The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.
LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT (CONCLUDED)
On section 22:
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. When we rose at 6 o’clock we were discussing subclause 2(a). Are there any further comments on this?
Shall this subsection stand as part of the bill?
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Oh, no way.
Mr. Chairman: All right. Those in favour of subsection (a) standing as part of the bill will please say “aye.”
Those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion the “ayes” have it.
Shall we stack this?
Mr. Singer: No, we are not stacking.
Mr. Chairman: Can we not stack it with some of the later sections?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chairman: Call in the members.
The committee divided on whether subsection 2(a) of section 23 should stand as part of the bill, which was approved on the following vote:
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 40, the “nays” 19.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion carried.
Subsection (b). The member for Kitchener.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, my comments are on subsection (g). It may be that the other subsections may well pass --
Mr. Chairman: Anything before (g) -- (b), (c), (d), (e), (f)? All right, subsection (g), then. The member for Kitchener.
Mr. Breithaupt: I would like some information from the minister as to the persons he intends to designate with respect to this subsection. We realize, of course, that the minister will not be the one who is dealing with each and every one of these applications, but we are concerned as to the qualifications and responsibilities of the persons who will be given this authority. I would like the minister, if he would, to advise us as to how he sees the classification of people who are going to be given this particular authority. Can he advise us of what he expects their duties will be and how many might be involved? Can he give us any general view of this?
Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Yes, I can give you a few ideas. I would expect, Mr. Chairman, that the registrars of deeds and their deputies and some of the senior people in the registry offices, will be given authority formally to approve documents on my behalf, in my name, and the name of the ministry. I expect that within my ministry some number of people will be authorized to investigate and to examine documents submitted by applicants for approval. If they find them in order, presumably they will be filtered through maybe to a supervisory officer at another level for formal approval again --
Mr. Singer: Don’t go, John, we may need you.
Hon. Mr. Meen: -- on behalf of the minister. I can’t say at this stage what numbers of people would be involved in the actual execution of those releases. That will have to be worked out as we work out the regulations and the actual mechanics of the handling of the many applications that I expect will come through the ministry channels in the months ahead.
Mr. Breithaupt: I think, Mr. Chairman, to take an example in my own particular registry office in Waterloo North, the registrar and his deputy in one of the fastest growing and busiest areas of the province certainly have substantial duties to perform at the present time. One might well expect that you are going to have to require some increment in staff and persons of a somewhat senior level who are quite well versed in procedures to have this matter work out.
Have you made any provision now for increases in staff that will be either placed on strength directly as the present staff now is in the registry office, or will be placed as an increment to your own staff to be seconded, to the registry offices or the other areas where they are going to be needed? How many more staff persons might you expect to require at the moment and have you made provision for obtaining them?
Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, our estimate is approximate only at the moment. I anticipate that the administration of this work may take two or three dozen competent personnel. Many of them will come from within the assessment ranks of the ministry as that work winds down. As for the actual numbers we will wind up with, I don’t think the member is really talking about that end of things so much as the inspection of documents and the approval of submissions.
It is a fairly complex mechanism, if he understands that within all of this function is not just the establishment of values of real estate as of a certain date and the increments of value that may have been added in as allowable under maintenance costs and that sort of thing, but a number who must be capable of evaluating and establishing the validity of the documentation submitted.
Then, as that filters through, I would expect perhaps half a dozen within the ministry who would have a supervisory capacity to be the ones with the final approval of the various releases and the documentation that would go forward under the name of the minister. Again, this is very approximate in my estimations now because I am not fully conversant with the way in which we would expect this all to work out.
I think over the next few months we are all going to have to expect some variation and some sophistication in the way in which this will work. My staff tell me there are 32 different staff offices for assessment in which these matters would be dealt with. To that extent and in that end of the activity there would probably be upwards of 32 or more different personnel who would by actual designation by name or by rank or office have the authority to do this.
You will notice under this section that it is broad enough to cover a designated officer or class of officers. It is the intention to have it in those two categories so that you can actually designate a person or you designate a class of officers or persons to handle the work.
Mr. Chairman: Subsections (g), (h), (i) and (j) agreed to.
Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): On subsection (k) I have expressed my views to the minister in the ecumenical spirit which has permeated this debate right from its inception. I am not prepared to call a vote on this particular item, provided the minister promises tonight to read my remarks earlier in the day on the strictures which I made on this particular section of the Act. But in that ecumenical spirit we will not call a vote.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.
Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the minister on this particular clause. It reads:
“The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make 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.”
Mr. Renwick: This is known as the “Family Compact” provision.
Mr. Taylor: I think this permits the ministry to inject some of the milk of human kindness in those areas --
Mr. Singer: Oh, come on. Come on!
Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Oh, you had your say.
Mr. Taylor: -- in those areas where I was quite disturbed that hardship might work to the detriment of many innocent persons of Ontario.
Mr. Singer: Isn’t that awful? Shame on you. I thought you had a little intelligence.
Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Where did you have lunch?
