauses in the bill, my colleagues to the right, as stated by the member for Downsview, are going to support the bill. The bill itself to me is abhorrent on those two bases alone, let alone on the substance of the policy which is embodied in the taxing statute and which was stated by the Treasurer during the course of the budget debate.

Let me look at the bill from another viewpoint. I suggest to the government that any bill which runs, in relative terms, to some 27 pages of which, for practical purposes, the last 18 pages deal with enforcement -- the first few pages of the bill deal with the actual levying of the tax -- indicates quite clearly that the government is already aware, even at the first blush of drafting the bill, that the bill is going to lean heavily upon the capacity of the government to enforce it and the difficulty which the government anticipates it will have in enforcing the Act in any even-handed way so that all persons will be treated equally before the law with respect to this particular taxing statute.

I make that point because I want to spend a few minutes trying to state, in as simple terms as I believe it is possible for me to do so, what the guts of the bill are about. The guts of the bill are contained in the first four sections, the first section of the bill containing a large number of definitions which are integral to the understanding of the bill.

The bill provides in section 2 for two taxes. I’ll come back to the second tax which is hidden away in this bill but I want to deal first of all with the one which has the notoriety attached to it, namely the question of whether or not a 50 per cent tax will be levied.

The bill states that where, after April 9 any disposition of designated land occurs, there shall be imposed a tax upon the designated land with respect to the disposition at the rate of 50 per cent of the taxable value.

Let’s talk a little bit, first of all, about designated land. We look at the definition of designated land and we find that it is extremely broadly, all-inclusively drawn, and it’s not done by way of inclusion. It means “all land situate in Ontario and every right, estate, interest, tenement or hereditament existing at law or in equity in, over, to, or affecting land or capable of being registered in any land registry office in Ontario, fixtures, and buildings or structures attached to land, whether or not owned by persons other than the owner of the freehold of the land to which they are attached.”

I would take it that that is as all-embracing a definition of designated land, or land for that matter, as could be conceived for the purposes of a taxing statute. So that it purports to impose a tax on all designated land as so defined.

Then it carves out certain exceptions. And you have to hunt around a little bit to find out what land is not to be covered or what persons are not required to pay tax with respect to that land. The first exclusion is that land “does not include any land in Ontario that is within the meaning of paragraph c of subsection 15 of section 66 of the Income Tax Act (Canada),” namely, the definition of Canadian resource property.

I think it’s very important that we understand that first of all this tax does not apply in any way to any property which falls within the description of something called Canadian resource property, and that definition as set out in the Income Tax Act of Canada in the particular section to which it refers -- and I’m going to quote it in extenso, Mr. Speaker, because I am most anxious that the record clearly show exactly the first kind of land which is carved out of the definition of designated land. So that no tax is levied on any property:

“... that is

“(i) any right, licence or privilege to explore for, drill for, or take petroleum, natural gas or other related hydrocarbons in Canada.”

That’s item (i). Item (ii):

“any right, licence or privilege to prospect, explore, drill or mine for, minerals in a mineral resource in Canada;

“(iii) any oil or gas well situated in Canada.”

And of course, if I may say in parenthesis, this refers in our taxing statute being considered here in this debate, to such items situated in the Province of Ontario.

“(iv) any rental or royalty computed by reference to the amount or value of production from an oil or gas well, or a mineral resource, situated in Canada;

“(v) any real property situated in Canada the principal value of which depends upon its mineral resource content (but not including any depreciable property situated on the surface of the property or used or to be used in connection with the extraction or removal of minerals therefrom), or

“(vi) any right to or interest in any property described in any of subparagraphs (i) to (v) ... ”

to which I have referred.

I frankly don’t understand why it would be necessary to have that exclusion in the bill in the first place and I want an explanation, which undoubtedly the minister will be prepared to give at the time when that question comes before us when the bill is in committee.

That’s the first exclusion from designated land; then one must look, Mr. Speaker, to the wide-open doors which are then carved out of this so-called all-embracing definition of designated land. The wide-open door is set out in section 4 of the Act, and there are listed from (a) to (h) the exemptions which will be the delight of every tax lawyer in the Province of Ontario who advises persons who are engaged in the development field with respect to real estate.

I doubt if there is a single one, other than one related to the individual home ownership, that is not subject to abuse; abuse in the sense that in accordance with the provisions which are known to all persons administering taxing statutes, a person can so order his affairs in order to minimize his tax. I use the term “abuse” within that framework, that it will be possible for people to so order their affairs, using from one time or another time any one or other of a number of these exemptions in such a way as to vitiate the collection of the tax by the revenue.

The one which appears to me to be reasonably clear and not likely to cause problems is the one where the designated land disposed of is the principal residence of the transferor, ordinarily inhabited by him or by him and his spouse, children or other dependents and so on, together with the land which is contiguous to or subjacent to it, up to a 10-acre parcel.

I think that that probably is the only clear exemption which cannot be subject to some kind of abuse, although whether or not that will have any effect in stabilizing housing prices in the Province of Ontario, let alone in Metropolitan Toronto, is another question that we can come back to later on in this debate on the bill.

But as I understand it, with the exception of those areas where land is disposed of to the government or where land is taken under some statutory power of expropriation, what the bill for practical purposes is saying is that any pre-development land, whether serviced or not, is subject to the tax.

They also then go on to exempt from that application of pre-development land any land which is used for a particular kind of tourist resort, of the class, kind or designation to be prescribed by the minister by regulation. So that is exempted from the provisions of the Act, and therefore the escalation of land prices, to the extent that they are involved in the tourist industry, are not subject to any of the controls imposed by this particular statute.

It then exempts any land which is predominantly used for commercial or industrial purposes other than a commercial purpose related to the multiple dwelling accommodation business, such as apartment buildings, condominiums, presumably co-operative housing or duplexes, and I pause to make the point that I take “multiple dwelling” to mean more than one, so that for practical purposes the tax is imposed with respect to multiple dwelling accommodations unless it meets certain further tests in the statute.

The further tests in the statute, so far as I can understand them, are that with respect to residential land used for multiple dwelling purposes, that is, non-industrial, non-commercial, but multiple dwelling accommodation, that the only situation in which that land is exempt from the tax is where it has been developed by the owner of the land. That is contained in the exemption, which, as I see it, is spelled out in another subclause -- subclause (g) of the exempting provision.

So if my reading is correct, the government is going to tax pre-development land, serviced or unserviced, if it changes hands. It is going to tax multiple dwelling accommodations, that is, accommodating more than one occupant. It is going to subject those to tax if they are sold by persons who have not constructed the building on the property or have not renovated it to the extent of 20 per cent of the value and that 40 per cent of the value is represented by the builder.

Now, it seems to me that that very method of stating that exemption must indicate to the minister that he is immobilizing the sale of multiple dwelling accommodations in their present form in the Province of Ontario, unless they happen to have been built by the person who presently owns them, and meets the test -- 20 per cent in the case of renovation; and 40 per cent in the case of the actual construction of the building -- the test that 40 per cent of the total proceeds of the sale represents the value of the building.

I am satisfied from discussions which I have had about the bill with persons who I consider to be knowledgeable about it, that the listing of exemptions -- including the farming exemption; the exemption for industrial and commercial properties, other than multiple dwelling accommodation; the limitations with respect to the disposition of multiple dwelling accommodations -- are so subject to abuse, so subject to change and alteration, that it will be possible for a person with proper advice to avoid the tax.

I am not, at this particular point in time, about to dwell on those provisions of the bill dealing with certain types of corporate structures where 50 per cent or more of their assets are designated land, or the situations in which a change in control of those corporations will bring the tax into play, because it would appear to me to be quite clear that it will be possible for corporations to so organize their affairs that if the statute remains in the language which is presently set out in the statute, it will be quite easy to avoid the tax by a change of control of a particular corporation.

I don’t intend to spell out all the details of that at this particular point in time, but we can certainly do that when the bill comes to the committee stage.

So, Mr. Speaker, basically what I am saying with respect to designated land is that when one analyses the definition of designated land, and then one takes out from the definition of designated land the land which is not included, either by virtue of the exclusion in the definition, or by virtue of the exemptions from the tax set out in section 4 of the bill, one will find that within the language of the exemptions there are methods by which the purpose of the bill can be defeated in terms of the taxing net which the government intended to cast.

In addition to that, the very nature of the exemptions will cause land to move into industrial and commercial purposes when, in fact, the need and the purpose, as I understand it, was to provide some kind of stability with respect to land insofar as it is used for housing accommodation of one kind or an- other.

If my understanding of it is correct, the only way housing can be built now in the Province of Ontario is by the persons who own the land, whether it is raw land, serviced land or other land available for development.

I’m not going to labour this point, because each and every one of us has been lobbied one way or another with respect to the question of the disposition of serviced land by developers to other builders for the purpose of enabling single-family or multiple-occupancy accommodation to be built on that land. That has been one of the principal thrusts of the lobbies which have appeared in the Legislature and have approached, I am certain, practically all of the members of the Legislature about this bill.

I am assuming that some kind of an amendment is going to be drafted to prevent that particular effect, because what will happen if we do not allow that to operate, is that we are going to put out of business any number of small builders, as the member for Downsview has stated. But, in addition, we are going to produce a situation where the large developers, through their overall monopoly of land available in the urban areas for servicing, when they build the dwelling accommodation on those lands, will be able to dictate the prices at which they will be sold --

Mr. Singer: And they will be the only builders.

Mr. Renwick: -- and those prices are the un- controlled prices. There is nothing in this Act which will relieve against the traditional way in which any monopoly of a relatively scarce commodity will be used by those who own it to enhance the price.

