Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to introduce to the assembly 30 students from the Adult New Canadian Centre on Jones Ave. in the riding of Riverdale, who are sitting in the east gallery under the supervision of Mrs. M. Burnett. I would ask my colleagues to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

GO-URBAN SYSTEM

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I guess this is GO-Urban day again. I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications if he heard the report from West Germany, carried by CBC this morning, which indicated that the West German government was abandoning its support for the magnetic levitation Krauss-Maffei train on the basis that while it was practicable for intercity distances and speeds of up to 250 miles an hour, it was its conclusion that it was not economic nor practicable for any kind of runs on a transit, short-distance basis, and that this was the reason for its abandonment.

In view of that, why is it that we in Ontario are continuing to attempt to utilize it for these short-term runs?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I did not hear that report. However, I do have a copy of the precise statement that was made by the West German government. There is no indication in that particular statement of the words that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has used. They did state -- and we knew this two weeks ago -- that they were continuing with the high-speed intercity project.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I would simply ask the minister if he would be interested in getting some further information for the edification of the House or for the committee, which is still meeting. Is he not aware that this was a report carried by CBC, interviewing people in the media in West Germany in response to the announcement from Ontario, which I guess was preceded by a few hours by a response from the West German government?

As a further supplementary, could the minister comment on the report that the West German government also was funding a similar experimental transit programme conducted by the Messerschmitt company, a well-known name?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the high-speed project to which the hon. member is referring is what they call the Transrapid programme. The Messerschmitt company -- I don’t know what all the letters stand for, but MBB is the name of the firm, and M is for Messerschmitt -- were working in conjunction with Krauss-Maffei and the West German government in the very beginning to develop the high-speed technology for a magnetic levitation system for travel between communities. That’s the job they are doing now.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): A supplementary --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): If I may, by way of supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: I think the minister will concede, though, both in terms of what he said in committee yesterday and in terms of what was said on the CBC this morning, that what the West German government has decided to do is to develop a technology within cities that is as equally advanced as Krauss-Maffei but much less costly and therefore more practicable. Why then, given their expertise in this matter, are we pushing ahead with the further expenditure of public funds on phase one to shore up a dying project here?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of the other sort of technology that’s being developed. Perhaps the hon. member has some information I don’t have.

Mr. Lewis: Basically light rail.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh, yes --

Mr. Lewis: The Hamburg street railway.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Pardon me. I didn’t understand the hon. member. I thought he meant another technology. Yes, this was said to us when I was in Germany. They told us at that time that they were leaving the high technology for the urban transit and they were going back to the conventional systems that they already have. In my conversation with them, my understanding was that it wasn’t a matter of developing any new technology; they wanted to take the existing systems in the cities and upgrade them. They were going to do some work to make the wheels quieter on the street railways and something to cut down the pollution that is coming from the bus systems. But as for anything brand-new, no, they had not indicated that to me. In fact, on the contrary, they indicated they are withdrawing their support from two other projects they had been supporting, one called H-Bahn and the other one called Cabin-Taxi.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary.

Mr. Singer: Would the minister attempt to get a transcript of that radio broadcast this morning, particularly the remarks made by Alvin Schroeder, who is the CBC correspondent in Germany? If he can get that transcript, would he give us his opinion of Schroeder’s reported remarks as a result of his conferences with Krauss-Maffei directors, which were along the line indicated by my leader, that the Krauss-Maffei system was impractical for intracity use, in their opinion, and only useful in between-city systems?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will certainly attempt to get a transcript of that. I did not hear the broadcast, but I will certainly get that and I’ll be happy to make any comments that I feel I can make.

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

SOUTH MILTON DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing if he would undertake to table the negotiations that Ontario Housing had with Gibson Willoughby on the appropriate costs of property in the South Milton area? We asked for this specific information yesterday, which may in fact be tabled today, and the minister indicated that more would be available. We would also like to know what fees were paid to Gibson Willoughby in connection with the acquisition of those properties in the South Milton area. Is that information available, or will the minister table it?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I have no reluctance whatsoever in tabling what fees Gibson Willoughby received, or any related information. My staff was told yesterday to obtain whatever information there was to be brought before the House, as I indicated I would do. I will still do this. I haven’t got it this morning, by the way.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Would that include the evaluation report that the minister referred to and which was used as the basis of the $6,000 an acre average payment in that area?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It will include every bit of information regarding the transaction.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Singer: Back to square one.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development if the ambit of his jurisdiction includes agriculture?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Yes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Ah. Well.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now we are getting down my alley.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Ah, that’s a relief.

PAYOLA IN SUPERMARKETS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the minister if, like me, in reading the Toronto Star yesterday, he was a bit surprised that there still seems to be a system of payola -- I think that was the official word used by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food -- which is used to persuade supermarket managers to give preference in placement to certain products, and that this money is paid by the middlemen in this case and is added to the cost that the consumers must pay? Has he, in fact, read the story in the Star of Nov. 14 by Ellen Roseman?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Grossman?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not Grossman, it’s Ellen, not Allan.

Mr. Lewis: Boy, oh boy, what the minister will do to get his name in the papers.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The report would indicate that this system of payola, which was supposed to have been wiped out by edict of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) some years ago, is still going on and adding tremendously to the costs of the supermarket produce, since there are built into it payments for trips, colour TV, all of the things that we were hearing about in conjunction with Ontario Housing just a few days ago.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): The minister knows about agriculture but he knows nothing about payola.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, there were two parts to that question: The first one was, was I surprised when I read it, as the hon. member says he was; and then the other minute was taken up by reading some article and asking me, in fact, did I see it? So the answer to the last part of it is, I haven’t seen the article --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’ll send it to him.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- which also answers the first part of it, since I couldn’t have been surprised at something I didn’t read about.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This is going to be one of his better days.

Mr. Lewis: It is clear why he is a policy minister now.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the minister concerned that one of the ministries under his policy direction, which had taken strong steps to wipe out this kind of costing which accrues to the consumer, has been unsuccessful in this, and will he undertake to discuss with his minister what can be done to improve the situation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if that situation does exist, of course I would be concerned.

Mr. Singer: Of course it exists. The minister is letting it exist.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And I’m sure the Minister of Agriculture and Food would be concerned. I would be very pleased to draw this to the attention of my colleague.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No.

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

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question, if I could, of the Minister of the Environment. Has the Minister of the Environment made any submissions to the federal government about a joint recalculation or redetermination of the levels of mercury which can be emitted into waterways, particularly in northwestern Ontario? Is he satisfied with the present formula and is there any effort to renegotiate it?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, as you know, 0.5 parts per million is the allowable acceptable level in fish. I said I would table in the House the studies which have been done, and we will have those ready next week. I was planning to meet with my federal counterpart next week. Unfortunately, I have had to cancel that meeting and we’ll be arranging a future meeting with her, probably within the next three weeks, to discuss this and many other matters.

Mr. Lewis: I was under the impression, and I think it’s right, that what the minister is talking about is the level of hazard, but in fact the level of mercury emission, associated as it is with the production of chlorine, is 0.005 lb of mercury per ton of chlorine, and that in fact for the Dryden Chemicals plant and other plants, what has happened is that the production of chlorine has increased from some 35 tons per day to 250 tons per day, so that ironically a formula which ties the mercury emissions to the production of chlorine means an increase in the emissions, meaning presumably a significant potential increase in health hazard. Has the government looked, therefore, at the tonnage of chlorine that is being produced and at whether or not we are inviting further problems?

Hon. W. Newman: Let me put it in perspective, going back to 1970, I believe it was, when the control orders went out to all the companies, including Dryden. There are only two companies left in the province that use mercury in their process now. Dryden is monitored on a regular basis, and there is one other company -- I’ve just forgotten the name now, but they are monitored constantly for any mercury emissions. I think the test results I gave the House the other day indicate that the mercury levels in the fish, both in the Wabigoon and the Spanish river systems are coming down.

Mr. Lewis: Is it about the same?

Hon. W. Newman: Oh, no. If the member likes, I can give him some of the figures here. I am going to be tabling at the first of the week all of the figures, and the testing that was done by the federal people. I have it here, as a matter of fact, so it might be very interesting if I just give the members the information.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, the Wabigoon River and English River figures.