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Mr. Taylor: You might consider this a laundering section to clean up the Act, and I think it might very well be used for that purpose; and I can see where it could take care of many of the deficiencies of which I was concerned.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Downsview.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know how anyone can read subsection (k) and really accept it as some serious part of a taxing statute. Let’s listen to what it says:
“The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations providing for the relaxing of the strictness of this Act relative to the incidence of the tax hereunder in special circumstances where, without such relaxation, inconvenience or hardship might result or the development of designated land might be impeded.”
Can you imagine anything more ludicrous, more self-seeking, more self-serving, than a section such as that in a taxing statute, where inconvenience of the taxpayer might be sufficient to allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to remit the tax? What kind of nonsense is that?
Can the minister really get up and justify the thought that he should have the power, or that he and his colleagues should have the power, to say, “My good friend Joe has been inconvenienced and we are going to remit the tax”? Or they’ll remit part of it. Or it may be that, “Bill is not going to be able to develop his land, but Oscar should, and so we are going to remit Oscar’s tax but we are not going to remit Bill’s tax.” How do you do it? What is the test?
How, in honesty, in sincerity or in objectivity, or within any keeping of parliamentary process, can the minister in good conscience come to us and say, “Give me this kind of power. Give me the kind of power that will permit me to say that if someone is inconvenienced we can remit his tax”?
What is inconvenience? Is inconvenience that it is embarrassing to pay the tax, that you don’t like to pay the tax? I am sure the Chairman of the Management Board doesn’t like to pay taxes any more than I do; and if we go to the minister with long faces and say, “It is a terrible inconvenience that we should have to pay the tax -- ”
Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): That’s when you won’t get it back.
Mr. Singer: Well, maybe. That’s the power that you are asking for.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: We’ll double it on you.
Mr. Singer: Well, all right. It may be that you’ll be more successful than I until the fall of 1975; after that no more. It may be that you will be more convincing up to October of next year, but, seriously, is that any test? Is it reasonable and logical that this Legislature should empower the ministry to say we are going to remit a tax because it is inconvenient? What does it mean? What is inconvenience?
Mr. Taylor: This could rectify all your objections.
Mr. Singer: Does inconvenience mean we haven’t got enough money in the bank? We are not as rich as the member for Prince Edward-Lennox, who I think feels he has got a call. He is preaching for a call. There is about to be a ministry vacant; and if he can support the ministry, maybe somebody is going to hear and maybe he might be the Minister of Labour.
Mr. Taylor: Surely you are intelligent enough to understand that this can cure all your objections?
Mr. Singer: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox had a little independence in the earlier hearings of this bill. Tonight he is defending the indefensible. Mr. Chairman, this is as indefensible a section as I have ever seen in any statute. The government says, “Let us remit its implications if it is inconvenient.” There is no way that any honest member of this Legislature can vote in support of that. My colleagues and I are not going to vote in support of it.
Mr. Taylor: It injects hope.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section (k) stand as part of the bill? The member for York Centre.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Is there any precedent in taxing statutes whereby the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make forgiveness of this sort that might cause the inconvenience of taxpayers? I have never heard of such discretion. I thought that when it was a tax, it was a tax, and it is an obligation upon the taxpayer to pay it. Could the minister explain to us the basis for his thinking here?
Hon. Mr. Meen: I cannot tell the hon. member whether there is any other section identical to subsection (k).
Mr. Singer: Because there isn’t -- except in South Basutoland.
Hon. Mr. Meen: Will the hon. member for Downsview just pipe down and let me talk for a minute? I was polite enough while he was speaking.
Mr. Singer: Explain it. Explain this nonsense.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Meen: There is no comparable kind of legislation to this taxing statute, and what we do not want to do above all --
Mr. Singer: It is in South Basutoland.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): You are right on that. There is no comparable statute elsewhere.
Hon. Mr. Meen: All right. At least, the hon. member for York South and I are in agreement on one thing. One of the difficulties is, of course, that we do not want this legislation to be counter-productive.
I think we could have grouped subsection (k) with subsection (a) which is even broader, so if we passed (a) I don’t know how any hon. members could complain about subsection (k).
Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): We were complaining about (a) as well.
Hon. Mr. Meen: I would point out also that regardless of how broad in authority subsection (k) may sound, the fact of the matter is that the Lieutenant Governor’s orders in council are published for all to see --
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): After the fact.
Mr. Singer: Nonsense. After the fact.
Hon. Mr. Meen: -- and there would have to be some mighty good reasons for anything to fall under subsection (k) before any such exemption as that would be granted.
Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Give us an example of inconvenience.
Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection (k) stand as part of the bill?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of subsection (k) standing as part of the bill will please say “aye.”
Those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.
Shall we stack this with any possible future votes?
Mr. Singer: We are not stacking it, no. There is nothing to stack it with.
Mr. Chairman: Call in the members.
The committee divided on whether subsection 2(k) of section 23 should stand as part of the bill, which was approved on the following vote:
Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 37, the “nays” 21.
Mr. Chairman: I declare the subsection to stand as part of the bill.
Subsection (1).
Subsection 3.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): What about (1)?
Mr. Chairman: I just asked about (1).
Mr. Shulman: We didn’t hear you.
Mr. Chairman: Is there a comment on (1)?