Mr. Singer: Right.

Mr. Renwick: I am not suggesting that the transfer of land to the small builders necessarily will keep the price down. But the fact of the matter is that it may very well be one of a broadly based framework within which housing accommodation is built; and if we eliminate it, we certainly do something to raise the price charged by those who have the privilege, which we are now conferring under this Act on those who may construct housing and other residential accommodation in the province.

At this particular point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to summarize what I have endeavoured to state in a long, round-about way. Anybody who wants to understand the Act need only read section 2 and section 4 of the Act, then refer to the definitions in section 1 of the Act. That is all that is required. Then one must work out all of the minutiae of the details of those particular definitions, the way in which they apply to the taxing section of the bill and the way in which the exemptions that are granted fit into the taxing exemptions of the bill.

I noticed that one has to look very carefully to find out that if a person dies and leaves designated land, which would otherwise be caught in the taxing net, whether it is left by will or on an intestacy, presumably there is no tax even though in the definition section it is included in the definition as a disposition that would be taxable. Yet somewhere in the clause which deals with the proceeds of disposition one finds there are no deemed proceeds received on disposition by will or on an intestacy. I assume that means the drafters of the Act and the minister intend that there be no imposition of this tax merely as a result of the death of the owner of the property. It’s an extremely roundabout way to get at that particular result. There may be good reasons for it but perhaps the minister, having nodded, may take the trouble when he replies to make certain everyone understands that particular aspect of this bill.

When one comes to certain of the definitions -- I have tried so far, Mr. Speaker, to deal with designated land as the basis upon which the tax is levied in the Province of Ontario -- we must come to the next question and that is “What is the taxable value of that designated land?” Taxable value is defined as meaning the proceeds of disposition of the designated land -- that is, if it happens to be taxable -- in excess of the adjusted value of the designated land at the tame of its disposition. There is a magnificent definition at the beginning of the bill of how one calculates the adjusted value of the land.

Again, I don’t intend to go through it seriatim in order to try to establish all of the things which are involved but I am saying to the minister that in endeavouring to enforce this statute, he is of necessity going to have to increase the number of people in the ministry for the purpose of making the statute work. The minister has agreed that until such time as the Supreme Court holds the Land Transfer Tax Act, 1974, to be unconstitutional he has to have additional persons on his staff. In this particular instance, Mr. Speaker, he is going to have many more.

The reason he is going to have to have many more is that there is going to be the necessity of deciding whether or not alterations, repairs, improvements and renovations are to be classified as maintenance costs or classified as the kind of costs which will go into the capital calculation with respect to whether or not a particular vendor of multiple accommodation land, under the exemption to which I have referred, will be able to meet the test of 40 per cent value of the building with respect to the land, and the question of whether or not the renovations meet the 20 per cent requirement in those cases where the owner has gone about the two-step operation of renovating the property rather than himself constructing it.

Again without purporting in any way to be an expert in the particular field, I simply want to draw the minister’s attention, as his advisers undoubtedly know, to what has become a relatively classic case in Canadian tax law with respect to the problem of whether or not expenditures made by the owner of property can be classified as expenditures on account of revenue or expenditures on account of capital; that is, whether they are capital expenditures or whether they are revenue expenditures.

I think he is creating a veritable mare’s nest for persons who are legitimately engaged in business. We may not like the way in which the land development business has gone on in the Province of Ontario but there are legitimate men and companies in the land development business and you are creating untold tax problems for them. They are going to have to argue with the minister with respect to the disposition of properties that the values are as set out. And the minister knows that there is a great deal of property being repaired and renovated and improved and that one of the major thrusts of the housing programme of this government, and of the federal government, is to stimulate that kind of rehabilitation of housing. The case to which I referred is the decision by Mr. Justice Jackett, the president of the Exchequer Court in the case of Canada Steamship Lines and the Minister of National Revenue in 1966, Canadian Tax Cases, at page 255.

Of course, in that case the taxpayer was arguing to deduct them for tax purposes. In the case of this particular bill there is going to be an argument as to whether he wants to include them within the 10 per cent limitation of net maintenance costs, which is the added additional yearly increment that he will be able to add on as part of the adjusted tax value in order to increase the adjusted tax value so that he can deduct it from the proceeds of disposition and get a lower amount on which he ultimately will have to pay the 50 per cent tax.

On the other hand, if he has renovated the building he is going to have to argue that many of the items which are basically repairs and improvements and within the framework of the Income Tax Act and the distinction between capital expenditures and revenue expenditures, would fall within repairs and therefore be deductible. He is going to have to argue that they are part of the capital of the building, so that he will have the benefit of that provision which will grant him the exemption to which he refers.

Well, I simply say that the minister must have overpowering reasons to believe that the policy of the government will be implemented by this bill before the minister foists that kind of obligation upon the taxpayer in this province; or before he assumes to increase his staff to be able to deal with that kind of a problem. Because it is going to be vitally important to determine whether or not the work which is done on an existing building in the city of Toronto falls within the framework of being maintenance, or whether it falls in terms of the framework of being a capital expenditure.

I am sure a lay person walking down the street and seeing a house which has been gutted and repaired and the brick work has been sandblasted and the building appears to have been totally reconstructed, would assume that that was renovation and that that came into account for the purpose of that particular exemption.

Well, if one reads very closely the Canada Steamship case and one analogizes between what was said there about the nature of repairs and improvements which can be made to a ship and the nature of the repairs and improvements that can be made to a house, the analogy is pretty clear. There is very little under the interpretation that was put by the Exchequer Court on that distinction; there’s very little that would come within the framework of the kind of renovation which, for capital purposes, a developer or a person who renovates a building throughout the Province of Ontario, would have the benefit of for the purposes of that section, Mr. Speaker.

I raise that particularly with the 20 per cent test which the minister has introduced. Let me talk a little bit about the 40 per cent. The more we talk about the bills which emanated from the budget, the more it is perfectly clear that my colleague, the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), was sort of “right on” when he spoke in the budget debate. They illustrate very clearly what he said at the time. I refer to my colleague’s remarks in the budget debate where he said that the “basic premise on which this budget was built is one of an acceptance of inflation.”

He went on to say the “government is living off the profits of inflation; it even speaks of sharing those profits with the municipalities.” He went on in the course of his remarks to make our criticism of the government on this particular point in item 7 of our sub-amendment. He said the government was substituting largely ineffective land taxes for real action in acquiring and servicing development land and bringing down the price of lots.

That was one of the key points in the sub-amendment which was moved by my colleague from York South with respect to our regret about the budget of the Province of Ontario. He went on further in his remarks to say:

“In short the overall effect of these taxes [he was referring to this tax and the land transfer tax] will be to consolidate the speculative profits of the past into land and housing prices, while giving no assurance that the speculative profits of the future will be checked. It has officially embedded those speculative profits into today’s prices and given no real assurance that they will not continue into the future.”

I use that for the purpose of referring to this question of how the government arrived at the question that the building must be 40 per cent of the value of the land. What it has done is what my colleague has said -- it has simply embedded the inflationary costs of land by creating such a low percentage for the value of the building.

I will refer to a very short article -- but it contains an immense amount -- by James Purdie which appeared in the Globe and Mail on April 17 of this year, following the budget, when there was some effort to assess what was happening.

“The cost of building a house has increased at a rate far slower than general inflation. But the cost of buying it appears to have increased at more than double the inflation rate because it sells attached to a piece of land valued at $28,000 empty.”

I think the point is perfectly clear. What you have said is that land itself has escalated to such a value that the value of the building on the land is now far less than it used to be some time ago -- at least as reflected in most past assessments of land and buildings in Ontario for housing accommodation.

It wasn’t very often that one ran across a great disparity between the land and the building values, so that land was valued higher than the building for assessment purposes. It was not. In my recollection, in most cases not so very long ago in residential accommodation in the cities and towns of the province, it was the building which was valued at more than the land.

The government has reversed that and it has permitted this escalated price of land to go into the very framework on which it is allowing persons to escape the tax which it has imposed for the purpose of lowering the cost of housing. It is maintaining the high price of land. It is permitting the exemption to be attained if the building constructed on it is only 40 per cent of the overall value of the land and the building. I’m simply saying that in that particular case it is not an adequate percentage, and I’d like to know how the minister arrived at it.

I know that at some point in time in giving consideration to a figure one has to be in a sense arbitrary about the figure. But one doesn’t have to be arbitrary about the reasons that led one to the conclusion that this particular figure, while arbitrary in the sense that any fixed figure is, must of necessity reflect some reasoned judgement as to why it was chosen and why that was the level beyond which a person would be able to avoid the tax and build a building on land or renovate a building existing on land where the value of the building to the overall cost of the land and the building was only 40 per cent.

I think that needs some explanation, so far as we here are concerned about the bill. Mr. Speaker, the clue to what happened in the budget, the clue to the inadequacy of these taxing statutes, is related not to budgetary matters but is related -- and so many times the government signals what it is going to do -- specifically and directly to housing. That’s where the government has failed, and this bill and the policy of the government is, in our judgement, an admission of the failure of the government in its housing policies.

Now, why do I say that? Because the Minister of Housing when he was appointed -- whenever it was, March 3 or not very long ago, about two months ago -- announced as a policy, though why it should be dignified by being called a policy I don’t know, the determination of the government to provide more serviced lots. Anybody could understand that we can’t have residential accommodation of any kind in the Province of Ontario without serviced lots. Everybody knew that there was a shortage of serviced lots and the minister didn’t have to enunciate as a policy of the government that it is going to do what it can to provide more serviced lots. That’s not a policy, that’s a dictate of common sense. That’s not something which requires any genius to state as a policy.