Hon. W. Newman: In regard to the Wabigoon river system I can give the following data. There was a noted improvement in the 1974 samples taken from Clay Lake, which is just down from Dryden --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): No improvement.

Hon. W. Newman: -- which in 1970 had mercury levels of 9.25 parts per million in northern pike, 3.58 parts per million in whitefish and 3.83 parts per million in suckers. All species sampled had less than half the 1970 level. The pike sample averaged 4.22 parts per million, the whitefish averaged 1.26 parts per million, and the sucker was down to 1.28 parts per million. And I will have the complete data -- the amount of fish that was tested, where they were tested in the various areas in the Wabigoon and Spanish river systems -- to table in the House next week.

Mr. Stokes: English river system.

Hon. W. Newman: English river system, sorry, for next week.

Mr. Stokes: As a supplementary, will the minister find out and assure himself that the number of pounds of mercury going into those systems now has been reduced to conform to the ministerial order of 1970? At that time, is it not true that there were 25 lb of mercury per day being emitted on the basis of 35 tons per day of chlorine? Now that the production of chlorine has gone up to 250 tons a day, shouldn’t the minister be concerned about the total amount of mercury being emitted into those river systems?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as I said, by the end of 1975 none of the pulp and paper industries will be using mercury. They will be phasing out any use of mercury.

Mr. Stokes: What about now? I’m not talking about a year from now.

Hon. W. Newman: All right. At the present time there is a double-scrubbing process at the Dryden plant, and basically the maximum amount of mercury that could possibly get out of there is 0.1 oz per day. And as the member says it was up to 20 lb per day or something at one time. This is being monitored on a regular basis by our people, too.

Mr. Stokes: As a further supplementary, is the minister aware that ambient air samples taken by the federal authorities, or maybe even by his own ministry, indicate that there is still a high level of mercury in the ambient air as a result of that process? Shouldn’t the government be looking at the total amount of mercury being released per day into that system?

Hon. W. Newman: If there is an emission problem, certainly our people will be monitoring it. I’ll look into that particular aspect of it, but any that is getting into the water system from any of those plants, if there is any, is being constantly monitored by our people, that’s one of the reasons for our reorganization of the ministry -- decentralization, so that we would have staff in those areas, so we could deal directly with those problems on a very regular basis.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions by the member for Scarborough West?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary then.

Mr. Foulds: Could the minister, when he tables the figures next week on northwestern Ontario, also table figures on Thunder Bay harbour in terms of mercury content in the fish?

Mr. Stokes: Particularly lake trout.

Hon. W. Newman: What I may say is that the testing in the St. Clair river system has been done by our people and most of the testing is done in the Wabigoon-English river system --

Mr. Foulds: I am talking about Thunder Bay.

Hon. W. Newman: All right. I am just saying that in that area -- and I am not exactly sure what testing is being done -- whatever figures I have we will give them to the member. They are massive. A lot of them are on IBM cards. We have had to interpret them so that the members would understand them. We hope to have those ready by Monday or Tuesday. I said I would make them available and I will at that time.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

REPORT ON ELECTION EXPENSES

Mr. Lewis: Yes. May I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, if he can undertake that there will be an election expenses control Act, or whatever it may ultimately be called, put through the Legislature following whatever report the Camp commission may make this session or in the spring session perhaps or whatever session presumably preceding the next provincial election in Ontario?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I think I have already given that undertaking.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does he know when we will get the next Camp commission report dealing with election financing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t know any specific date yet, Mr. Speaker. The last information I had was a few days ago. I would think sometime within the next two weeks. I think probably we will all want to consider that report. Whether it will be possible to legislate it before we adjourn before Christmas, I can’t give that undertaking although it may be possible. Certainly I think I have said before that we intend to have this legislated -- whatever it’s called and so on, I don’t know -- prior to any general election.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The Premier does not have the report; is that right?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I do not have the report. The report, if memory serves me correctly again, goes to you, Mr. Speaker, because the commission reports to the House. I think the procedure was that the Speaker actually tabled the two previous reports, and I expect the procedure will be the same on this occasion.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary on this.

Mr. Cassidy: I think this probably is relevant. In view of the extraordinary difficulties that were experienced with the administration of the election in the Carleton East by-election, would the Premier undertake to have the government look into these problems, and ensure that they will not happen in the 1975 provincial election.

Mr. Speaker: That’s not really a supplementary to this original question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think it is supplementary but I will answer anyway with your permission, Mr. Speaker. That question had been already asked by one of the member’s colleagues. I think I indicated on that occasion at least that it related to the use of the voters’ lists. I recall the chief electoral officer sort of nodding his head in agreement as it relates to the difficulties and the need to find some way to resolve them.

WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment: Is it true that the Whitchurch-Stouffville landfill site is operating at the moment without any certificate of approval or any provisional certificate of approval?

Hon. W. Newman: I did put a control order on them and I think they are operating within the confines of the EP Act, as far as I know. Is the member talking about the new application that is being heard at this point in time?

Mr. Lewis: There is a new application being heard, I gather, yes.

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, at this point in time there is.

Mr. Lewis: But is the allegation incorrect that the use of the dump and the expansion of the dump are proceeding without any certificate of approval whatsoever? I don’t understand how that can happen.

Hon. W. Newman: No, there will be no expansion of the site. I don’t know if the member has been up to the site but there is a certain part of the site that has been operating there for years and years.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): The old Bremner dump.

Hon. W. Newman: The old Bremner dump, that’s right. To expand it, there has to be a hearing and this is what the hearing is about. I think they have over 100 or 120 acres or something and they have made a further application for that. That’s what the present hearing is all about.

Mr. Lewis: Going back, if memory serves me, the ministerial order granted an initial provisional certificate of approval which ran out and then there was no further certificate of approval, provisional or formal, subsequently granted while this site continues to operate. How is that possible, given all of the requests that have been made to the ministry by the council, by citizens’ groups and by almost everyone else in the area to have it closed down because it’s operating illegally, in addition to the request made to the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) to uphold the laws because of this ministry’s refusal to? Why won’t the minister move on this dump?

Hon. W. Newman: Just a minute, we have talked about the control order and I explained that during question time in the House the other day. If the member wants me to go into that control order that I put on and explain it all again to him today, I will be only too glad to. The only part of my control order which he asked the Attorney General about was the tonnage of garbage that was going into that particular site. I pointed out when the control order went on last May or last June -- I have forgotten the exact date -- the only part of the control order that was not carried out was the putting in of the weigh scales. They had ordered the scales but the scales were not in. Various people estimated various tonnages going in there but we kept a pretty close tab on it as much as we could. I understand the scales are in and operating at this point in time. At the present time, I believe the hearing is still going on. I think it has been adjourned for a few days but I understand it will be going back on again. It’s quite an extensive hearing dealing with the whole site at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Beaches-Woodbine.

COMMODITY FUTURES MARKET

Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Chairman of the Management Board. In view of the increasing cost of sugar and other commodities, especially food products, could the government take action to control the commodities futures market on these and other products?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I suppose from a policy point of view that question would more properly be directed to the Treasurer (Mr. White), but in his absence I would just say to you that from my understanding, if there were to be any control of the situation it would be at the federal level. To the best of my knowledge, a monitoring scheme would be about as far as the government could go -- or licensing possibly. But I do believe, Mr. Speaker -- and again I speak from my own point of view -- that the profits in commodity futures should be taxed at a much greater rate than the ordinary rate of income tax.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, don’t do that to the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman).

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the trading in commodity futures has evidently been one of the means whereby the cost to farmers has been increased because of the profiteering on feed, such as soya beans and barley, and it has shown up in the increased costs at the consumer level for the same reason, would not the minister think that rather than just taxing those profits it would be better to control them so that they are not going to be extracted from the system in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think there is great merit in what the Leader of the Opposition has stated. As a matter of fact I have even thought that governments could enter into that particular market themselves for that protection.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): The member for High Park can give the government some advice on that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

RAIL SERVICE CO-ORDINATION

Mr. Deacon: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Some months ago the minister indicated he would meet with federal government transportation authorities, particularly the federal Minister of Transport, with regard to co-ordination of transit services in this area and the federal government’s rail services to see if integration of schedules’ and fares could be developed. What progress could the minister report in connection with talks during these intervening several months?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I found it rather difficult to be able to meet with the Minister of Transport. He was otherwise engaged in a rather important event that took place in mid-summer.