Mr. Shulman: I think so. I missed (k) unfortunately; I had an hour’s speech on that one. On (1), how can you possibly bring in (1) here which says. If we left something out of the Act we don’t have to come back and amend the Act, we can just put it in the regulations”? Surely the minister should be embarrassed to bring in a provision like that. If you’ve left something out of the Act, amend the Act. You can’t give yourself broad regulations that allow you to do everything.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, yeah!
An hon. member: You weren’t here this afternoon.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: I would have liked to have been. Unfortunately, I missed it. If by some impossible error-- I can’t really see now it could have happened -- if by some terrible mischance there’s something in the bill that isn’t quite perfect, something he’s left out, will the minister explain why he can’t come back and amend the bill so it can be discussed by the opposition if there’s an error in it -- and why he wants this absolute power to be the tsar?
Mr. Taylor: You are just being facetious.
Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman --
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Hon. Mr. Meen: It’s regrettable that the hon. member missed the debate on the other subsections, because this might be said to be the string that ties the package. It’s the omnibus section which provides for anything that might be necessary to be included. We don’t know if we’d ever have to rely on this section, but when we’re involved with new legislation like this --
Mr. Singer: You don’t really need to. If it is convenient you can change it.
Hon. Mr. Meen: It’s essential that it be included. And I would just remind him, as I reminded other hon. members, that this is still pursuant to an order by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which is public.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: The Lieutenant Governor never refused you gentlemen anything. Can the minister tell me why he objects to coming back to this Legislature, which presumably has some influence in this province, and asking us for the amendments?
Hon. Mr. Meen: The House might not be sitting, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shulman: Did the minister ever think that if it was an emergency, he could call the House back? What about that possibility?
Hon. Mr. Meen: No. No way.
Mr. MacDonald: This whole bill is an emergency.
Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection (1) stand as part of the bill?
Mr. Shulman: I’d like to ask the minister --
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: We can’t even hear the hon. member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Yesterday -- gentleman, gentlemen, calm, calm!
Mr. Taylor: Why don’t you self-destruct?
Mr. Shulman: I get the Chairman of the Management Board settled down and you people have become eruptive.
Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): The member wants a quorum, doesn’t he?
Mr. Shulman: Not on that side.
Hon. Mr. Meen: You’ll lose your own troops though.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: Can the minister tell me, as I know he does everything by precedent and I can’t recall seeing a section like this in any other bill, are there subsections in other bills? Can he give me a for instance?
Hon. Mr. Meen: I am surprised the hon. member would ask.
Mr. Shulman: Well, I am asking. Does the minister know of any other bill that has such a nutty provision?
Hon. Mr. Meen: I have no precedent in mind at the moment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, at least in the other foolishnesses he has always been able to find a precedent. Some of them were back to Magna Carta times.
Hon. Mr. Meen: There has always got to be a first time.
Mr. Shulman: Some of them are back in Magna Carta times, but here he had to use the Gasoline Tax Act in it.
Hon. Mr. Meen: Oh, probably.
Mr. Shulman: Here we come to a section where he says, “If we left something out, don’t worry fellows, we’ll put in the regulation.”
Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): We’ll look after you.
Mr. Shulman: There is no precedent that he can quote.
Hon. Mr. Meen: Oh, I may have one. Who knows?
Mr. Shulman: I should think the minister would be embarrassed.
Hon. Mr. Meen: I am not really.
Mr. Singer: No.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Meen: The hon. member never paid any attention when I did produce a precedent.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: I see that I am not making much impact.
Hon. Mr. Meen: No, you are not.
An hon. member: Sit down.
Mr. Shulman: I will conclude my comments on this section by saying the minister is wrong here. He’s been wrong in every other section and it is all going to come back to haunt him.
Hon. Mr. Meen: Oh, rah, rah, rah!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, on subsection (1), the minister is sitting there with a vacuous grin on his face, saying that he doesn’t mind that there is no precedent, this is the way he wants to do it, the House might not be sitting and so on.
What he is saying affects not just this particular bill but the whole principle of the way in which this place works as a Legislature.
Hon. Mr. Meen: We hadn’t noticed.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Cassidy: It does, you know. As the minister expressed it in his clause, it means that from now on you might as well forget having any Legislature at all.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Taylor: Stick to the clause.
Mr. Cassidy: What it means quite simply is that the Minister of Revenue and friends can bring in a bill that says from now on by order in council --
Mr. Taylor: Stick to the clause.
Mr. Cassidy: I am sticking to the clause.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Where have you been for a couple of hours?
Mr. Cassidy: The clause says any regulations that are considered necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect the --
Mr. Havrot: Do us a favour and sit down.
Mr. Cassidy: What does the member for Timiskaming mean by that?
Mr. Havrot: Just what I said.
Mr. Cassidy: Okay. Let it go on the record that the member for Timiskaming simply has no understanding of what parliamentary democracy is all about. That’s right. As far as he is concerned, the rule of law could go right out the window. Everything we have worked for, for how many centuries, goes out the window. That’s right.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Look who is talking. The halo of the member for the islands is slipping.
Mr. Havrot: The member talks about an abuser of parliamentary democracy. He is the worst abuser in this House.