But that wasn’t; the real policy of the new minister was to hide the fact that the housing policies of the government were devoid of reason, were weak and had failed to accomplish what they were intended to accomplish through the Ontario Housing Corp. and through the ministers who were responsible for the Ontario Housing Corp., including the hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Best housing programme in North America.

Mr. Renwick: That housing programme has been, and is, a total and complete failure --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Best housing programme in North America.

Mr. Renwick: -- a total and complete failure. The final decision of the government to establish a Ministry of Housing -- they didn’t even have any sense about who to put in the Ministry of Housing so they appointed the Provincial Secretary for Social Development and one of the many hats which he has worn for brief periods of time is as Minister of Housing. Everyone knew that he was marking time while he was in that ministry. The only thing which he --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): He can’t afford to mark time in Resources.

Mr. Renwick: No, I am speaking now, strangely enough, of the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Pay more attention.

Mr. Renwick: -- who was also in charge of housing. There has been a retinue of ministers in charge of housing but none of them has been able to produce the number of serviced lots required to meet the demand in the Province of Ontario. So what they have done now is to introduce, by a blunt instrument of taxation, a bill so extravagantly conceived, so ill conceived, that it is designed to blind people to the fundamental disaster of the government’s housing policies.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You can’t win.

Mr. Renwick: It’s been just as simple as that. The only thing that the now Attorney General did when he was Minister of Housing, apart from pilot the Ministry of Housing bill through the House -- which of course didn’t take very long because there was practically nothing in the Ministry of Housing bill in the first place -- was to signal a short time ago, on Jan. 29 of this year, the statement made by the Minister of Housing in this House Friday morning of last week, and that is, that the government was going to take the lid off the overall costs of the construction of housing under the proposals requested by the Ontario Housing Corp.

It took almost exactly -- to February, to March, to April -- almost three months to the day from the date on which the then minister, now the Attorney General, said: “Builders Not Backing Programmes for Low-Income Housing” -- and he wrapped the knuckles of the builders for not doing their proper job. We had this statement of the minister, and, of course, the leader of this party made the accurate prophecy, and one need not be a prophet to make that kind of statement, that the HOME prices are sure to rise as the result of the statement made by the present Minister of Housing.

Mr. Speaker, if there is a catalogue of the defeat of the government programmes that could be compiled, it would surely, if communicated to the people of the Province of Ontario, destroy this government. There is not a single programme in any field of the government of the Province of Ontario supposed to help people in the low-income brackets -- and low-income brackets today embrace low-income brackets traditionally and also a substantial number of those who a very short time ago thought themselves to be in the middle range of income. We get it day after day.

The Parcost programme was to help to reduce the price of drugs to people who needed drugs and who couldn’t afford to pay the exorbitant prices because of the prices which the manufacturers were charging them. And the Parcost programme is a disaster.

Even on something as simple as the cost of dentures, we find that the low-cost denture programme is a failure, and we find that the government is hiding the disaster of its housing programme under two things -- the budget, and something called “the bad guys”; the speculators.

You know, it is the same small band of revolutionaries and they are identical -- you can call them revolutionaries, you can call them speculators, you can call them Marxists. It’s the same group, I would like you to know that, Mr. Speaker. They travel all over the world, they just have different aliases. The group which has speculated in land are the same people who were in the headline of the Globe and Mail on Saturday morning. They were the Marxists, the small group of Marxists that were keeping the postal officers from going back to work.

Does the minister in charge of housing remember Andre Ouellet? The postal strike in Canada was due to that same small band; they had moved down to Montreal by that time. They were the small band of insurgents in the Montreal post office. There was a postal strike, and we had to settle the postal strike. And it was settled, and the headline, of course, in the Globe and Mail this morning was that the post office workers rejected the small band of Marxists.

Well, of course, there never was a small band of Marxists. There was a real crying need amongst the postal workers in order to achieve something called “equity” in the kind of living conditions and working conditions to which they were being subjected, and some kind of security. And the analogy is not far-fetched. There is the same crying need in the field of housing, and the government can’t cloak it over by talking about speculators.

The Minister of Housing forecast what was going to happen in this budget. My colleague, the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) is a friend of the Treasurer, but there was no budget leak. He leaned over to me during the course of the time when the Minister of Housing was castigating the speculator. You remember, Mr. Speaker, he was wrapping them on the knuckles for being such bad boys? My colleague the member for Lakeshore said: “I’ll bet you $5 there is going to be a land speculation tax in the budget.” It was nothing to do with whether or not the government was going to meet the housing need, but a convenient method to hide the fact that its housing policies are, so far as we in this party are concerned, a total and abject failure. The government is going to have to redo them, and it can’t achieve its needs with respect to housing through the methods of this kind of a blunt instrument.

I want to come to that, Mr. Speaker. I am no good at assessing all of the massive number of statistics of numbers of units of housing which have been built over a period of six months, one year, 10 years, 20 years or 30 years, or in assessing the escalating prices of land and attributing to them the causes which may have caused them. I will make these two general statements and stand to be refuted by figures, if it is possible for anyone to do it. Over the period of the real estate market escalation in the price of housing in the city of Toronto and in Metropolitan Toronto, there have been fewer and fewer buyers. The buyers have gone down and the price of housing has gone up.

I think there is a lesson to be learned. It isn’t that there are a lot of people who want to be in that market to buy housing; they were already squeezed out. As the number of buyers went down over the last period of months, the price went up at these extravagant prices. You get the funny thing which the Tory government is always able to do. It always seems to be able to attract those with serious special interests to support what they are doing. The latest example is the Toronto Real Estate Board figures. They indicated that the prices had levelled off, that the demand had levelled off and that it was due to a number of things, one of which was the government’s tax proposals.

The fact of the matter is that they were saying that the number of people in the market for housing had gone down since the budget or in the last little while. They didn’t say it was only the government. They also gave credit to that other special interest group, the banks, which raised the rate from 8.25 per cent, which was the bank rate, to 10.5. Never in Canada has there been that spread between the bank rate and the prime lending rate of the chartered banks. Never has a banking system taken advantage of the so-called monetary system to make that spread into the prime rate.

Then you say what about mortgage rates? The mortgage rates being quoted now have gone crazy. The minister probably saw it. Most of the companies now advertising loans for mortgage purposes on television, and as I understand it advertising in the press, have eliminated the rate, let alone any indication as to whether funds would be available if anyone could possibly afford to buy a house at a mortgage rate which is going to be at something like 11.5 per cent. That is about what it is at the present time if my memory serves me rightly. Perhaps it is something of a slight digression but the things are all totally related.

The government has said -- and the Toronto Real Estate Board has indicated that that is fine -- it is going to be able to stabilize housing prices, or in the beautiful language that the government likes to use, decrease the rate of escalation or de-escalate the rate of escalation. I think, that is what the then Minister of Housing used at some particular point in time. No one will ever know what the rate of escalation would have been without these particular Acts.

The government always moves from the question of stabilizing prices of land and housing into that cute phrase. It is like a two-step. The government states the principle, stabilize the price of housing, and stabilize the price of land. Then in the second step it breaks it down into two parts. One is that they are not really going to stabilize it; they are going to prevent the rapid escalation of it.

Now that is not stabilizing. Then they say, “If we don’t prevent the rapid escalation of it, we want our share of the pie, 50 per cent, and we are going to spread it and spread it with the municipalities so everybody is going to be happy.” They think they are going to get something.

If the minister doesn’t believe that that is what it is about, I simply quote what the Treasurer said in his budget speech. He said, “Mr. Speaker, I should now like to describe three important new measures to restrain inflation.” The only one that is really going to restrain inflation is the limitation on transit fares, not the other two. “They are designed,” he said, “to stabilize land prices ... ” That is what this bill is about. The other one encouraged Canadian ownership of Ontario real estate. That was the bill debated last week. “They are designed to stabilize land prices.” Then, of course, one turns the page and reads:

“Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am proposing a new tax to discourage this speculative activity. This tax has two objectives: to reduce the escalation of land and housing prices -- ”

The word “stabilize” disappears; we never hear it any more. We will never know, using this particular objective as the criterion by which we make a judgement, whether or not the government has been successful. Nobody will know whether we have reduced the escalation or de-escalated the escalation.

Then it goes on to say: “ -- and to recover for the public a major share of windfall gains from land speculation.” Well, I’ve never seen two objectives so diametrically opposed as to vitiate the attempt by the government to indicate that they can bring about the kind of policy that they want.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): They are spoofing themselves as well as the world; that’s the funny part of it.

Mr. Renwick: Again I refer to this -- I think I will have a photostatic copy made; as a matter of fact, I might very well have it blown up and framed for the minister, because it’s a very short article and I think he should read it. Mr. Purdie, in the same article on April 17 in the Globe and Mail Report on Business, said:

“The combined efforts of provincial and federal governments to ease cost pressures in the housing field are expected to have little long-term effect on the high price of housing without some corresponding programme of self-discipline and restraint by the industry and those provincial and municipal authorities that affect prices through controls, taxes and, in some cases, questionable special levies.

“The Ontario speculation tax will remove only about 1,000 buyers from competing for the 15,000 to 20,000 housing units sold in Metropolitan Toronto each year.

“The move is welcomed by everyone legitimately involved in the industry and recognized as an immediately successful measure, but its overall effect will be to moderate the rate of price increases rather than stabilize or reverse them.”