Mr. Deacon: That’s a few months ago.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes. I have met with him though. On Oct. 30 I met the minister. We had preliminary discussions on that subject among others, including the national transportation policy. The minister has asked that I meet with him again for at least a day, possibly two days, to take all of these matters into consideration in some depth as to how Ontario and the federal government can co-operate in the national policy that the Minister of Transport says he wants to see in effect.

Mr. Deacon: A supplementary: In view of the problems that the GO-Transit has been having in improving scheduling because of the control of the rights of way by the railways, will the minister urge that there be a change in the control of these rights of way so that improvements that are made to them are to the benefit of all rail service, especially passenger, and so that we can update to modern day technology this system that is already available, but still back in the dark ages as far as the operation of GO Transit down on the Lakeshore is concerned.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have already discussed that matter of the right of way with the minister in very brief terms, but I have generally laid the idea before him. I might say to the hon. member that I gave him full credit for the idea.

We will be discussing the possibility of the right of way coming into the public domain and owned by the federal government, and I would appreciate any assistance the hon. member might give me in that matter.

Mr. Deacon: I am with the minister all the way.

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

OFFICIAL GEMSTONE FOR PROVINCE

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. Now that the Premier has had an opportunity to discuss with his colleagues and to view for himself the beauty of the amethyst, is there any thought to acceding to the wishes of a great many people in northern Ontario, particularly in the Thunder Bay area, to designate the amethyst as the official gemstone of the province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker. I understand the hon. member’s interest in this. The member for Fort William (Mr. Jessiman) has been interested in this for a period of time. It is being considered by the resource policy field at this moment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So that is what he does.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can’t tell the hon. member just what the recommendations will be. I can only say that personally I see no reason why Ontario should not have --

Mr. Lewis: So the Premier doesn’t like amethysts?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- some form of mineral, or what have you, as the official one of the province.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier is a rare gem himself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There may be some arguments as to which one it should be, but certainly the amethyst is one that I think is worthy of consideration and it is being considered.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: What’s taking so long over this very important decision? The Premier’s answer this morning --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: His policy committee is grinding it fine.

Mr. Foulds: -- is exactly the same as the answer that he wrote to me, and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) wrote to me, over a year ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member realizes just how important this is, and that it really requires very careful consideration --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They tried to find a blue stone.

Mr. Stokes: A whole new industry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and he certainly wouldn’t want us to move into this without that careful consideration which it is receiving.

Mr. Lewis: No, no, the Premier is treating this as he treats every issue in Ontario -- haltingly, lethargically, sloppily.

Mr. Stokes: There’s a whole new industry there for him.

Mr. Singer: Perhaps Krauss-Maffei could advise him. They’re free these days.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

OHC BRIBE CHARGES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask a question of the Premier arising out of the debates in the Housing estimates over the last two or three days: Is he not concerned, particularly with the facts that have been brought forward by myself and others, as to the business procedure in Ontario Housing which has led it to pay extravagantly overpriced amounts for properties in various parts of the province?

Is he not further concerned with the evidence -- which is regrettable certainly -- that a number of officials in Ontario Housing have been indicted on charges of taking bribes, and that neither the officials of Ontario Housing nor the Attorney General’s department have made public those people who offered the bribes?

Would he not now feel, since this particular agency of government is going to expend more and more of the tax funds available directly to our Treasury and from federal sources, that it should be subject to an inquiry of a broad and public nature so that the confidence of the people in the conduct of Ontario Housing, and its business procedures and administration, can be restored?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think there were three or four questions there. I shall try to deal with them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Basically, it was this: Will the Premier order a public inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Basically, the answer to that is no, and if that answers all of the other questions then, Mr. Speaker, I am content.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question, will the Premier give consideration to the problem involved in charging the persons who are alleged to have received the bribes and not charging the people who offered the bribes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should properly be put to the Attorney General. I don’t think that has, in fact, been determined, and I would suggest the hon. member put that question to the Attorney General.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps I may be allowed to direct that question to the Attorney General?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale will have his turn in a moment.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask, as a supplementary, is the Premier not concerned that a very major land acquisition purchase was made, involving a large amount of public money, for which there was no specific or definitive appraisal at all carried out by the Ontario Housing Corp.? How can he allow a major corporation of his government to behave in that fashion with public funds?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, I thought there were four questions. He then said to me there was only one and that is whether we were going to have an inquiry, and I said no. If the leader of the New Democratic Party is asking whether I’m concerned about two or three of the things that apparently were not part of the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the answer to that is yes.

Mr. Singer: What is the Premier going to do about it?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Then why doesn’t the government have a public inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I said we would not have a public inquiry.

Mr. Lewis: How is the Premier responding to the apparent abuse of public funds in a fashion which is unaccountable on the part of the Ontario Housing Corp.? Surely he can’t countenance that kind of procedure on the part of any public corporation, and how will he bring the Ontario Housing Corp. to its senses?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have complete confidence in the capacity of the Minister of Housing to administer the Ontario Housing Corp. in a proper sense. It is not my intent here, this morning, to reopen the discussions that have taken place over the past two or three days.

Mr. Foulds: Bring it under public control.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We’re concerned that any agency of government functions properly and efficiently and honestly, and I am quite confident of the capacity of the minister to deal with it. I certainly am concerned if there have been prices paid that are higher than market value, although I say with respect, Mr. Speaker, that is always a question of judgement, not that easily defined, and I would say with respect that some of the information --

Mr. Lewis: Right, one would like to see the judgement.

Mr. Singer: The Premier can find it in the registry office. It was there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Downsview is asking a question, he has sufficient knowledge as it relates to the land market -- perhaps more so than some -- and, with great respect, the information from a registry office does not always totally reflect market value at the time the land is purchased, and he knows it very well.

Mr. Lewis: But what about an evaluation?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Surely if the Premier is concerned that OHC may have paid more than was proper for these properties he should be equally concerned that OHC made the payments without a proper evaluation? None has been available from the minister and it is a clear indication that these lands are being purchased without them.

Mr. Speaker: Is that a question?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If he is concerned about that why does he not have an inquiry, rather than just say he trusts the minister? I think the minister is a fine man. Is the Premier not aware that this is the third fine minister he’s had in a year having to do with this responsibility?

Mr. Lewis: It is about the sixth he has had in 18 months.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m aware that there have been two or three Ministers of Housing. I am also, as I said before, confident that the Minister of Housing has the capacity to deal with any internal administrative situations within the corporation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We will see about a month from now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is fine, we will see about a month from now. I will only say to the Leader of the Opposition that certain land purchases are made with 90 per cent funding from Central Mortgage and Housing Corp., which, too, obviously has some responsibility and which on this occasion must have been satisfied with the purchase price being paid.

Mr. Cassidy: That is a cop-out.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think when you are having 90 per cent of the funding coming from the federal source that they too must have been content, in a relative sense, with the amount of money.

Mr. Lewis: They take this government’s judgement, and so they should.

Mr. Breithaupt: We just bill them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the Premier expect them to have a royal commission inquiry into Ontario Housing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why don’t they inquire into their own operations?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the Premier look into this and set his own house in order?