Mr. Cassidy: Anybody who would support a clause which says that in future the minister does not need to come back for legislation to Parliament, is abusing parliamentary democracy. And, that is exactly what is being done in this particular section.
Mr. Havrot: Such a big hero!
Mr. Cassidy: The minister himself has said the House might not be sitting and “therefore we will do it.” There is no assurance from the minister that he would come back to the House, even if the House was sitting.
Mr. W. Hodgson: Why doesn’t the member grow up?
Mr. Cassidy: This is an abuse. This abuse goes far beyond this particular bill. This section should not be permitted to go into the Act and no right-thinking member of the Conservative backbench should permit it. You should be talking to your minister, to your House leader (Mr. Winkler), to your Treasurer (Mr. White) if he were here right now and saying we cannot have this and the only way this thing should work is that the Legislature should decide if fundamental changes are going to be made on the bill. Maybe the minister wants to answer; he has got such a vacuous grin on his face.
An hon. member: Carried.
Mr. Shulman: We are not carrying it yet.
Hon. Mr. Meen: Just before we carry that, Mr. Chairman, I might just add that I must confess to having baited the opposition just a little bit, because if they care to refer back to the Land Transfer Tax Act which we passed two or three weeks ago --
Mr. Taylor: Don’t do that.
An hon. member: A month ago.
Hon. Mr. Meen: -- it has almost exactly the same section. It covers the same matter in any event in section 18, subsection (h) which says, “respecting any matter necessary and advisable to carry out effectively the intent and purpose of this Act.” That kind of provision is, I expect, in all our taxing statutes.
Mr. MacDonald: It was an equally bad bill.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask the minister one or two questions on this particular section.
Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Again?
Mr. Shulman: It is my understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, that regulations are strictly limited. I’m not sure whether by federal law or provincial law, but are not the regulations strictly limited as to their scope?
Mr. Singer: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Then how can you possibly put in an omnibus section like this? Aren’t you breaking your own laws?
Hon. Mr. Meen: Regulations are limited to the authority accorded in the Act.
Mr. Cassidy: The authority in this Act is objectionable. It is far too broad.
Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): You can never tell whether it is or not, though.
Mr. Shulman: I asked the chairman. Perhaps you can advise me -- you can’t advise me -- all right, through the chairman to the government, is there any Act in this province that sets out the power of regulations in general? Can anyone help me on that?
Mr. Roy: The Regulations Act.
Mr. Shulman: Is there a Regulations Act?
Hon. Mr. Meen: Sure.
Mr. Shulman: Does the Regulations Act not strictly delineate the power of regulations?
Mr. W. Hodgson: No more millionaires.
Mr. Shulman: Question?
Hon. Mr. Meen: If the hon. member will sit down, I will stand up. Sure, it sets it out and it provides that the regulations must be within the scope of the regulatory authority accorded by the Act under which the regulation itself is passed.
Mr. Shulman: Just so I can be educated, can you tell me what section that is?
Hon. Mr. Meen: No.
Mr. Taylor: Don’t educate him.
Mr. Shulman: Do you know? Does anybody knows?
Mr. W. Hodgson: Don’t you know?
Mr. Shulman: I will send for a copy. We will be back.
Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection (1) stand as part of the bill then?
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I happen to have the Land Transfer Tax Act here and there are some important differences between the omnibus section of the regulations in that Act and the ones proposed here.
In the Land Transfer Tax Act, subsection (h) of section 18(2) states that “the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting any matter necessary or advisable to carry out effectively the intent and purpose of this Act.”
That is the way that the legislation and the legislative practice have grown up. It is understood that there are two or three purposes of that particular Act, which imposes a 20 per cent tax on transfers by non-residents and a smaller tax on transfers between residents. That particular section is within the traditions that have been existing in this House. It’s objectionable maybe. It may be broader than it needs to be, but it is different than the section which has been written into Bill 25, the Land Speculation Tax Act, in this respect. I’ll read this one into the record as well.
The omnibus section for regulations that we are considering now under subsection (1), Mr. Chairman, states that “the Lieutenant Governor in Council may pass regulations that are considered necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act according to their intent.” As far as that goes, that is comparable to the power --
Mr. Taylor: Finish it. Read the whole thing.
Mr. Turner: Read the rest of it.
Mr. Cassidy: -- that was given under the Land Transfer Tax Act and which I believe has been given under Acts as well by this Legislature.
Then it goes on and states: “and of supplying any deficiency therein.” Could the minister tell us what is meant by that phrase “supplying any deficiency therein”?
Hon. Mr. Meen: Sure. There may well be a necessity, for example, to interpret further the definition that was set out in the Act. It may be that the definition is incomplete. It would be that kind of authority that would be accorded under subsection (1) -- for example, since he wants an illustration, I’ll give him one -- to elaborate upon a definition within an Act.
Mr. Cassidy: The power to make definitions is already included in the Act under subsection (j) which we passed just a few minutes ago, so it would not seem to be necessary to have this omnibus section.
Could the minister give us another example of a deficiency that might be needed to be filled under the provisions of subsection (1)?
Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, if I could I think I’d have put it in the Act in the first place.
Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection (1) carry?
Mr. Singer: No.