Then it goes on and gives the lie to suddenly finding the small group of speculators who have been taking the Ontario people to task, in a monetary sense, in the housing market.

“If speculators were the most visible cause of the sudden price surge that drove the average price of a house in Metropolitan Toronto up by $8,208 in one year to $40,728 -- ”

And by the way, I think the last figure, where we have “stabilized” it, in the language of the Toronto Real Estate Board, was $50,435 -- and my colleague has just pointed out that that has already gone to $54,000. It was reported in Saturday’s Star.

Mr. MacDonald: In the month of April -- eight per cent in one month.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, this is dealing with the end of March. By the end of April it had stabilized to such a peak that it was $54,000.

I just want to complete this particular paragraph:

“If speculators were the most visible cause of the sudden price surge [and I know that Hansard will forgive me for repeating myself] that drove the average price of a house in Metropolitan Toronto up by $8,208 in one year to $40,728, it was because they moved into a situation that was already fattened for manipulation and profit-taking.

“The fattening, it has now become clear, was a product of the control and distribution system -- and the main cause was the price pressure exerted on available urban building land. Increasingly complex controls prevented its quick and orderly servicing and development.”

Well, it goes on to explain a number of other very valuable matters. Maybe I’ll send two framed copies of it and the minister can give one to his colleague, the Minister of Housing, so he will have it in front of him.

For this minister’s purpose, it will indicate to him the validity of the arguments we are putting to him that when he finds that this tax is not only unwise and unworkable, but that it will do nothing with respect to the basic policy of the government. And for the purpose of his friend, the Minister of Housing, perhaps in some way it will help him understand the basic necessity of the kind of programme that has been put forward by the Ontario New Democratic Party with respect to the broad range of actions which must be taken by government in order to do something to begin to meet the housing need which is so crying in the province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go off on a somewhat similar but related tack. As far as I am aware the government of the Province of Ontario has never, until this bill and the minister’s budget statement, imposed a tax for a purpose which was not related to the raising of revenue. I don’t know of any tax the primary purpose of which is not to raise funds for government.

It may very well be true that there are secondary purposes and other objectives which are sometimes accomplished by levying taxes. I can certainly say that while those persons who believe that drink is some kind of a national disaster -- and thank God I am not one of them; it may on occasion be a personal disaster for all of us, excluding myself, of course, and my friend from Thunder Bay -- there are people who will say the reason the government of the Province of Ontario levies the tax which we all pay at the liquor store with respect to liquor, is to raise money and to make us sinners pay for sinning. That’s the kind of secondary objective some people use and it’s the same rationale with respect to taxes on cigarettes.

I am using it simply because the purpose of that tax is to raise money and the purpose of the motor vehicle licence is to regulate automobiles and to raise money. There are all sorts of double-barrelled purposes which are involved but always in the Province of Ontario, no matter what the taxing statute is and no matter what the deductions and exemptions permitted are, its purpose is to raise money. We may use the money for expenditure programmes, to carry out the kind of government programmes it is believed the people of Ontario expect from their governments, be it in the field of education, in the field of social and family services, in the field of health services or any number of services. The government raises the money and then spends it on programmes it thinks are beneficial to the community.

This is the first tax on which it is saying it doesn’t want to raise any money. Therefore it must be wanting to accomplish an objective and that objective is to stabilize the situation. I am going to say it quite bluntly; it isn’t the de-escalation of the escalation and it isn’t to have the government participate in some form of illegitimate profit-taking or windfall profit in the land speculation field. In all honesty, the purpose of the tax and the purpose of this bill is to stabilize the price of land and the price of housing. There is nothing in this bill or in the economics of the budget papers -- and I looked very carefully.

It is very interesting that for half a dozen years, I would guess, from the former member for Huron when he was the Treasurer -- about six years ago from that budget of his until now -- there was a gradual, continuous explanation and development toward this question of the tax credit system evolving into a guaranteed annual or adequate income system for the Province of Ontario. It was a long-range objective and every year in the budget papers we got more explanatory information about how this was going about and how it was taking place.

As far as I know there is not a single supporting paper of any kind with respect to this particular land speculation tax or with respect to the land transfer tax. There is no supporting data of any kind available to anybody on the basis of which the decision was made. Why? Because it was all made for the purpose of isolating and cloaking the failure of the government’s housing policies under this idea that somehow or other, if we could just get rid of something called the bad guys, the speculators, in land and in housing we would accomplish quite a bit.

I hold no brief for them. I have been subjected to it in my riding of Riverdale where a house is bought for $10,000 or $15,000, new wiring is put in the house, perhaps new piping is put in the house, maybe the roof is repaired, some cosmetic work done, and it is sold in a very short period of time to a first and second mortgage for two to three to four times the price which was paid.

As I say, I don’t hold any particular brief for that particular situation. But to suggest that somehow or other that that is the root cause that the minister is directing this bill for, seems to me to be a total misreading of the economics of land costs and of housing costs in the Province of Ontario. The minister is not going to achieve the desired result of stabilizing house prices or stabilizing land prices through the operation of this particular taxing statute. It is too blunt an instrument for that purpose.

We have almost moved in many areas beyond the idea that monetary policy, or monetary policy coupled with some kind of sophisticated tax system, can achieve basic social policies where the market system has shown itself to be incapable of dealing with it.

I know the current thinking, the current Conservative Party thinking -- and indeed, the man who made the comment to me was a well-known Conservative. The current acceptable story is that: “Oh, yes, if we can just get all this land through these channels of getting the approvals and getting it out on to the market and getting it serviced, we, the private industry, and the private developers can produce the serviced lots which will eliminate the increase in the housing costs, and we can stabilize it.”

I am simply saying that if the government persists in that policy -- and this bill indicates that they think in some way they can -- if they persist in that policy, the failure of the housing policies of this government will become more and more evident.

Well, one can ask: “What is the policy of the New Democratic Party?” Well, it has been spelled out many times in this House and will be again when the housing estimates are before us.

There is no question whatsoever that what we would engage in is the massive acquisition of land in the urban areas for the purpose of the government servicing those lands and providing the housing accommodation on a lease basis, so that while the buildings themselves may be available for sale in the marketplace, the land itself as serviced by government and controlled by government by long-term leases, would maintain a stability in the price of land and provide the supply of serviced lots which would go a long way to meet the demand which is required. And as I understand it from the budget statement, in the Province of Ontario it’s about 100,000 new accommodation units required every year.

What else would we do? We would couple it with a control of the rental increases which are taking place in the province. This would be a control of the rental increases based upon the question of landlords being required -- as we have stated ad infinitum -- to justify publicly increases in rent so that we can assess the reasons for the rent increases. And if, in the judgement of those responsible for the administration of such policy, there shouldn’t be that kind of rent increase, then there will not be any rent increase.

My colleague, the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans), I think read into the House record the letter from the landlord whose justification for a very substantial rent increase to tenants who couldn’t possibly afford it, was not to justify it in terms of his increased costs but to say it was the result of inflation. He said: “If you ask me why I have to raise rents, it’s because of inflation.” Well, that does not help in any way to maintain that stability of prices.

I am saying to the minister that the ownership of property, its development from a raw land state to a developed state, its sale on the market, its sale in the marketplace are inextricably intertwined with those people who hold land for investment purposes to derive rental income from it. You can’t separate the two from the whole question of the extent and degree to which housing accommodation is going to cost so many dollars if you buy a house and rental accommodation is going to cost so much if you rent either a house or apartment accommodation. You cannot divorce for one moment apartment houses from singly owned residential houses nor from condominiums.

There are many people crowding into apartment houses at the present time who need and want to get into a different form of residential accommodation for all sorts of reasons. But the pressure of the cost of the housing market, be it condominium, or God forbid the pitiful state in the province of co-operative housing or single family housing or duplex housing, is so great that they have no possibility, except a limited number of them, of moving out of an apartment setting. The result has been prophesied and it is probably inevitable. There is a very low vacancy rate in Metropolitan Toronto and there will be in other major areas of the province if there is not already.

Another aspect of it, a study which was in the paper just a few days ago, indicated very clearly that in the next few years we are moving back into the doubling up of families or related families in houses --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I believe the hon. member is digressing quite widely from the principle of this particular bill in discussing the --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: It is quite all right, Mr. Speaker. I actually have gone on longer than I thought I would get away with before your interjection.

Mr. Speaker: I am a patient man.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You were just convincing yourself of your own arguments.

Mr. Renwick: I just don’t want to admit for one single moment that the principle of this bill is to stabilize the price of housing and land in the Province of Ontario. While I was delighted not to have to deliberately speak to the point, I now want to speak to it because there is no question that everything I have said and which other members of the party will say is related to the housing policies of this government. That is the purpose of the bill.

Mr. MacDonald: Who says so?

Mr. Renwick: It is very easy and very nice -- I can hear the minister when he stands up and says: “The hon. member for Riverdale in the first 18 minutes of his remarks dealt with the bill and from then on his remarks were irrelevant to the bill.” I have taken the words out of his mouth.

Hon. Mr. Meen: How about that.

Mr. Renwick: I have taken the words out of his mouth.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He wouldn’t say that. He is too nice.

Mr. Renwick: That is exactly it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The member’s perspicacity is astonishing.

Mr. Renwick: That is exactly it. If the minister thought for one single moment that this party was going to oppose this bill on the minutiae of the details of the definition, or the extent and scope of the exemptions, or on the lousy draftsmanship of the bill, or of the ill-conceived ideas that went into it, or of the fact that there are no economic papers produced in the Legislature and the budget papers to deal with it, then he has another thought coming. It is not there. It is not in this bill.