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary. Order please.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Supplementary: Is it the intention of the government to eliminate OHC in its present form as a Crown corporation and make it simply a part of the Ministry of Housing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the intent.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

SALES TAX ON VENDING MACHINE GOODS

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier: In view of the fact that inflation has forced up the price of many small articles, such as soft drinks and candy bars sold through vending machines in this province, resulting in a great deal of frustration in bookkeeping and inspection, all those sort of things -- the prices have to go perhaps higher than they should because of the fact that these are now coming into the taxable category -- is the government giving any consideration to raising the floor of the retail sales tax to the place where it would correspond with the original price considering inflation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this hasn’t been brought to my attention. As I understand the question from the hon. member, he is referring to chocolate bars and so on that are sold through vending machines, and because of the use of the machine the price may be such that there would be tax payable, which would complicate the use of the vending machine etc. Mr. Speaker, I’d be quite prepared to discuss this with both the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) and the Treasurer to see if there is any way to resolve it. Quite frankly, I don’t know at this moment, but I think it is worth looking into.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

MEETINGS RE NORTHERN COMMUNITIES ACT

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Premier: In view of the content of the Throne Speech last spring and of the promise of the present Minister of Housing when he was Minister without Portfolio, that before Bill 102, the Northern Communities Act, was debated in this chamber public meetings would be held in the small communities across northern Ontario, and that none have yet been held; and in view of the fact that the expectations of the people in those communities have risen as a result of the pronouncements in the Throne Speech and by the minister, would the Premier ensure that those meetings are held and that a member of his declining caucus -- not the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) -- is appointed to look after that bill and to shepherd it through not only the communities of the north but also through this chamber?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are obviously quite interested in moving ahead with this policy that the people in the northern part of the province -- and our feeling is that they are enthusiastic about it -- be involved in the discussions, and I think this can be accommodated. The hon. member made reference to the slight decline in the total numbers of our caucus. We still have people available, and I would say that while we’ve had a decline in total numbers, in terms of quality I would match this caucus against the other two any day of the week.

Mr. Lewis: Oh yes, could we have a little applause for that please?

Mr. Speaker: A question from the Liberal Party.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Laughren: Is the Premier intending to appoint someone of a cabinet stature within his caucus to look after that bill and to carry out the promises of the former cabinet member?

Mr. Lewis: Of course, that assumes he has someone of stature to appoint.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious -- the hon. member must know this -- that every member of this caucus is of cabinet stature.

Mr. Laughren: No, I have not noticed that.

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

HALDIMAND-NORFOLK FARMERS’ TAX BILLS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Is he aware of the problems faced by the farmers in the former Townsend area of Haldimand-Norfolk whose land was purchased in a large parcel, which we are told is for the purpose of a new town? They have leased back this property for farming purposes, but the taxation bills have gone from the regional government to the owner of the property -- that is, the government of Ontario -- and the farmers have not received those tax bills back. It is their responsibility to pay the taxes and as of today, Nov. 15, a penalty of one per cent a month is chargeable.

Is the minister responsible for those tax bills? And who is holding them and delaying their transference back to the farmers, who must pay the amounts in the long run?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe I am responsible for those tax bills. I’ll look into the matter brought forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I think it would come under the Treasurer and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, but I will investigate in his absence and report.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the farmers are concerned about the penalty, would the minister undertake that in the event a penalty is charged, the farmers won’t have to pay it but that either Housing, Treasury or some other emanation of government will see that that extra charge does not lie on the farmers themselves?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, Mr. Speaker, what I will do is investigate the whole matter and report. I am not aware of what the hon. member has brought forward; until I am, I won’t make any further comment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

OBLIGATIONS OF HOME BUILDER

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Housing too.

Will the minister take some action to ensure that the residents who signed the petition which was sent to his office, bringing to his attention that Claren Homes, currently one of the builders in the new HOME programme, have not fulfilled their obligations to those purchasers by repairing and putting into proper order the houses that they built in the last programme? Will he insist that Claren make good their commitments to those who purchased in the previous programme last year before they are permitted to build any further homes under the HOME programme?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have asked our staff to investigate the matter fully and if there are any problems which are OHC problems, they will be fulfilled and corrected. We will look into the matter immediately. I know of the problem; it has been brought to my attention.

Mr. Deans: Well, just one supplementary question. Doesn’t the minister feel it would be very useful if he could prod his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to get a house warranty so that those people would be protected?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that matter is under consideration by my colleague --

Mr. Deans: It has been for a year and a half.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and it has been for some while by previous ministers. I expect that legislation may be brought forth to correct any deficiencies in the legislation.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Hope springs eternal.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. If they look at it long enough, it will go to the next Conservative.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is of the Minister of Housing. In the role of OHC in condominium projects and in its relationship to development of that type of project, why does OHC itself not move to ensure there are no debits or deficiencies when the homeowner takes over?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any specific deficiencies in the condominiums. If the member would bring these to my attention, I will look into the matter for her.

Mrs. Campbell: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mrs. Campbell: When we have the situation where we have the directorate, with OHC in essence as a part of the developer directorate and with control over it, when OHC sends into the homeowners’ association a member of OHC to tell the homeowners that it is the policy of OHC that the homeowners will not be required to take over deficiencies why does OHC not ensure that there are no deficiencies at the time of takeover? And there are deficiencies.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think it depends on who is responsible for those deficiencies. If it’s OHC’s responsibility, I’ll look into the matter. It may not be OHC’s responsibility; it may be that of the one who built the particular building in question. Now, if the member can give me specific facts, I would be delighted to receive them; I’ll look into the matter and report to you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: Has the ministry entered into agreements with some municipalities to fund special assistance to the province’s 30 per cent of the cost over and above the 50 that the federal government is paying?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): The question is not too clear, Mr. Speaker. Is the question if we are funding special assistance to a higher percentage than we are now?

Mr. Martel: The government is not funding at all now. I am asking if the ministry has reached agreements with certain municipalities to fund it to 30 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: There has been no change in the funding under special assistance, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

WINDSOR TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. Does the minister plan to get personally involved in the dispute between the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation and the Windsor Board of Education in an attempt to avert the walkout on Monday?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I have been personally involved in that particular matter and I stand ready to be of assistance to either side if they think we can be of some help.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

YOUNG TRAVELLERS PROGRAMME

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education: Could I ask the Minister of Education if he has under consideration the expansion of the Ontario Young Travellers Programme into the secondary school level?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is no, I don’t.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

DISTILLERY WORKERS’ STRIKE

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour: Due to the length of time of the strike now at Hiram Walker, which is tying up production and also the grain traffic, has the minister any solutions as to what is going to happen, and has he been dealing with the strike? Is it under mediation at this time, or are the two parties still apart?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, it is still under mediation. They go between periods when they want to talk with us and periods when they want to talk between themselves, but it is still under the eye of my people. It is a difficult one. We haven’t made much progress but we are not giving up.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The situation is still liquid.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

USE OF OIL IN HYDRO VEGETATION CONTROL

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Energy: Does the minister know how much oil Ontario Hydro has used in the past year in its vegetation control programme, and does he know if Ontario Hydro has been successful in phasing out the large amounts of oil it was using in its vegetation control programme, in view of a statement by George Gathercole on Dec. 11, 1973?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: Could the minister get the information and supply it to the House?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills. The member for Scarborough West.

CONDOMINIUM ACT

Mr. Lewis moves first reading of bill intituled An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that no presently occupied building is converted into condominium units without the approval of the municipality in which the building is located. It requires an open public hearing before such conversion takes place and sets out a series of conditions which must be fulfilled or honoured before conversion can occur.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane North.

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Brunelle moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, the main provision of this bill is to transfer the establishing authority from the existing family benefits board of review from the Family Benefits Act into this Act. The new board is to be called the Social Assistance Board of Review.

GENERAL WELFARE ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Brunelle moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the General Welfare Assistance Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of bill.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, the amendments correspond to change in the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act whereby the board of review is transferred to and continued under the Act as the Social Assistance Board of Review.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Brunelle moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, the amendments correspond to changes in the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act whereby the board of review is transferred to and continued under the Act as the Social Assistance Board of Review.

FAMILY BENEFITS ACT

Hon. Mr. Brunelle moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Family Benefits Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in this bill the amendments correspond to changes in the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act whereby the board of review is transferred to and continued under that Act as the Social Assistance Board of Review.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves second reading of Bill 9, An Act to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, in reviewing this bill, it would appear that the changes that have been set out have some minor amendments which we hope will benefit and make somewhat more clear the legislation that is before us. It is interesting to note that housing accommodation is now going to be able to be restricted to the same sex, except in the case of the owner or his family, and the earlier prohibitions against discrimination for housing accommodation with respect to race, colour, nationality or place of origin are being maintained.

The one interesting thing that I had noted in section 3, which deals with section 7(a), concerns the matter of removing that involvement from the Ontario women’s bureau whereby the enforcement provisions had been part of their jurisdiction. Since the Ontario Human Rights Commission is now going to have this jurisdiction, I am wondering if it is the intention to transfer staff from the bureau to the Human Rights Commission or if we will, in fact, have any net savings of persons who are involved in dealing with this particular area.