Mr. Cassidy: I beg your pardon?
Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I will repeat it. I said if I could give the hon. member such an illustration, I’d have tried to build it into the Act in the first place.
Mr. Cassidy: The problem then comes if the minister has put this in for something that he cannot anticipate. After this debate and after the work that has been carried on and after presumably the work of his advisory committee of people who expect to be hit by the Act and, therefore, will be advising the minister about the Act, clearly a good deal of thought, one assumes, has gone into looking into problems that might exist for the Act.
What we are saying is that it’s wrong that this kind of omnibus open doors to be left for the minister to “supply any deficiency therein” simply by getting an order in council from the cabinet without recourse to the Legislature. The point is that there is no limitation that any deficiency found therein has to be within the intent of the Act as people understand it here. There is no restriction like that at all. The minister is permitted to pass regulations that are considered necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this Act according to their intent.
Since that is spelled out in the earlier part of the subsection, clearly the reference to supplying any deficiency in the Act includes any deficiency which is in the mind of the minister, the mind of the government, but is not in the intent of the Act as it’s being passed tonight.
That’s why this subsection is so objectionable and so unparliamentary. That’s why it leads members on this side of the House to bear memories of legislation passed in other parliaments and chambers which has simply given omnibus powers -- blanket powers -- to governments to do anything they wish without recourse to the Legislature. And that is why this is simply unacceptable. Will the minister redraft this particular subsection to take out the last six or seven words?
Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, this is a common provision. My advisers tell me that it’s to be found in all our taxing statutes in one form or another. The reference I made to the Land Transfer Tax Act was a very close one and it happened I had a copy right in my file. There are others, I am told, that are virtually on all fours with this, including the last few words, and I would not be prepared to remove them at this time.
Mr. Chairman: Does subsection (1) stand as part of the bill?
Mr. Shulman: Not quite yet. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as subsection (1) is giving the minister broad new powers which have never been --
Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Not new.
Mr. Shulman: -- given before this session, I want to ask the minister if he would be willing to refer these regulations to the standing committee on regulations for their examination?
Mr. Roy: That is a useless exercise.
Hon. Mr. Meen: No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection (1) stand?
Mr. Shulman: No, I’ve got lots to do yet.
The minister has said he is not willing to refer them to the standing committee on regulations?
I’d like to ask the minister if he is prepared to follow his own law as written in the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1970, and the Act is the Regulations Act. Does he believe that Act has to be followed in this province or is that irrelevant too?
Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, the procedure for regulations by way of order in council, to my knowledge, does not include a reference to the standing committee on regulations. I understand that they may have authority to undertake the investigation of regulations if they are so instructed by the House, but there is a regulations committee of cabinet --
An hon. member: They have a committee.
Mr. Singer: No, they examine them after the fact.
Hon. Mr. Meen: -- to which these regulations would go before they go to the cabinet itself.
Mr. Shulman: May I first ask who is the chairman of the standing committee on regulations?
Hon. Mr. Meen: It happens that it is the Minister of Revenue, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shulman: The Minister of Revenue. Well, inasmuch as the Minister of Revenue is the chairman of the standing committee of regulations, let me inform him what the Act says.
Mr. Taylor: Stick to the clause.
Mr. Shulman: I refer to section 12, subsection 3.
Hon. Mr. Meen: Oh, excuse me, may I ask the hon. member, would he rephrase that question? He asked who is the chairman of the standing committee?
Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Meen: I have no idea who the chairman of the standing committee is. I thought he was asking the question as to who the chairman of the regulations committee of cabinet is.
Mr. Shulman: I must admit, Mr. Chairman, I really didn’t believe it, and I thought it was a little nuts. All right, let’s start again. Who is the chairman of the standing committee on regulations?
Mr. Roy: Last year he was the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger).
An hon. member: Is that the member for Algoma (Mr. Gilbertson)?
An hon. member: It wasn’t organized this year.
An hon. member: It’s so useless.
Mr. Shulman: Nobody knows who is the chairman of the standing committee on regulations. Okay.
Mr. MacDonald: Without the appendix it’s a withered portion of the body politic.
Mr. Shulman: Well, I’ll tell you why it’s a withered portion of the body politic: It hasn’t really mattered too much until this session. But it suddenly matters because the minister is taking power unto himself in the regulations which he’s never had before. Now, I want to refer him to section 12, subsection 3 of the standing committee on regulations which reads as follows:
“The standing committee on regulations shall examine the regulations with particular reference to the scope and method of the exercise of delegated legislative power,”
etcetera, etcetera. And by golly, if that ever comes in it comes in tonight. Now, you have delegated unto yourself and your big majority is giving it to you under this subsection (1), the power to bring in regulations ad nauseam. Ad inlimitum.
Hon. Mr. Meen: Who is he?
Mr. Shulman: Pardon me? I am sorry, did the minister speak? He spoke but we couldn’t hear. He has given himself all these new powers. I ask him at least to obey the laws of this province and agree that these regulations, such as they are, whatever they are, and whenever they may come in, will be referred to the standing committee on regulations. Will he agree to that?