We are not debating this bill for that reason. We are debating this bill because somewhere along the line the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman), was told to find the bad boys, the speculators, to talk to them and let them know that we think they are bad boys --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Renwick: -- and that if they don’t behave themselves something is going to happen to them. And then the bill, as my colleague from Lakeshore said when the Minister of Housing castigated the speculators, the budget is going to provide that tax. The reason, Mr. Speaker, that the comments which I have made are right on is that this bill is designed to cloak the failure of the housing programmes of the provincial government of Ontario. And those programmes are a disaster.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Best programme in North America, maybe in the world.

Mr. Renwick: They are a disaster for the persons who have had to live in the ghetto accommodation which has been provided by the government. They are a disaster with respect to the speculation which has taken place and the accommodation which has been provided by Ontario Housing under the HOME programme. They are a disaster in the number of units which have been produced for the purpose of meeting the needs. They are a disaster no matter what statistics are used in every urban centre in the Province of Ontario because the government hasn’t serviced the land, and it hasn’t got the accommodation, and it doesn’t have the programmes by which it will be met in the months and years to come on the scale which is required.

There are some other things which could be said on the bill. I think perhaps they can be dealt with in committee. But there is one that can’t be dealt with in committee -- that is, the Treasurer’s table on page 6 of the budget. Where he sets out what will happen with respect to those persons who deal in land either as a business or as an investment; that is, whether or not they are going to have to pay income tax or whether they are going to have to pay capital gains tax. The present tax on a person who is engaged in the business related to land which the minister is dealing with, of a private corporation is 61 per cent, of a public corporation is 74 per cent, and on individuals is 61 per cent.

Now, even in conservative terms, tax rates at that level should accomplish the purpose that the minister wants to accomplish. And I would like to know the explanation of the Minister of Revenue. He believes that by raising a private corporation’s tax rate from 61 per cent to 81 per cent, and by raising a public corporation’s tax rate from 74 per cent to 87 per cent, and by raising an individual’s tax rate from 61 per cent to 81 per cent, that this will affect the extent and nature of the escalation of land and housing costs in Ontario. Those rates are extremely high as they are now. A few other percentage points isn’t going to make that much difference. If it’s a capital gains tax it’s to go from 31 per cent to 65 per cent, in the case of a private corporation. A public corporation will go from 60 to 80 per cent. Individuals will go from 31 per cent to 65 per cent.

Those rates are very high, initially, and they haven’t accomplished any purpose. I am simply saying what I said before -- this is a very blunt instrument, designed not to raise revenue, on the very language of the Treasurer. And it’s because it’s not a revenue-producing tax that he is prepared to share the proceeds of it with the municipalities. With any real revenue-producing tax, he’d never dream of saying we’ll give you 50 per cent of it. Only with this particular tax, where he doesn’t expect to raise any money, is he going to share 50-50 with the municipalities.

I have the statements prepared by the research director in our caucus office. I am sure the government will be pleased to know that we are losing Marion Bryden, the director of research. Over the years, I think they have felt that the main thrust and validity of the statements which we have made was because they knew she had a hand in them. I’d like to say, however, that she will be available to us from time to time on a consulting basis and our figures in the future will be just as accurate, and the understanding of it will be just as certain as when she was with us.

Marion Bryden has sent me a memorandum setting out the assumptions on which the government table is based and giving all of the examples. This, of course, raises the same question that my colleagues in the Liberal Party raised a little while ago -- that the table is based on the proposition that this tax is deductible for federal tax purposes, that there has been no affirmative statement by the minister’s counterpart in Ottawa that it will be deductible, that there may have been a statement in private but it certainly hasn’t been relayed to the public by this minister, and in the course of his remarks I would hope that we would learn whether or not it will be deductible.

I think it is a significant point for those who are concerned about it. Let me quote just the one paragraph from Marion Bryden’s memorandum:

“If the tax is not deductible, the effective tax rates on persons and corporations not in the business of land dealing could go up from 65.3 per cent to 80.7 per cent for individuals and private corporations, and from 80.1 per cent to 110.2 per cent for public corporations.”

However, she went on to say that all the figures used in the table are premised upon what might be called an unrealistic view of the real world -- that the assumptions on which they are based are such that they do not correspond to any known situation which might exist in the business world.

I heard what the House leader had to say. The fact of the matter is that this memorandum might well have been, with the consent of the minister, attached to the budget papers, so that the table in its bare statement might have had the support of some examples, as the government is so prone to use when it’s really being direct about what it believes it can accomplish. But, no, even this kind of minor calculation using a basis of $10,000 was not used to provide any information to the public about how it works. I simply ask, will the tax be deductible or will it not?

But my major point, Mr. Speaker, has been very simple. This tax; the government’s purpose in introducing it; the policies which lay behind it, if I can dignify what little thoughtful rumination may have gone into the introduction of this tax, illustrate totally to this party the bankruptcy of the housing and rental policies of the government of the Province of Ontario, and is the principal amongst many reasons which I tried to outline at some length, why we will oppose this bill on second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we could have a motion to adjourn this debate.

Mr. Paterson moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR: NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2

Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No. 2, by Mr. Ewen.

Resolution: That the government place before this House appropriate legislation to provide that all vehicular traffic must come to a full stop when encountering school buses with signals flashing on any roads where the posted speed limit exceeds 30 miles per hour and that a comprehensive safety information programme be undertaken to acquaint motorists, bus drivers, children, teachers and parents with all aspects of the rules.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth North moves resolution No. 2 standing in his name on the order paper.

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): Mr. Speaker, I want to address the House this afternoon on a matter that affects all citizens of Ontario. This issue concerns the public safety of school children, our most precious resource, in their movement to and from school.

Although the number of accidents in the Province of Ontario involving school buses over the past few years have, thankfully, been relatively rare, they have involved injury and loss of children’s lives and brought tragedy to the lives of parents and families.

As far as I am concerned, we cannot be satisfied with the present situation, with the loss of life, because it is those children who will forge the future development of Ontario. I think we owe an increasing gratitude and appreciation to all those people who help in getting our children safely to and from school. More than this, we have an obligation to assist them in ensuring the continued safety of our children. We must design rules that will make their jobs easier.

I think we must be forward looking and anticipate future needs and techniques for preventing unnecessary death or injury to our children. That is why I am presenting to the members, for their consideration, this resolution, namely that all vehicles must come to a full stop when approaching school buses with signals flashing, on any roads where the posted speed limit exceeds 30 miles per hour.

Why do I feel such a resolution is urgent and necessary? Because there has been entirely too much confusion surrounding the present legislation.

Under section 120 of the Highway Traffic Act, any motorist must come to a full stop where a school bus is stopped on a highway on which the maximum speed is greater than 35 miles per hour to receive or discharge school children. Under this section, the bus driver must activate his signal flashers for both oncoming and rear traffic. He continues to operate these red flashing lights until the children have crossed the highway. The motorist cannot proceed until the school bus moves forward or the signal lights are no longer flashing.

It would appear that section 120 is clear in its intent and that no problems of interpretation exist. However, such is not the case. The section causes confusion for at least three reasons: 1. A variety of speed limits is in effect; 2. definitions of median strip or divided highway requires greater classification; 3. Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa-Carleton have passed bylaws under subsection (4) of section 120 eliminating the whole section.

There are no provisions under section 120 to protect school children in built-up areas where a municipality lowers its speed limit in a built-up area below 40 miles per hour. There is no provision in the Act to have motorists come to a full stop. Children run the risk of a possible accident. The Act is simply silent on this matter.

What do we do to protect children in construction zones? In many cases, speed limits in construction zones vary according to the extent or scope of the construction being undertaken. Temporary speed limits may range down to 15 or 20 miles per hour. Surely in this situation, common sense would dictate the driver’s behaviour and sense of responsibility. Yet experience tells us never to rely on anybody’s common sense. The confusion remains, the Act is silent.

What we need is clear and precise language and uniform principles to minimize the potential traffic hazards. We cannot afford to gamble with children’s lives.

If the Act clearly states that a motorist must stop on highways where the speed limit is over 35 miles per hour, there is no problem for many parts of Ontario. But what concerns me is that the 35-mile-per-hour speed limit is rather an odd figure that does not really conform with speed limits in urban and built up areas.

Upon entering a municipality, the speed limit is generally set at 30 miles per hour. That is why I advocate a change in the speed limit to 30 miles per hour or a reduced speed in construction zones within urban areas. Motorists do not have to obey section 120 of the Act. What governs them is common sense and the municipality sets the limit. Motorists do not have to come to a full stop because the Act does not require it.

What causes even greater confusion is the definition of median strip. By definition, median strip means a strip of pavement more than 10 feet wide, a physical barrier such as a guardrail or an unpaved strip of ground, presumably of any width.

Near Waterdown in my riding, we have what the Ontario Provincial Police call a raised singing median designed to warn motorists who come too close to the coming traffic because the tires of the vehicles sing out when the car moves over this section of pavement. Now the problems with this particular stretch of road create an unbelievable situation involving school buses. Many drivers think they are on a divided highway. The police are charging approaching motorists who pass school buses in this section because the judges do not agree as to whether a raised singing median constitutes a divided highway. Some motorists are being convicted, some acquitted, for the same act.

Now I realize that this situation is not unique in Wentworth North. I am sure similar cases must exist in many parts of Ontario. We must have a clear interpretation of what is meant by median strip and do away with the resulting confusion of different interpretations.