I think it’s worthwhile, as section 4 sets out, that the inquiry powers do become somewhat less formal than they have been in the past. The investigation of a complaint in the past has perhaps caused more harshness than should be occasioned. I would think that the settlement of it, rather than dealing with it under the Public Inquiries Act, is going to be beneficial to the parties who are involved. Of course, the minister must have some way of dealing with this kind of problem if it is not settled. Accordingly, the board of inquiry which can be set up under the minister’s jurisdiction seems to be a useful way in order to give a second or a full hearing to the matter if the matter cannot be settled.

There are reasonable safeguards which do occur in this bill. I think that the matter of giving receipt for documents copied and the prompt return of original documents in such matters are certainly worthwhile. I noted from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) that there is going to be an amendment which the minister is going to move in committee with respect to dealing with the matters of pension funds or plans and insurance plans, which are exempted again due to the matter of age, sex or marital status. I would hope that the minister, perhaps in responding to the opening remarks which will be made on this bill, will give an explanation concerning that amendment so that it would appear on the record at this point, at which time I think the various amendments to the bill will no doubt be rather promptly dealt with.

We will support the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to speak to this bill? The member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a clouded view here this morning. I would like to take perhaps a minor liberty in speaking on the minister’s bill to amend the Human Rights Code. It deals with three or four items. It would be our request that the bill go into committee of the whole House so that at the appropriate time we could deal in a rather more informal manner with the specifics of each of these amendments to get some clear understanding about it, rather than by way of formal debate.

I would, however, perhaps with a little bit of indulgence from the Chair and from the minister, like to ask the minister whether or not it is now not time to look at the Ontario Human Rights Code with respect to the methods of enforcement which are available, the procedures which are followed, the background of tradition and authority which has been established by that commission to see whether or not there should not be changes in the way in which we approach the whole question of discrimination in its very broad aspects.

I am moved to make these comments simply because I had an opportunity when I was in England recently to pick up and look at the white paper of the government of Great Britain which was issued in September of this year, dealing with equality for women. In the course of that white paper they make some very specific comments about the strategy which they propose to follow in a bill which will undoubtedly be introduced during the course of the present Parliament in Great Britain. What they were really saying is that they felt that not to have a public body -- in our case the Human Rights Commission and in their case a body to be established called the Equal Opportunities Commission -- at all and simply leave the matter of protection of individual rights to individual procedures in the courts or before other tribunals would not be a wise procedure.

On the other hand, they said that they felt with their experience -- and their experience relates not only to a relatively long period in the application of non-discriminatory legislation, but to the work of a couple of select committees, some very expert studies which have been made in the various fields of discrimination -- that one should move away from total reliance upon a body such as the Human Rights Commission in carrying out the functions of ensuring the enforcibility of non-discriminatory provisions of the law.

If I may, having said that briefly, I will quote the one paragraph in the report, which has this to say for these reasons, and I have synopsized my version of their reasons: The government proposes to combine the right of individual access to legal redress with the strategic functions of a new public body. The name of the body is the Equal Opportunities Commission and it will have a major role in enforcing the law in the public interest. Although it will be able to represent individuals in suitable and significant cases, its main task will be a wider policy to identify and deal with discriminatory practices. It will be empowered to issue non-discrimination notices which could, if breached, be enforced through civil courts and to follow up court and tribunal proceedings. It will also be able to conduct general inquiries and research, to advise the government and to take action to educate and persuade public opinion. The commission will have adequate powers to require the production of relevant information.

My only point is to suggest to the minister that perhaps at some point he would have a look at that white paper to see whether or not there are some comments in it of relevance and interest to the ongoing work of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, with a view to seeing whether there is not too much emphasis and reliance upon the individual coming forward and instituting a complaint, and whether there are other methods by which the non-discriminatory provisions of the law could be more adequately enforced.

I would ask that the minister put the bill into committee of the whole House so we could deal with the specific amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill?

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, in one of the sections related to the bill there is a very serious omission, and I would like to raise it with the minister now, even though I am not convinced that the Human Rights Code is necessarily the best means to handle this particular problem.

When the Human Rights Code was brought down it originally contained, much to my amazement, no restrictions as to discrimination by sex in housing in the Province of Ontario. That omission was repaired in the amendments to the bill which were passed in June, 1972 -- I think it was June, 1972. So one cannot discriminate against a person in the provision of housing because of the person’s sex, with the exception of roomers or lodgers in a small household, which is covered in the bill before us today.

However, Mr. Speaker, it remains possible for people to discriminate in housing on the basis of age. In certain cases that may not be a real problem. The bill doesn’t refer to the problems that older people may have in getting accommodation, but to my knowledge older people generally make reasonable tenants and are normally discriminated against on economic grounds -- that is, they can’t afford accommodation -- but not on the grounds of their age. However, children are definitely discriminated against in this province. Families with children are discriminated against in this province. And that is something which the Ontario government has never seen fit to take action about.

It’s a very curious and interesting situation that in the provision of housing it is against the law, and rightly so, to discriminate against people who are of different races or nationalities and who may have customs and lifestyles quite different from those of their landlord -- if it’s a situation where the landlord lives on the premises -- but the very large group of children in the province can simply be excluded by landlords.

In the situation we have today, where there is a very tight housing market in the city of Toronto, for example, with low vacancy rates, the situation that results is pretty predictable. Families with children are economically less able to survive in the rental accommodation market. Often the wife, or one of the spouses, is unable to work or is working only part-time because of the need to be at home with the kids. The family, if the children are young, may need to have babysitters or may need to pay for day care and, therefore, has less money available for housing. Because of the needs of children, that family needs more space than an adult couple of the same age and general situation in income. Families with kids, basically, need more space but can afford to pay less for it than other people in our society and they, therefore, are in a position where they are already vulnerable. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they become more vulnerable because of the fact that they can be discriminated against under Ontario law, and there is no sanction to prevent it.

In my riding of Ottawa Centre, there are currently condominiums for sale at a price which looks pretty exorbitant, until you see what’s for sale in the suburbs. The advertisements for this building state specifically that the building is directed to discriminating adults. When you ask them specifically what that means, you find out that children under the age of 16 are not permitted. I don’t exactly know what they intend to do if any of the families of people who move into there happen by luck or intention or mischance to have a baby. Nevertheless, it’s a bizarre situation where people who are actually purchasing a condominium unit are knocked out or are unable to buy that condominium if they happen to have children.

Also, in my riding, which is a downtown area which has been losing families at a very rapid rate, I think three out of five apartment buildings that we looked at in that area also discriminate against people with children. They will either not permit them or else they will permit them only under very selective circumstances, which certainly don’t apply in the same way to adult tenants coming and seeking to rent. With adults, they simply look at their cheque book, their bank balance and their credit rating. If they’re okay and they’re not in barefeet, then they give them the apartment if one is available. If there is a child or children concerned, they look at the age of the children and look at the space. They may look at school records, psychiatric records and God knows what. Then, if the child can pass through the eye of a needle he may or may not, or she may or may not be accepted with the family.

In downtown areas, such as my area of Ottawa Centre, the effect is that since the new housing accommodations are basically in the form of rental and condominium accommodation, you simply drive away families that might wish to live in the downtown area because they simply can’t get accommodation. They’re driven out to the suburbs, regardless of the fact that in certain circumstances a downtown location may be the most desirable for them. That’s a particular problem of a downtown riding.

In more general terms, however, if a substantial proportion of the condominiums and apartment units available in a city like Toronto is barred to people, by reason of the fact that they have children, then their vulnerability is thereby increased and the ability of the remaining landlords to rip off those families by charging them higher rents is thereby increased. Their ability to benefit from what competition there is in the rental market is decreased if a certain significant number of units is closed off to them.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that this dis- crimination against families is increasing and will continue to increase so long as we continue to have a tight housing market and, dare I say it, so long as the demographics of our society continue in the present direction where families with children are becoming less and less the predominant social grouping. As people have fewer kids, as more people choose not to have children, as more couples don’t have kids, then their kind of demand on landlords where they say, “We don’t want those brats in the elevators,” or words to that effect, will have more and more of an effect and you will see created more and more adult buildings, swinger buildings, buildings for older people and that kind of thing, and less and less accommodation available for people with families. There is a very basic moral judgement and social judgement to be made there which I urge on the minister and which I will urge on him in an amendment when we get to the clause-by-clause study of this particular bill.