Hon. Mr. Meen: It is not a matter of my having them referred to the committee. They don’t become a regulation until they are passed by the order in council and filed with the registrar; and it would be up to the House to appoint the standing committee on regulations and let them then, if they wish, examine the regulations.
Mr. Shulman: Well, I want to point out subsection 1 in that case to the minister -- of section 12.
Mr. Taylor: Oh, get serious. Stick to the clause.
Mr. Shulman: Well, we will get along a lot faster if you can keep those people subdued.
Mr. Chairman: Order please. If you’re losing attention, keep to your argument.
Mr. Shulman: Well, keep your patience. I have got all year.
Mr. Taylor: You do have all year. Sure, you just came in.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I am going to have my say, and they can yell from now till Doomsday.
Mr. Singer: Point of order.
Mr. Good: Point of order.
Mr. Chairman: Order please, order please. The member for Downsview.
Mr. Singer: In an effort to save the time of the House, all regulations passed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council are automatically referred to the standing regulations committee which can review them ex post facto as to whether or not they are within the regulatory power. The committee has no power to review the wisdom of them.
Mr. Shulman: Review the which?
Mr. Singer: The wisdom of them.
Mr. Shulman: I agree. But what it has the power to do --
Some hon. members: Sit down.
Hon. Mr. Meen: The whole thing is out of order.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, what they have the power to do is, and I quote: “They have power to examine it with particular reference to the scope and method of the exercise of delegated legislative power.” I ask the member for Downsview, through you, Mr. Chairman, of course, does that not specifically include section (1)?
Mr. Singer: No.
Mr. Shulman: Let’s get some other legal advice.
Mr. Singer: They can’t discuss wisdom.
Mr. Roy: You can’t look at the merits of --
Mr. Singer: Only if it is within the scope of the Act.
Mr. Roy: Will the member for High Park ask the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) how --
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Shall subsection (1) stand as part of the bill?
Mr. Shulman: No, may I -- I have a few more comments but I yield to my colleague.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.
Mr. Cassidy: I want to put on the record, Mr. Chairman --
Mr. W. Hodgson: He is just about as wise as you are.
Mr. Cassidy: I want to put on the record, Mr. Chairman, the provisions under the omnibus regulation section of the Gasoline Tax Act, the Income Tax Act and the Corporations Tax Act of the Province of Ontario. I do this for the record because I am saying that the degree of power being given to the minister in this particular section is wrong. He is probably in order to take an omnibus section, to have an omnibus section, which allows him to make regulations within the intent of the Act but to go beyond the intent of the Act and to have power to repair any deficiencies in the Act is simply unacceptable.
In section 102 of the Corporations Tax Act, this is the RSO 1970 version --
Mr. Chairman: Order please. It seems to me we are still on subsection (1) of this bill.
Mr. Cassidy: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: We are straying from subsection (1).
Mr. Cassidy: I definitely am not, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Order.
Mr. Cassidy: I definitely am not. I will challenge your ruling.
Mr. Chairman: You may challenge my ruling.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Go ahead.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will the member take his seat?
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Will the member take his seat?
Mr. Cassidy: Subsection (1) --
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Mr. Cassidy: Subsection (1) --
Mr. Chairman: Order, please.
Mr. Cassidy: Now --
Mr. Chairman: I have ruled the member as being repetitive, No. 1; No. 2, he is straying too far away from the present subsection.
Mr. Cassidy: That is quite unacceptable, Mr. Chairman, and I challenge your ruling.
Mr. Chairman: You may challenge it.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour -- order please.
Mr. Shulman: No, don’t you dare try that.
Mr. Chairman: Does the member wish to say something in order?
Mr. Shulman: I want to talk on subsection (1).
Mr. Chairman: Does the member wish to say something on subsection (1) ?
Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): You should remove yourself from the chair.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.
Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I challenged your ruling. As I understand it, you have to take a vote on the ruling if you wish to do that. I understand it would be desirable to finish the debate by 10:30 this evening; I know the member for High Park and I were willing to do that but we are being mistreated by the Chair.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. If the member -- order, please.
Mr. Cassidy: I simply want to put on the record these points very quickly if I have the chance.
Mr. Chairman: All right.
Mr. Cassidy: I am asking the chairman to withdraw his ruling and allow me to make those points which are quite in order.
Mr. Chairman: If the hon. member will kind of slow down in talking a little bit.
Mr. Cassidy: Okay.
Mr. Chairman: And give somebody else a chance.
Mr. Roy: He gets carried away.
Mr. Chairman: I will allow the member to continue provided he keeps within order.
Mr. Cassidy: All right. The point, Mr. Chairman, is I think we are disagreeing about that. Subsection (k) of section 4 of the Gasoline Tax Act -- I am sorry, subsection (1) -- states “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting any matter necessary or advisable to carry out effectively the intent and purpose of the Act.” In the Income Tax Act, the phrasing is very similar -- I have lost the place here; maybe I can find it quickly.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Cassidy: Under the Corporations Tax Act, Mr. Chairman, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, under section 102(e), is given power “To make regulations respecting any matter necessary or advisable to carry out effectively the intent and purpose of this Act.” Under the Income Tax Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations under section 27(d) generally “to carry out the purposes of this Act.” The pattern is continued under the Land Transfer Tax Act wherein the Lieutenant Governor in Council is given power to carry out regulations “respecting any matter necessary or advisable to carry out effectively the intent and purposes of this Act.”