Earlier this year, I had the good fortune to participate in the home and school-sponsored meeting at Central Public School in Flamborough. This was a meeting of concerned parents, school board officials, bus drivers, policemen and other representatives of the community, dealing with bus safety of school children. It was a lively and worth- while experience, Mr. Speaker, because many good suggestions came forth that are worthy of consideration. These people wanted to see clear definitions of median strips and of a divided highway. One police constable proposed that where children were not crossing the street or highway only the rear lights of the school bus need be activated. Another representative pointed out that unnecessary traffic congestion could result within the limits of the community.

It was generally agreed that the idea of speed limits should be looked at very carefully. Either the speed limit should be reduced or the motorist should be required to stop under all circumstances. Most people also agreed that the law, whatever it is, should be uniform throughout Ontario. Certainly the grassroots are moving in that direction.

My colleague, the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Kennedy), recently told me he has received a resolution from the Mississauga Traffic Safety Council requesting that the legislation be amended so that all traffic must stop regardless of posted speed limits, and that the bus drivers be required to activate the flashing signals whenever children are getting on or off buses.

Before I speak to that specific motion, I believe that whatever is the law finally agreed upon, Ontario should undertake and persuade other states and provinces to adopt similar legislation. Every year school children are going further and further away on field trips and month-long journeys to other provinces and states. To have legislation that was similar in all jurisdictions would make the task of bus drivers that much easier.

I would urge the Ontario government get this topic on the agenda at the next provincial transportation minister’s conference. Though I advocate in my resolution that traffic must come to a full stop in areas where the speed limit exceeds 30 miles per hour, and though I realize that making all traffic stop, under any circumstances, may create traffic problems, I would not be adverse to even what the hon. member for Essex South, Mr. Eaton, said: --

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Middlesex South.

Mr. Ewen: Is it Middlesex South? I apologize.

If any hon. member wanted to make the resolution to this amendment read that the motorist must stop upon meeting a school bus with signals flashing, I would not oppose it. Whatever the outcome, I feel most strongly that the law regarding this matter must be uniform throughout Ontario and that the confusion surrounding the present legislation be eliminated.

The intent and principle of the legislation must be clearly understood by everyone. What is even more significant than uniformity of application is the method of ensuring that our citizens understand and know what is involved. I strongly urge that a comprehensive and well co-ordinated safety programme must be undertaken. When every citizen is fully aware of his obligations it will help to reduce potential traffic hazards even more. Everybody will be working with the same set of rules and our children will be the beneficiaries. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Speaker, during the last session I introduced a bill which, if passed, would have provided more adequate legislation to safeguard Ontario students who travel, through no choice of their own, to and from school by school bus. This bill addressed itself to the two major areas where safety demanded legislative action, the school bus operator and the school bus itself. As providence would have it, the day after the bill received second reading, two school buses were involved in accidents and later that same week a further school bus accident was reported.

Questions arising from these accidents and many more that have occurred since made it inevitable that school boards re-examine some safety aspects in its whole school system. Also the Ontario government should revamp existing legislation and provide much more adequate legislation to fill the void that is so evident in the Highway Traffic Act pertaining to school bus safety.

I am pleased that a member on the government side of the House is taking some action, even though his resolution of the entire problem is far from being complete. I am hoping he may have more persuasive powers than we in the opposition appear to have to alert the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) to the fact that all is not well in the transportation of our school children.

The law requiring vehicles to stop when the school bus is taking on or discharging school children originally applied to highways outside a city, town or village. Urban growth created problems for the motorist in identifying municipal boundaries for the purpose of the law, and for that reason the Highway Traffic Act was amended to require stopping of all traffic in speed zones over 35 miles per hour when the lights of the school bus were flashing. The principle behind the rule is that the flashing lights on school buses do not provide absolute protection to the child, but should be used as an aid to crossing the road safely. In other words, although the child is under the protection of the flashing light, every precaution should be taken to ensure a safe crossing.

It is on this principle that the stopping rules do not apply in zones of 35 miles per hour and under since there are other aids available to make a safe crossing, such as stop signs at intersections, signalized intersections, crosswalks, and so on. Also, urban municipalities, especially the large urban centres, have serious concern for the possible obstruction and delay in traffic flow that would result from the application of the stopping rule.

I am somewhat in agreement with the member for Wentworth North that the speed zone to be considered for this particular piece of legislation be 30 miles per hour to make it consistent with the speed limit that is posted in most towns. I would go further and recommend that bus drivers be required to activate their flashing light when unloading or loading passengers regardless of the speed zone.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great deal of confusion related to vehicular driver responsibility when approaching a stopped school bus. The driver at the present time knows he must stop when the bus is loading or unloading passengers in the rural areas, but he is not sure what procedure he must follow when he approaches a stopped bus in the urban areas. This confusion undoubtedly leads to accidents. It could be avoided by making it mandatory that all vehicles must stop when approaching a stopped school bus with its lights flashing, regardless of the speed zone.

To say that such a ruling within a 35 mile zone might constitute a possible obstruction and delay in traffic flow is unacceptable as far as I am concerned. While I do not agree that this is a very great possibility since school buses do not necessarily operate during rush hours, or on the most heavily travelled roads, particularly in urban centres, I feel in any event that to utilize this argument against the requirement of flashing lights on school buses in 35 miles-per-hour speed zones and under is putting cars before kids.

Mr. Speaker, you are no doubt aware that a committee on the cost of education was set up in 1971 to examine all costs relating to education in Ontario.

Reference was made in the interim report to the fact that more than half of the school board’s questionnaires stated that the requirements related to flashing lights and stopped school buses were not well known to the public, and that the growth of semi-urban areas with varying speed limits added to safety information programme of some kind be undertaken to acquaint motorists, bus drivers, children, teachers and parents with all aspects of the rules.

I would suggest that road signs be posted similar to that used to warn drivers of crosswalks. Such road signs should read that traffic must stop when approaching school buses with their lights flashing.

I also feel that both parents and teachers should bear some responsibility in training children to wait at the curb, after alighting from a bus, until the bus moves on; as happens in urban centres with municipal transportation.

There are perhaps other ways in which students and drivers and everybody involved could be alerted, particularly the general public, as to the proper procedure to follow. I think there should be, in large bold print on buses, the fact that all vehicles must stop when the lights are flashing. And ample warning should be given by the bus driver when he is going to stop a bus so that vehicles can stop when they are approaching that particular bus.

I could say more about this business of bus safety, but time is a limiting factor. I will be speaking on a bill a little later in this session, when I will be dealing much more completely with this whole business of school bus safety.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, in supporting this bill, as I intend to do, I would pass the observation that it is incomplete. I have already discussed this with the hon. member who has the resolution in his name. I feel it does not go far enough; and he also seemed to be just a bit inclined to extend it. If he had had second thoughts, he would perhaps bring in a different resolution at the present time than he brought in originally. That is the kind of thing that I would like to emphasize; that the bill itself, while good, does not go far enough in my opinion.

In other words, it seems to me that what has been said here by two speakers now, or hinted at in some measure, is valid; that we ought to think in terms not so much of 35- or 30-mile-an-hour speed limits posted, but in terms of the safety of the child and in terms of saying in our legislation in some way that whenever those lights are flashing the traffic must stop.

Now this, of course, would leave it up to the judgement of the driver in some cases. I think that would have to involve driver training, adequate driver training, and perhaps something more I will mention in a moment. But I see no reason, if the bus is stopping at a school, say on the right hand side of the road, why those lights should flash and traffic should be held up. In other words if it is a low speed area -- and some are as low as 15 miles per hour posted -- then the traffic could very well move past the bus without any danger to the children concerned, because they are getting out of the door and going directly into the school on that side of the street or that side of the road.

If it involves crossing a road or crossing a street, then of course, the lights must flash, not only at the back but at the front of the bus. It seems to me that those lights should spell out in very clear letters that word “STOP” so that all traffic does so. And of course that does occur in many cases as far as the buses are concerned, but something more might be done here.

The bus routes are well known. Picking up is one problem, but certainly where the bus stops to discharge passengers these spots are well known and those spots are so used day after day, either at the time when children are discharged to go to school or picked up after school is out.

If necessary, I think we could well think in terms of municipal bylaws being passed saying that certain things must happen at those spots; but what those things should be would have to be determined by the particular circumstances at those locations. It may be that signs should be erected there which say that when a bus stops all traffic must stop at this line. However, those are things which have to be worked out in detail.

There is no reason why our school bus drivers should not have the kind of safety programme which would enable them to make the kind of judgements required as to when a flashing light should be turned on. This is not a complex thing. It’s a simple matter, and any driver who is competent to drive a bus should be competent enough to know exactly when lights should be turned on at particular locations. As far as that is concerned, I think this could be left to the judgement of the bus driver.

We could also have with this, a safety programme on TV which drives home the fact to all people that whenever flashing lights appear on school buses then traffic must stop in the direction of those flashing lights. Sometimes the lights are only flashed at the rear of the bus, and sometimes both. In any case, the citizens must be informed that they must stop when the lights flash.

I don’t know that much more needs to be said, Mr. Speaker, about this whole matter. We have had a lot of discussion in this House and committee about the structure of buses. I don’t think that is involved, particularly, in this resolution. Certainly our standards have improved in recent years. The Canadian Standards Association has outlined certain standards for school buses, and those standards have been voluntarily adopted by the bus manufacturers, perhaps to stave off higher standards.

In any case, in 1971 they did start building the school buses to new standards. Of course that doesn’t solve the problems of the old school buses which are still on the road and will be for many years to come -- buses built without adequate rivets or without adequate fastening for the top of the chassis. They are jerry-built, as has been so often said by people in this field. They are still running and they will be running.