We in Ontario say that it is wrong to discriminate against somebody in housing because of their religion --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I might point out this particular section has to do with employment, not housing.

Mr. Cassidy: The particular section has to do with housing.

Mr. Speaker: Section 2?

Mr. Renwick: One of the subsections deals with housing.

Mr. Cassidy: The area I am concerned with is section 1 of the bill. We say that it’s wrong to deny somebody housing because of their race, their religion, their creed, their nationality, their origins, and now their sex. It just seems to me bizarre that the same time we blinker ourselves to the discrimination which is going on, at an increasing rate, against families with children in a society that has always said that the family and the nurture, care, breeding and raising of kids are important and one of the prime tasks of our society. I think that it deserves to be included in this particular Human Rights Code. If the minister wants to find some other way, fine, but I think that a commitment should be made by the government now before the problem of discrimination against families in housing grows to crisis proportions.

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

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill, as you know, was originally introduced by my predecessor some time ago in an attempt to bring in a few desirable changes as a result of experience with the Act as it now exists. Some of them are practical suggestions, such as those of the member for Kitchener. He asked about net savings when we transfer over to the women’s bureau some of the protections against discrimination of women that have been exercised in the past by the Human Rights Commission. I understand that there was a shift in personnel when this transfer actually took place a few months ago, but that has already taken place, so as far as reflecting any changes in the estimates or the budget it will not do so.

The inquiry powers are less formal, as the member for Kitchener has pointed out. We try to work, Mr. Speaker, when we are carrying out the spirit of this bill, by conciliation more than the adversary system, and that is the reason that we want it done in this way. Actually I am told that in the original bill, as it now stands, it was put there by mistake -- they didn’t want that procedure, and this is the procedure that they have been following regardless of the form of the Act. So there again, it is tidying up and bringing into practice what actually does, in fact, exist.

The member also mentioned the amendment that I handed to both opposition parties earlier. As the member knows, at the present time in regard to pension plans and insurance, a certain amount of discrimination is in effect. There is a special section which is not carried forward in the reprint of the Human Rights Code but is covered by a note at the end of section 4(1), and it refers to 1972, chapter 119 of our statutes, section 16, the effect of which is to permit discrimination in pension codes.

I have already introduced to the House an amendment to the Employment Standards Act. We now propose to deal with pension uniformity and insurance uniformity so that there won’t be discrimination -- under the Employment Standards Act rather than under the Ontario Human Rights Code. We think it is better administered there, so now that the amendments to the Employment Standards Act have been introduced we can at this point remove them from the Ontario Human Rights Code, which we couldn’t do at the time this bill was introduced.

Now, the hon. member for Riverdale, who is very much concerned, and has spent some time during our estimates on our procedures, has drawn my attention to a white paper from the British system. I’ll be pleased to look at that. I am certain that our staff must know it. We are concerned, as is the member, about how to effectively eliminate discrimination. We don’t think that court action, except in the glaring cases, is the proper way to do it; we think it’s a matter for education and conciliation. We are prepared to examine any way we can to better the situation and if we think it will better it, we will put it into effect.

In regard to the matter of discrimination in housing, I am informed that we have not received any complaints in the matter of housing discrimination against the elderly, but we have received a great many complaints in the matter of discrimination against children.

The member is quite right that we have no provisions to prohibit this type of discrimination at the present time. Our concern is that it would affect so many rental situations across the province if we were to try to bring it in at this time. The answer, of course, is an adequate housing supply -- and the member may have his comments on that -- but it would be wrong to try to say that they could not put people out, or terminate their leases at the end of the period, if they were trying to put three or four children -- maybe even one or two -- into those apartment suites that were set up for one and two residents.

We think that would be wrong in the present situation where, as I say, over the years a great deal of leasing accommodation has been built up on the basis that this type of restriction is quite proper.

As the hon. member knows, we have housing for senior citizens that is restricted for the most part to senior citizens; there are also so-called bachelor apartments with only one bedroom. To say that from here on in, landlords could not discriminate because a number of children were suddenly introduced to the situation, we think would be wrong and rather than helping the situation, it would probably add more chaos to the present housing situation.

Mr. Cassidy: That speech would look very bad if the minister said “blacks” instead of “children.” He would hide his face in shame.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, racial differentiation is not permitted, but we are allowing it -- and we understand that it goes on -- on the basis of children. However, we say that since it has long been an accepted facet in the building of apartments, not only in Ontario but across North America -- and, I guess, in most civilized societies -- that to try to change it by legislation, in short order, would, as I say, cause more problems than it would hope to rectify.

Mr. Cassidy: But so does the racial discrimination.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this is to go to committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We can proceed there now if that is the wish of the House, Mr. Speaker.

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

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE ACT

House in committee on Bill 9, An Act to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to be proposed in this bill? If so, to what section?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I have an amendment to section 1.

Mr. Chairman: Section 1? The minister has an amendment; is it to this section?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): It is to section 2 of the bill, Mr. Chairman.

On section 1:

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 1 of Bill 9 be amended by adding a new subsection (3) as follows:

“(3) No person directly or indirectly, alone or with another, by himself or by the interposition of another, shall deny to any person occupation of any housing accommodation or discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to any term or condition of occupancy of any housing accommodation, because of the age of any prospective occupant or occupants of such housing accommodation, including persons aged over 65, and dependent children of the person or persons intending to rent the housing accommodation.

“But the subsection shall not prevent a limitation of the number of occupants of housing accommodation, provided that the maximum permitted occupancy is not set at less than one adult or child per room of the housing accommodation to which the occupancy limit applies.”

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you. I wonder if I could, briefly, get a copy of that amendment back, Mr. Chairman, because I don’t have a copy myself.

The point that was raised by the minister about having three or four kids jammed into a one-bedroom apartment is, of course, a valid one. I think it would be unrealistic to expect every landlord to take entire families into one-bedroom apartments. We can find better ways to handle that situation. Therefore, in this amendment, which is rather crudely drafted, the concept is a two-fold one.

One, you don’t discriminate against families with kids. I’ve restricted it to dependent children, but I think it would ultimately probably have to come to any children living with an adult.

Two, you do permit a landlord to set an occupancy limit in order to prevent a situation where he gets a large family trying to seek to get into a very small apartment.

Once again, the definition would probably need to be worked out in more detail. Is a kitchen without a window for example, a room or not? I would imagine it isn’t. But that’s a matter of regulations when the government accepts this amendment.

What it would mean though, is that in a situation of a bachelor apartment complex, for example, the landlord of course could accept children, as he can accept them right now. And if he wished to restrict it, and these were one-room apartments, then he could simply say no more than one person per apartment -- and that would apply throughout.

That would mean, however, that if a couple wished to occupy one of those apartments they would be prevented from doing so unless the landlord’s occupancy standards permitted two persons per apartment -- and in that case the two people could be a father or mother and child, rather than an adult couple. I don’t see anything unreasonable about that. It seems to me if you allow two adults into a small apartment, that surely there is no problem having one adult and one child.

In the case of a one-bedroom apartment, the occupancy standard would be that he couldn’t restrict it to less than two people. There would be two rooms, the living room and the bedroom, and that could mean two adults or it could mean an adult and a child. That doesn’t seem like an overwhelming kind of burden on the facilities of an apartment building. If the apartment building can’t stand up to that, then certainly there is something wrong with the building code. That’s where we should look to, and not elsewhere.

In the case of two-bedroom apartments, this would allow two adults and a child at a minimum -- for example, a young couple just getting started who have had their first kid -- to have free access to the two-bedroom apartments that are available in a municipality rather than being restricted from certain accommodation, or it would allow one adult with two children who is economically in a difficult position to afford accommodation near the ground also to have a relatively wide choice of accommodation, rather than the more and more limited kind of choice which is being made available right now.

The minister talks about the way the rental market has worked in the past. Clearly this is not going to affect anybody who is currently in rental accommodation. If they happen not to have children, then they’re not going to be affected. If they happen to have children and are in a building which has accepted them in the past, obviously they’re not going to be affected. If they happen to have five kids crammed into a very small apartment now, then obviously the landlord has already accepted that state of affairs. If he chooses to change it, his rights to change it would be little different than his rights to change it under existing law where he can say to them: “Look, when your lease is up, I don’t want you to stay on because I’m not going to renew.”