In each of these four cases, Mr. Chairman -- four of the major taxing statutes -- the power of regulations is confined to the intent and purpose of the Act but when it comes to this proposal under subsection (1) not only may regulations be passed which are considered necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect provisions of this Act according to their intent, but also to supply any deficiency in the provisions of this Act. That is what we find unacceptable and objectionable, Mr. Chairman.
If the debate hadn’t gone on for three or four weeks, we would carry this debate right through until Monday. We will oppose this section as we find it grossly unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection (1) then stand?
Mr. Shulman: May I just say a word on this subsection?
Hon. Mr. Irvine: No.
Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you. I want to follow up the point my colleague has made, which I hadn’t really considered until this moment, and I must agree with him. The purpose of regulations, as set out in the Regulations Act, is to carry into effect the purpose of the Act and obviously you cannot have all the regulations in each Act. The conditions change and you have to add things as you learn from experience. The other reason, of course, is it would be far too bulky; everyone realizes that.
We certainly have no objection to the part which says, “that are considered necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act according to their intent.” What is really very upsetting to me and, I am sure, to other members is this business of saying, “and of supplying any deficiency therein because that is not the purpose of regulations.
Regulations are to help carry out what is written here, not to add something you didn’t write or you forgot about. If there is a deficiency, it shouldn’t be in the regulations. It means, in effect --
Hon. Mr. Irvine: Have to put the NDP in the regulations.
Mr. MacDonald: It is a backdoor method of amendment.
Mr. Shulman: -- that if the minister discovers next week or tomorrow morning after this Act has already been passed, “My goodness. I forgot to include such and such,” all he has to do is go down to his cabinet meeting, pass a regulation and send it to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Nothing goes to the regulations committee because, apparently, the regulations committee hasn’t even been called. There is no chairman; there is no nothing. It hasn’t met in years, I am just informed by my colleague who is on it but has never been summoned to a meeting. In effect once this section passes, he can write anything into the Act he wishes, whether or not it should be under regulations.
Surely, these last words should not be there? How many are there? The last six words in this section should not be there because if there a deficiency in this Act, if there is something someone has forgotten; if there is some group which is not covered; if there is some group which is covered but shouldn’t be covered; the House and the opposition should have an opportunity to examine it at the same time as the minister makes it law or is attempting to make it law. What he is attempting to do with this section is say, “The opposition is not going to be given any opportunity to discuss this. When we decide something else should be in there, it will be in there.” Let me give you a specific example.
Mr. Taylor: Let’s not, and say you did.
Mr. Shulman: Let us suppose that three months from now the minister finds the Act isn’t working; he finds the Act isn’t working because, he figures, the 50 per cent he put in there isn’t high enough. That’s deficiency. He can say, “Fellows, we are going to raise that to 80 per cent” or he can lower it to 20 per cent or change it to anything he wishes. In effect, he can completely change the intent of the bill and we will read about it when the regulations have come through.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that this is ultra vires, extempore and everything else. It is beyond the powers of the minister to give himself a blank cheque. In effect, this is a straight blank cheque to do as he wishes, when he wishes. Forgive me for speaking at some length on this but this is of extreme importance.
I know you are looking at your watch. Don’t get nervous about your watch. This is of sufficient importance that it shouldn’t be let through and we should give it some consideration. He has enough blank cheques in this bill. This bill allows him to do whatever he wants whenever he wants. Let us come again to a point made some days ago. This minister is not always going to be the Minister of Revenue.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: Passing a section like this allows some future minister to do what he wishes. It allows him to effect to write an entirely new bill. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, I appeal to you personally --
Mr. Breithaupt: I don’t think you appeal to him personally.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman is going to instruct him how to act.
Hon. Mr. Irvine: Sit down. You have made your point. There is no point.
Mr. Chairman: I believe the member is repeating now.
Mr. Shulman: I will sum up very briefly. I have 30 seconds left, if you will allow me. I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to say that the minister should not be given these powers under any circumstances in this bill or any other bill. Any law that comes into this province should be debated first here. If you allow this to go through you are abrogating your responsibilities in addition.
Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection (1) stand as part of the bill, then?
An hon. member: No, no.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of subsection (1) standing as part of the bill will please say “aye.”
Those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion the “ayes” have it.
I declare the subsection carried.
Subsection 3.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one word on subsection 3.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you really have to?
Mr. Roy: Yes. I really have to. I think it is one thing, Mr. Chairman, that the minister pass legislation that is retroactive but it is another thing to pass regulations which will be, because each piece of legislation will receive some scrutiny prior to its passage whereas the regulations will not.
Mr. Chairman, this is again an area of the bill which is faulty, which gives this government unlimited scope in powers and an area again where there is further abuse. For instance, it can pass regulations that can be printed in the Canada Gazette and say that they have application two months prior. This is the type of power that is dangerous and which you should not have. We felt, Mr. Chairman, that we should make these comments.
Mr. Chairman: Shall subsection 3 stand as part of the bill?