But with all that, I do want to record the fact that school bus fatalities have been the lowest of any mode of transportation, including air, so that does say something. We do get a lot of kids smashed up inside the vehicle; their teeth are knocked out on the rails behind the seats and accidents of various kinds do occur. But as far as fatality is concerned, the record in this field is extremely good. Yet, as one of the members has said, as long as one child is killed then certainly the standards should be tightened up.

Now, I understand we have a committee at work to upgrade the standards for school buses and that this committee will be bringing in a report before too long. I would hope that from the time this committee reports there will not be too great a lag until legislation is brought in and new standards established for new school buses on the road, and perhaps to upgrade the structure of buses which are on the road and which were built a long time ago.

Certainly there is no reason we can’t have common legislation and common standards right across the country. As the hon. member has said, the ministers of transportation meet regularly and there is no reason, in this field as in so many others, why common standards cannot be discussed and arrived at right across the country. Thus no matter where a Canadian drives, he knows the rules and regulations in connection with school buses are the same universally, and that helps. Just the same as we are now getting universal traffic signs, there is no reason we can’t get universal rules and regulations dealing with the safety of our children who have to ride buses.

Mr. Speaker, I think that completes what I have to say on this resolution. I hoped the resolution would have gone farther, but I think we have all had our say as far as that is concerned. We hope that not only the 30-mile limit will be encompassed in new legislation, but that legislation will also be introduced regarding lower speeds. Every child must be protected, and all traffic must stop wherever the driver feels in his or her judgement that the flasher lights should go on and traffic be directed to stop.

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

Mr. Eaton: I am pleased to rise and speak to this resolution and to have the opportunity to second it and to bring it onto the floor. As I indicated to my colleague at the time I agreed to second the resolution, I did not fully agree with it, because like the former members I felt it was not going far enough. I felt the resolution should state that traffic should stop at any time for flashing lights, no matter what the speed limit might be, and that this could be worked out if drivers used some judgement.

There are certainly times when, as the previous speaker indicated, they do not need to use the flashing lights to stop traffic, such as when they are unloading in front of schools and going directly into the schools. But at other times I feel there should be no speed limit involved.

I think of instances in my own riding -- of many villages that are on highways. Within a distance of maybe 100 yards you have two or three stops -- one stop is in a 40-mile-an-hour zone, the next, perhaps the distance to the other side of this Legislature, is in a 30-mile-an-hour zone. The children get off that bus and have to cross the highway, yet the driver hasn’t been able to use those flashing lights to stop the traffic, whereas he could if he had stopped 100 feet back up the road.

Believe you me though, the traffic on that highway is not slowing down from 40 to 30 in that 100 feet. I think the flashing lights are very appropriate, in many instances below the 30-mile speed limit, in many villages such as these on various highways throughout Ontario. Certainly within the city in some instances it may not be appropriate, but I think if we leave this to the judgement of the drivers, as has been indicated, then it could be worked out that it wouldn’t affect the traffic to any extent within the cities.

I would like to bring to the attention of the Legislature the support that is prevalent for this around the various areas. I posed a question on this in my riding and the response came back over 75 per cent in favour of stopping for the flashing lights at any time, not just when the speed limit is 30 or 35 miles an hour.

I would also like to put some emphasis on the education and the co-ordination of the safety programme that my colleague suggested in the resolution. I think that special emphasis has to be made at the end of August and early September to point out to people that students are coming back in. I think that during the summer period, when those school buses aren’t on the road, people tend to become a little lax, and perhaps new drivers have come onto the roads in that period of time. Every effort should be made to draw to the attention of the public that these school buses are back on the road in September and that we should be stopping for the flashing lights.

This legislation, hopefully, will be brought in. I assure the member for Huron we do have more influence on the government side than he does, and we are doing everything we can to try and influence this decision.

Mr. Young: Let’s see how much power members have then.

Mr. Eaton: I also feel there are many things that can be improved in our safety programmes. I think we can have more involvement in our schools through things like home and school clubs. They can help not only to carry the safety programme to the children who are in the schools, but by involving the public generally parents themselves become more safety-conscious.

I think right now of a particular instance in my own area where an accident happened within sight of the village limits, and shortly after a safety committee was formed. Some 200 residents have participated in that safety programme. They have brought about some changes in their village, and I think they can bring about many more. This can happen in many communities -- but we have to be continuously conscious of this safety element in the programme.

I think numerous visits to our schools by municipal and provincial police would be beneficial. The Ontario Provincial Police do provide an excellent safety programme. All that is necessary is the request of a local school to have them come to that school and participate. I think if this is continued and emphasized, the OPP are only too pleased to take part in the programme.

I think there are countless ways of devising learning materials that will have an impact on both the adults and the children regarding these programmes, and I hope that we can devise ways of doing this so that we will work at the safety aspect of it once the legislation is changed.

I think the key to many of these changes is involvement by the people in the community. The people in my riding are certainly involved. They want cars to stop for flashing lights at any speed. I certainly support them in that and suggest that the government should bring this change about as quickly as possible.

Mr. Riddell: We’ll see what persuasive power the hon. member has now -- but he should enjoy it while he’s got it because it is not going to last.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): I am pleased to be able to participate in debate on this resolution presented by the member for Wentworth North. I think it is a very timely resolution. However, I feel, as one of the previous members stated, that it was done in somewhat of a hurry, and possibly because of the recent amount of correspondence from a person by the name of Mr. Hugh Crothers. So I think some credit might go to Mr. Crothers for seeing that such a resolution was placed on the order paper.

Mr. Riddell: Right on.

Mr. Edighoffer: I think this resolution, although it is not comprehensive enough, is very important because it involves the safety of our young people. As I read the resolution it encompasses really two areas: The one is where a bus should use its flashing red lights, and the other is in regard to a safety information programme.

Just to deal very briefly with the safety information programme, I feel this should be extended no matter what happens to the other part of the resolution. As I understand it now, when legislation is passed and a safety programme is produced a definite routine is followed. I believe a press release is issued by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, possibly Transportation and Communications safety officers or consultants -- whatever you call them -- go into schools to make this programme known; also the OPP are notified, and they include such things in their safety programmes; and of course, the school boards are notified and they, in turn, advise the school bus operators.

To me, this still is not getting the message across as it should. This, of course, was pointed out by most members who have spoken, and particularly by the school bus safety expert who sits on my right, the member for Huron.

This, I think, reaches many of the people who are involved in riding the buses or who have children riding on buses, or those who are operating the buses. I know there is tremendous confusion at the moment in the minds of the people generally. In my own area I think of one example where we have a stretch of highway through a small municipality, approximately two miles in length, with a 35 mile-an-hour speed limit. I have noticed on many occasions that vehicles do stop behind, or practically beside the school bus, as it pulls off the road to some extent; they still stop whether the lights are flashing or not.

I also think of the tourists travelling around Ontario, naturally during the school season and not just in the summer time. Tourists must have difficulty with the legislation as it stands now because, when one looks at the Highway Traffic Act, it states that there must be some type of lettering on the rear of the vehicle, but nothing on the front.

Also, as the member who introduced the resolution stated, there is considerable confusion on four-lane highways or highways with a median strip. I think, again, this is one place where there is much confusion and it must be clarified in very short order.

I understand the ministry is considering putting signs on the highways which would read: “Motorists must stop for school buses when signals are flashing in both directions.” This may be of some assistance, but it will take a lot of signs to be effective and the motorist will not know if this covers all highways or not. This will have, I think, some effect in allowing people to understand the law, but they still will not be aware of the limit if the government accepts the recommendation to reduce the 35 mile limit to the 30 mile limit.

As we are talking of safety and human life, I recall my experience on the snowmobile committee. The laws for snowmobile use on highways were very confusing and the committee felt that the present laws should be abolished and the House should pass an appropriate overall general piece of legislation to simplify it for individual travelling on the thoroughfare. This, of course, could have exemptions which could be easily identified for the motorist.

Really, in my own mind, I feel I would be most interested in considering one of the possibilities which the member intimated or alluded to, in his remarks. That is the possibility that legislation would be drafted which would allow bus drivers to activate their flashing red signals legally on any highway. There is a possibility, of course, that there could be an exemption and that this would not be necessary if there was a special bus-pickup lane in any municipality.

In looking over the Highway Traffic Act, I found that subsection 4 of section 120 is certainly one which makes it most confusing for many people particularly in the large builtup urban areas. By lowering the speed limit from 35 to 30 with this section in, I think we’d only find that more municipalities would apply for exemption from subsection 2 of section 120.

I think I would certainly be in favour of school buses being able to have their flashing lights activated on any roadway.

I talked earlier today to the local board of education in my area. They seem to be quite content with the recommendation made in the resolution. I know they have discussed this matter to some extent, as have many other groups, such as the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations, and I think the Teachers Federation and so on down the line.

There is one suggestion I might make, Mr. Speaker. I know that in some states school buses are equipped with stop signs which can be lowered out of the left side of the bus, and which sort of resemble the gates that go down in front of a railway crossing. I think this is something which should be looked at, because this would certainly tell motorists what they’re supposed to do, especially when there is so much confusion in their minds.

Mr. Speaker, I think those are the remarks I would have on this resolution. I’m certainly in favour of the one part, that an improved safety programme is much needed. I would say the reduction from the 35 mile speed limit to 30 would be of some assistance, but I would certainly look much more closely at the resolution and be much more sympathetic if it stated that all traffic should stop when the red flashing lights are activated on school buses on any highway. Thank you very much.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Mr. Speaker, one must support the principle and the feeling behind this resolution, because it deals with the safety of children on their way to and from school.