I guess the other question which the minister will have to raise, therefore, is what about the rights to quiet enjoyment of people who are tenants, if a person who has a child or two moves in down the hall? I think the answer there is that it’s the same as with any other kind of form of discrimination. What about the Arab who has somebody of the Jewish faith move in down the hall? Or what about somebody who is irrationally prejudiced against people who are black who has a black move in down the hall? They have a choice. They can clearly move somewhere else, if they don’t like that situation, and that is as it should be.

Moreover, the landlord is free to make reasonable rules about the use of the premises. If it is found that a tenant is holding wild parties, for example, in an apartment, then it is open to that landlord not to renew the lease at the end of the period on the grounds that the tenant was disrupting the quiet enjoyment of other people. If it’s found that parents are allowing their children to use the corridor of an apartment building as a playground and to pedal their tricycles at a furious rate back and forth as they utter Indian war whoops every night until 10:30 at night, then clearly those parents and that family aren’t fitting in very well. There is reasonable ground to say to them, ‘‘Look, we’re awfully sorry, but you’re going to have to go.”

I would suggest to the minister that, in the same way as, I’m sure, he wouldn’t dare to suggest all people of a certain nationality, race, sex or anything else, smell or have funny habits or something like that, he shouldn’t make those kind of generalizations about families. I think that there are a lot of perfectly reasonable normal kinds of families with reasonable normal kinds of kids and they should not be discriminated against on the fear that, “Oh, my God, they’re going to tear the place apart.”

That, basically, is what it amounts to. It’s that, plus an unwillingness of some people who are tenants or who are in accommodation right now, to accept that there are other people with certain different habits and lifestyles in this world, namely children, and to accept that maybe they should tolerate them rather than try to shut them completely out of their lives. They’re not allowed to shut coloured people out of their lives or people with different religions out of their lives, so why children?

I’d appreciate the comments of the minister. Maybe we can have a dialogue for a minute or two about this before we go forward.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to respond?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate the intent of what the member for Ottawa East --

Mr. Cassidy: Centre.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’m sorry, Ottawa Centre --

Mr. Cassidy: We’ll take Ottawa East next time.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- is trying to bring about by this amendment. It’s a concern to the commission because there are many cases where families are asked to leave. However, I think the only answer is the answer that I’ve suggested: greater housing supplies. I’m concerned that the restrictions we sometimes put on landlords tend to have the reverse effect.

Mr. Cassidy: This is not a restriction.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: This applies to bylaws or whatever else you want to call it. The more legislation you try to bring in in the housing field -- it sometimes may have the reverse effect by tending to chase out people who might otherwise be happy to build accommodation, and make them say, “All right, they are making it so difficult for us that we are no longer interested in getting into that field.”

But that is not the real answer. As I say, the real answer is the fact that for years there have been apartments for adult people, family apartments, and senior-citizen accommodation. Children are normal; it’s not the abnormal children, I suppose, that we are concerned about, because there are ways of putting out abnormal children or families that make undue noise. But children are very normal, children are boisterous, children are full of life, and they don’t always go to bed at 7:30 in the evening. They like to turn their radios up and listen to loud music, they like to play games outside people’s windows and they might even break the odd window. To say that accommodation that is now known as adult accommodation suddenly has to have even normal children left in it, or permitted to be there, I think would be changing the order of society to quite a degree that would not be acceptable.

Mr. Cassidy: Why is the minister such a Tory?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Simply because there is no great harm in being a Tory. In many aspects it’s a good philosophy to have, and many people in this province have that philosophy, that if they want to live in accommodation where children are not -- I don’t like to say prohibited; I suppose that’s a fact --

Mr. Cassidy: That’s it, sure.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- where children are prohibited, they should have the right to do so. The member is suggesting that people shouldn’t have that privilege, but in that philosophy I think I am right. You are entitled to your philosophy on it, but I suppose that’s why I am a Tory and you are a member of the New Democratic Party. But this is what being in here is all about. You have your thoughts and I have mine.

I think there is no reason why people should not have the right to say, “I want to live in accommodation where I won’t be upset even by normal children.” So, Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to accept the amendment, although I appreciate the spirit in which the member offers it.

Mr. Cassidy: I just want to pursue this a bit further, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that the minister is not exactly going to succumb at this time. I have to confess to a kind of frustration which I find with many ministers and many people in the government, because of the kind of laissez-faire philosophy that they tend to espouse and the fact that they just don’t know what is happening out there in the real world, outside this particular Legislature.

Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Do you think you are the only one with a family?

Mr. Cassidy: Look. I have a family --

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Cassidy: -- I also happen to own a house, and therefore within that house and around that house I can do pretty much what I please. I am in a situation, a privileged situation, like most of the people in this Legislature.

None of us has to cope with the problems of, say, being a single-parent family, being a mother with two or three kids who has been deserted by a husband, and who is working because she doesn’t believe in going on welfare, and who is trying to find decent accommodation for those kids which is convenient to her work, to a daycare centre and to a decent school, and who is trying to be a worker, a mother, a father and everything else, and also have some life of her own. We don’t have that problem.

We don’t have the problem of somebody who is earning $3.90 an hour, the average industrial wage here in Toronto, and is trying to raise a family, has just moved in from Hawkesbury because there aren’t jobs up there, is trying to cope with the big city, obviously can’t afford $50,000 for the typical house here in Toronto, and therefore has to live in rental accommodation.

I would say that any person in the Legislature now who is a tenant in his home riding is so by choice and probably because the family has grown up and he has decided to move into an apartment because it is more comfortable for him than the house that he previously owned. So we are not touched by these problems -- and that includes the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and myself and most of the other members of the NDP caucus. But at least I talk to people in that particular situation.

Let me say this to the minister: The first reason for having this particular amendment is not to upset the people who are living in the adult buildings that overlook the Humber River in his constituency, just inside the boundaries of Etobicoke near Bloor St. The rents around there are probably prohibitive for the average young family anyway. The first purpose is to stop the trend which is gathering momentum now to create all-adult buildings, or to turn buildings that formerly accepted children into buildings that will only accept adults in future, or even to the extent, as the minister is obviously aware, to turf families out of rental accommodation because the landlord has decided that he wants to turn it into an all-adult building.

It’s bad enough to put up a new building and say no kids allowed. It’s worse to take an existing building and say from now on no more kids will be allowed. It’s even worse -- it’s just degrading to hear about it -- to find that families who may have lived in the building for six, eight, 10 or 12 years are now being put out on the street because of an arbitrary decision by their landlord that not only will he no longer permit kids there, but he is going to get rid of the kids who have been living there for a number of years. This is comparable, you know -- well, I guess I had better not use that comparison, but I don’t think that that is something that ought to go on in the Province of Ontario.

When the minister says he thinks that people should have the right to live without being interfered with by kids, would he then defend the creation of subdivisions in which children are not permitted? Would he support a bylaw which said that on his street in Etobicoke, beginning Jan. 1, 1975, and from then on, no family with children would be permitted to live and would be forced to move? Would he permit a restrictive clause on all of the houses on his particular street that said from Jan. 1, 1975, no home on this street may be sold to a family with children?

Would he permit a rule which would say that on that street no parent may temporarily harbour their married daughter or married son with a couple of kids, if the kids happen to get into trouble and need to come home because they are in economic difficulty or trying to finish a Master’s degree or something like that, and that they would not be permitted on the street because they happen to have young children who are the grandchildren of those people on that street? That’s what he is saying in relation to the more than half of the people in the city of Toronto who are tenants.

In addition, he says: “Well, we don’t want to put any more restrictions on landlords. My God, we’ll drive the poor dears away.” Of course, there is an answer to that and that is that we don’t have to put up with private landlordism for ever and ever. In Britain, the Labour Party has said it is going to put an end to it, and sometimes I think that wouldn’t be a bad idea around here.

When it came to bringing in the Human Rights Code and telling landlords that you don’t shut somebody out because they are black or brown or yellow, this government took its courage in its hands and it said that to landlords. Now, frankly, that was a relief, not only for the people affected -- that is, the people who happen to be of another nationality or colour or religion or sex -- but also for the responsible landlords in the province as well.