Mr. Shulman: Very briefly on subsection 3, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Will the member please keep on eye on the clock?
Mr. Taylor: Trying to hold it up until tomorrow.
Mr. Shulman: I’m sorry.
Mr. Chairman: I am just checking the time.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, to facilitate the members I might move that we sit a few moments past the hour of 10:30 if they wish to make any other contributions.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.
Mr. Cassidy: Provided it is committee only.
Mr. Shulman: Committee only?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, it is carried.
Mr. Shulman: We are agreeable to going ahead if it is committee only.
Mr. Chairman: The member has the floor.
Mr. Cassidy: Could we have that indication from the House leader?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, is this for committee only?
Hon. Mr. Irvine: You have to report.
Mr. Shulman: Okay.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why don’t we adjourn, and that will learn you?
Mr. Shulman: I don’t care. I can be here tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman: No, the member for High Park has the floor.
Mr. Good: Let’s decide if we are going to sit past 10:30.
Mr. Shulman: The only point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is: We discussed this with the former Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grossman) ad nauseam the question of bringing in taxes --
Mr. Breithaupt: Is that his name?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You did nauseate me.
Mr. Shulman: -- and laws post ipso facto, I think that is the right phrase. Surely there would have been no great tragedy if this law were made effective in fact when it was passed. In actual fact the minister has conceded that by instructing his minions who work down in --
Mr. Good: Millions of minions.
Mr. Shulman: -- the dungeons that he has provided for them that in effect anyone selling a property today does not have to pay the tax. He said, “Just tell us that the property wasn’t worth any more today than it was on April 9 and you won’t have to pay it.”
So in effect he has conceded that. What I am objecting to here is the principle. We fought this out with the former minister and his predecessor before that and, believe it or not, way back in 1968 -- I will dig out Hansard if necessary -- we had a promise from the minister of the time that they wouldn’t do this any more. They agreed in their wisdom of the time, which unfortunately has turned slightly senile since then, that this was a bad practice.
I think this thing came up with cigarettes and alcohol. Unless it was a storeable item or was some great disaster financially, all tax laws should become effective at the time they are passed and not become effective as of midnight the day the government pronounces them. I know I am not going to convince this minister of this. I haven’t convinced him of anything else. But I want it to go down on the record that this is wrong too, so that it will be quite clear that as we have gone through the bill, of the first 23 sections, not one was done correctly.
However, I am prepared to concede that there are no errors in section 24.
Mr. Chairman: Subsection 3 agreed to. Section 24 carried?
Mr. Roy: I just want to make one brief comment on section 24, Mr. Chairman.
Why would you want this legislation to be retroactive and, in fact, nail people for April 9 if you agree with your colleague, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman), who says that prices, in fact, are going down? Nobody is going to have any tax to pay anyway between April 9 and the day it is proclaimed. So you have an inherent contradiction. Why would you want it to be retroactive?
Mr. Singer: Answer that.
Mr. Roy: Yes, answer that.
Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Can’t you make up your own words? Do you have to take them from him?
Mr. Roy: Try to be consistent.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. minister.
Hon. Mr. Meen: It is very simple. We have a date from which we are starting evaluations, and all the other matters work from that date, including the three-year period for investment. If the hon. member had been here when we were talking about section 20, he would realize that the three-year period for investment began on April 9 for those who held investment property on that date. I think it would be doing them an injustice to have this effective only upon proclamation, and it is quite appropriate indeed that it should be as of the time of its announcement.
Mr. Roy: I just want to say clearly to the minister that I think his argument has no weight at all. Your arguments are as bad as those of your colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Terrible. Tell us about Krauss-Maffei. You look like your transportation policy, going every which way.
Mr. Chairman, if you are going to have consistency, surely the minister should talk to his colleague, the Minister of Housing. He will tell the minister that he doesn’t need this legislation to be retroactive. Do you want me to talk in French?
Sections 24 and 25, inclusive, agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill, as amended, be reported?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Bill 25, as amended, being reported will please say “aye.”
Those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion the “ayes” have it.
Bill 25, as amended, reported.
Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments, and asks for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, and despite section 48(b) -- I wonder if the members would give us unanimous consent to proceed with third reading?
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): No, never.
Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): What did he say? I can’t hear him.
Mr. Shulman: The government will never get unanimous consent on this vote.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am glad to hear the member’s respect. When he is talking to other people about respect for the chamber, let him think of his own conduct for a change.
Mr. Shulman: I told the minister that two days ago.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I would anticipate that the bill will be printed by 11 o’clock tomorrow morning, and if it is, and distributed, I will then call third reading. Failing that, I will ask that the House will consider the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart).
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): All right. We will be back.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: If the members will listen now -- I am trying to be fair with them -- in the event that we would proceed with third reading it may then be that for the balance of the morning I will call some legislative items as outlined a week ago tonight. Bills 51, 52, 65, 35, 37, 39, the same bills I called one week ago, Mr. Speaker.
I would say that following the estimates of Colleges and Universities, the standing committee outside of the House will hear the estimates of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle), and following the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food we will call the estimates of the Treasurer (Mr. White).
Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10:35 o’clock, p.m.