If one would remember the debate on the original section 120 of the Highway Traffic Act covering this subject, there were many pros and cons as to whether the Act as devised would suffice as to the purpose designed for it. If I remember correctly, there were many who thought having traffic stopped in both directions on highways where the speed limits went as high as 60 miles per hour at that time would create greater hazards to children, to the bus itself and to the people in the bus.

If I remember correctly, most members, even from the government side, and the minister introducing the section at that time, felt there was some possibility the Act as devised might cause more accidents than it might avoid. But from some of the research they had done they felt it was necessary to protect youngsters -- at that time we were talking about youngsters in grades 5, 6, 7 and 8 -- who, left on the side of the road, could not judge the speed of the traffic doing 60 miles an hour and would attempt to get across, or would be playing and get hit. It wasn’t, as some felt, to protect students in the higher grades, the older students.

From the adoption of that section, we felt the trial period would be followed very closely and the researchers in the Department of Highways at that time -- now it is the Ministry of Transportation and Communications -- would be following pretty closely what was happening and making reports to the Legislature as to the need for a change in the Act to correct anything that had happened that wasn’t adequately covered that Act.

What we have to remember is the human element involved in all lands of accidents, industrial accidents and so on, and particularly traffic accidents. As the member for Wentworth North is aware, I believe we have now registered our third or fourth traffic fatalities in Hamilton this year; two of them I am aware of specifically because they happened in my own riding.

One involved a girl who was crushed under the wheels of a truck. She had ridden a bicycle for many years and just happened to buy a new 10-speed bicycle. I guess she got a little enthused, got going a little too fast after getting used to it, and scraped the truck and fell under the wheels.

The other case in my riding happened just last week and involved a woman who had crossed the street at the same corner for many years to go to a small variety shop across the street from where she lived. Her family have said in the last few days she often spoke of her fear of having to cross that corner to do some light shopping, but nevertheless, through natural habit, occupation of the mind or something or other, she stepped off the curb and into the path of a car coming on the inside lane. She was struck and, of course killed. So the human element is with us all the time.

In looking at this situation as it relates to school buses, as has been mentioned, the resolution only makes a slight change. It changes the term “35” to “30,” which will make a difference, based on the arguments of the previous speakers. But if we are going to tighten up at all on this situation, then we have to do two things: provide runoffs on the road, and make it the responsibility of the bus driver to see that the children do not cross until the traffic is clear.

The driver must get himself out of the bus and be in charge of the situation and have the power to say to those youngsters: “You must, if you live on that side of the road, go now while I’m here before I move my bus.” Because if we look through some of the records, children have been let out of the bus safely and the bus has pulled away and gone on its way. Then the children have attempted to cross and have been struck by an automobile travelling under the normal right of way of the highway.

So I think the human element comes into the picture strongly. There has to be some stronger responsibility on the driver to have the children under control. Further, the possibility of having pull-offs built into the highways so that the bus has to get off the road entirely could be considered.

With that I would support the principle and the thought behind the resolution because it is a safety measure and involves the lives of children.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peel South.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, since there are a few minutes left, I would like to speak for two or three minutes in support of the resolution and my colleague for Wentworth North who introduced it.

As he mentioned, the Mississauga traffic council did endorse this change. I think it’s been a subject of discussion and controversy perhaps at every safety traffic council meeting since the original legislation was introduced. I remember a previous Minister of Transport, Irwin Haskett, being on an open-line radio show. The whole thing came in for discussion, including the confusion and the difficulties. Perhaps the member for Yorkview recalls, was it during his tenure this was brought in? I see the member nods so my recollection is accurate there.

Anyway, from the traffic council in Mississauga, this went forward to the full council. They endorsed it and sent it along to me urging that the minister be invited to take into account their suggestion and to make appropriate legislation to change it much in accordance with the resolution.

Also, I think all members received a letter from a Mr. Crothers, Crothers Machinery I think is the firm name. Obviously he has a very genuine concern for the safety of our students or he wouldn’t have gone to the trouble and effort he did to bring this to the members’ attention. I don’t know Mr. Crothers, but I know I’ve spoken with the member for Wentworth North who mentioned his concern, so I think he would perhaps receive the minutes or contents of this debate with some gratification. I just hope it does lead to change.

There are two or three things we need to take into account though. It’s the real risk, not only with school bus flashing lights, but crosswalks and other things, which may foster in our children a false sense of security. There is always a danger as soon as you step outside your door. It’s just an ongoing process of providing the best protection we can for our children.

I think the member for Yorkview mentioned the matter of impeding traffic. Unnecessary impeding of traffic can backfire -- I don’t mention that as a pun -- and create more problems than might be resolved.

The resolution mentions the stopping of traffic on any road. Some roads have a broad shoulder. Even if a bus isn’t on the travelled portion and is pulled well off with lights flashing I think we’re still going to have a sense of confusion among motorists if the reason isn’t made very clear.

I am told there are occasions when a bus will stop for traffic lights which are controlling the ordinary traffic and will put on the flashing lights. As one of the other spokesmen said there needs to be some education of drivers. I think any legislation that might come forward now can only improve that which exists. There is a real need there. I would urge, along with this, that we don’t add to the confusion, that we bring in a bill -- and I would urge the minister to do this -- that clarifies and makes the situation much less confused than it is, doing the very best job that can be done on it and recognizing that one can’t guarantee 100 per cent the safety of all our children just through new legislation. There is certainly room for improvement, and, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the minister to do this.

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

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make a few comments concerning the resolution. Let me first read the resolution in, so that in case someone has the opportunity to read any portion of the comments in the House they will at least know what we were talking about.

Mr. Eaton: It has been read.

Mr. B. Newman: The resolution of the member for Wentworth North was that the government place before the House appropriate legislation to provide that all vehicular traffic must come to a full stop when encountering school buses with signals flashing on any roads where the posted speed limits exceed 30 mph; and that a comprehensive safety information programme be undertaken to acquaint motorists, bus drivers, children, teachers and parents with all aspects of the rules.

Mr. Speaker, every speaker that has made comment so far today has agreed with the resolution. We have had now, including myself, eight different members in the House. I don’t think any resolution presented in this House at any time has had so much interest and concern on the part of the members. Now that three government members have had the opportunity to speak, I would hope they would get the ear of the Minister of Transportation and Communications and show that there was this much concern in the House and this much agreement in the House that the minister could come or should come or would come and introduce legislation that would at least meet the problem in some significant fashion.

As it is today, Mr. Speaker, there is so much confusion a driver doesn’t know whether he should be stopping behind the school bus or not. He doesn’t know whether there is a 30 or 35 or 45-mile speed limit. The confusion is absolutely unbelievable.

It is not only confusion on the part of the bus driver as to whether he should be putting on his flashing lights or not, but there is also confusion of the driver who is following and there is confusion likewise of the student who is getting off the bus as to just exactly what one is to do. There is so much confusion I think clarification is necessary.

Rather than simply go as far as the member for Wentworth North goes, I think it would be better to take the recommendation of the member for Huron, who has spoken time and time again in this House on bus safety and who is very knowledgeable of the subject. He suggests that once the lights are flashing, regardless of the speed limit, then vehicles approaching from either side of the road must stop.

He doesn’t say it must stop under all conditions, because if it happens to be a divided highway naturally one wouldn’t expect the cars to be stopping on the opposite side of the highway. Under normal circumstances and where most of these buses are travelling down country roads -- not only down country roads but down most country roads -- his recommendation or suggestion is that once the flashing lights are on, regardless of the speed which is posted for traffic to travel, the vehicles from both directions must come to a stop.

If there were bays provided at select spots where the bus could pull right off to the side of the road then I think some of the problem could be resolved. Then possibly the bus driver may not have to put on flashing lights. But I agree with the suggestion of the member from Hamilton East that the bus driver has a responsibility for the safety of the students not only while he is driving that bus, but also when the students leave the bus. He has the responsibility to see that youngsters get safely across the highway and are not interfered with in any way, shape or form.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things concerning the buses that does lead to a false sense of security is that the buses are identified by colour, but that colour is not solely used by school buses. When buses have seen their better days and are no longer used for the transportation of children, quite often they are sold to construction companies or companies that use them for transporting workers. Often they don’t bother repainting the bus -- they still use it with all its attachments and so forth -- and then you have problems like the one that did occur in the county of Essex.

A young student noticed a yellow bus coming along, and thinking it was the bus she was waiting for stepped out into the road. It happened to be a bus transporting workers to a site, the driver didn’t see the student and didn’t stop. The young lady was killed -- a most unfortunate accident.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, I think this should be added to this resolution or considered when the minister brings in legislation. The colour of the bus should be restricted. It should be the one colour, the yellow that is used at present, but upon the sale of any type of school bus to anyone, that vehicle should not be allowed in operation until the colour has been changed. That would eliminate confusion arising from youngsters seeing a yellow bus and thinking it a school vehicle.

Spearheading the idea of a single colour for a bus is a fine lady, a fine, concerned citizen in Essex county, who is on the school board -- Mrs. Rita Boretsky. The local councils have endorsed this resolution asking for a single colour for buses. They have suggested the ministry do that.

We hope the ministry not only acts on the resolution of the member for Wentworth North but also takes into consideration Mrs. Rita Boretsky’s suggestion -- that only the one colour be used on a school bus and on the transfer of ownership to some other concern that bus be repainted before it be put on the road. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Clerk of the House: The 8th order resuming the adjourned debate on Bill 25, An Act to Impose a Tax on Speculative Profits Resulting from the Disposition of Land.

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