I have a feeling that the Human Rights Code is in the main intended to apply against smaller landlords who have sort of run their property more personally. I think the larger landlords have tended to be fairly enlightened in this particular matter, in the main. I am willing to grant them that. Nevertheless, it meant that if a tenant came to the superintendent in a building, or came to the landlord and said, “Will you get those darkies out of here?” or some other pejorative type of word, it meant that the landlord no longer was vulnerable to that kind of pressure. Even if the entire building signed a petition saying, “We don’t want that family around here,” the landlord was protected by Ontario law, because he could come back to them and say: “Look, Ontario says you don’t discriminate against somebody on the grounds of their colour, their race or their creed.” That was a protection for the landlord, not a restriction for the landlord.

I would suggest that most of the accommodation we are talking about is being put up by large commercial corporations who went into the game for profit and who are putting up units of buildings with maybe 100, 200, sometimes 400 or 500 units apiece and renting them on a commercial basis. They are vulnerable right now to a group of tenants saying, “We don’t want any kids around here,” and that leads some landlords to come and say: “Well, okay, there aren’t that many families with kids around here anyway, so we will give in.”

They also see, let’s face it, an opportunity in the commercial market when the market is very tight and when there is a demand, as the minister has already indicated, by certain tenants to have accommodation where there aren’t kids around. It’s worth maybe $10 or $20 a month in reduced maintenance costs and increased rents that they can charge in having an all-adult building with a guarantee to the tenants that there will be no children around. Therefore, being profit-oriented and not people-oriented, they very easily succumb to that temptation and turn buildings into all-adult buildings. It would, therefore, in that case be a defence against the tenants, but it is also a protection for the landlord against tenants who say, “We don’t want those kids around here.”

The minister might comment on the question of occupancy standards and as to whether he considers that is not a reasonable kind of way of ensuring that you don’t get overcrowding in the building through permitting children to come in. I would like the minister to comment on that as a device, because I hope very much, even if he is not going to accept this now, that some time in the next six months the minister will consult with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) and with the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) who presumably has some concern about the families in the province -- although we’re not so sure -- and with other people affected, and come back in the spring session of the Legislature with an amendment that will protect families with kids from being discriminated against in the housing field.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): May I just make a comment about my colleague’s amendment? The focus of his amendment deals really with non-discrimination on the basis of age under whatever necessary provisions there are in there. The debate between the minister and my colleague was centred upon the question of children. But because of the interjection by the member for Eglinton I would point out that part of the amendment proposed by my colleague deals with age at the other end of the scale as well. Since my friend, the member for Eglinton, is rapidly approaching that end of the spectrum, it would seem to me that he would be one who would want to support an amendment which would provide that there would not be any discrimination on the basis of age in housing accommodation in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Reilly: Is the member speaking for both of us?

Mr. Renwick: I think the member for Eglinton is proceeding a little faster than I am at the present time.

Mr. Reilly: Maybe it’s not so obvious.

Mr. Renwick: It does seem to me that what my colleague is saying is dealing with age. I have never understood why, in this particular non-discriminatory provision of the code, age was omitted from the particular characteristics against which we are trying to provide for non-discrimination. It seems to me that the minister has to give some satisfactory answer to indicate why for older people there should not be a provision that prevents discrimination against them.

Many elderly people are going to be in a position perhaps where they are living alone and perhaps where they are certainly able to pay their rent but may not be able to conduct themselves exactly in the way, because of age disabilities, that the landlord may wish. Yet there is nothing to protect people at that end of the age spectrum against discrimination.

Somehow or other, the refinements necessary to deal with discrimination on the basis of age have not had the attention which has been focused by more vocal groups on various other characteristics against which we do not wish to permit discrimination. I would like to have the minister’s comment, indeed ultimately support for the kind of amendment introduced by my colleague, as to why age is not included in the category as set out in the Human Rights Code as it presently stands.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The word “discrimination” used to be a respectable word in the English language. I think at one time young people were taught to discriminate on various bases. They were taught to discriminate between good and bad, between shoddy and quality. There are certain kinds of discrimination that today are accepted as bad discrimination, Mr. Chairman, as a sort of thing that is repellent to society and which we don’t want to go on. These are the things that the Act tries to outlaw or make illegal, that is, discrimination that is distasteful to all of us and that we don’t want in our society.

I don’t think we are outlawing the word “discriminate” to say that there are some types of discrimination that are not quite reasonable and quite proper. In certain circumstances, I think discrimination in regard to age is quite proper. I am not suggesting that, in the case of the situations that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre mentioned simply to use them as a ploy to get rid of children are good. But there are many kinds of discrimination in housing, based on age, which I think are quite proper and reasonable. I can think of the senior citizens’ home. You can say that’s a foolish example, but we discriminate against many people below a certain age who can’t get into senior citizens’ homes. I think it’s quite right and proper that there should be set up by the municipal governments, and in some cases the provincial government, housing which only permits senior citizens there. That’s a kind of discrimination which I think is quite reasonable and proper.

I have come across cases, Mr. Chairman, where good-intentioned landlords wanted to get senior citizens out of their private apartments simply because they were a risk to themselves in remaining there. They would leave stoves on. They might do many things that were not only a danger to themselves but a danger to the entire apartment building. They have come and said: “Here, I want to get rid of those people. Can you help me get them into a senior citizens’ home of some sort?”

Mr. Renwick: That would be a justifiable reason. That has nothing to do with discrimination.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, it’s discrimination on the basis of age. Those people don’t want to go. They want to stay. I appreciate the intent.

Mr. Cassidy: Those landlords wanted to get them out. They want to raise the rent but don’t dare do it because they are senior citizens.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: You look at everything from the black side. I am sorry for using that word. You look at everything from the negative side, from the wrong side, as if everybody who was using these rights was using them in abuse of something. I say that there are many good bases for setting certain types of housing apart on the basis of age, although I agree that it is used in some places wrongly and in a way that I don’t like to see it used. I am prepared to sit down with the Minister of Housing and see if there are some ways that they can be worked out so that they can even be built in some way into the occupancy regulations, as you are suggesting. Again, I am suggesting to you that there are many forms of age discrimination which I think are desirable for society. In many cases in housing there are some very good reasons for having them.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister say, in addition to the housing for senior citizens, people aged 60 and over, what other forms of age discrimination in housing does he find desirable?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I can think of housing for students, for instance, Mr. Chairman, where they don’t want to have it opened to all sorts of people. They may want to have a limited age bracket or for those who are attending university or something of that nature.

Mr. Renwick: You can deal with those things by exception.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I suppose so, but there are so many exceptions and then you are presented with the business of defining those exceptions. One of the whole problems in this field is making exceptions to the general rule. As I said, I will be pleased to look at them with the Minister of Housing. At the same time, I think you have to allow this age discrimination in the code. And I would remind you it is not dealt with in sections 1, 2 and 3. It is only found at the present time in the employment section.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister mentioned students, although obviously students with children are in a particularly difficult position because they want to be close to their university and, therefore, tend to run more directly into the age discrimination against kids than many other people who have a wider choice of where they live. He has mentioned students and old people. Are there other groups for whom he feels it is desirable to have age discrimination in housing?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I think I have done pretty well in coming up with two on the spur of the moment. Yes, I suggest there are many other age groups.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, what are they?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I can’t just pull them out of the air. I am suggesting to you that there are more.

Mr. Cassidy: It is incumbent on you to tell us what they are.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t think it is. You are the one that’s proposing the amendment. I am telling you two good reasons why I don’t think it should be accepted.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think the debate is becoming a little repetitious.

Mr. Cassidy: I will just close it off, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate what you are saying and, after all we have taken all of 45 minutes on this bill which is a pretty long time. I would just say this to the minister that if he wanted to stand this clause and come back next week and put in a specific exemption for buildings which are directed to people age 60 and over and to student residences, and if he wanted to work out occupancy standards, we would be very willing to look at that. But the idea, for example, that a building can be directed to young swingers or to people in their 30s and 40s, and not be open to other people, makes no sense at all to us on this side of the House.

The minister must surely be aware that apartment buildings -- and that’s what we’re talking about, in the main -- acquire a certain character of their own. I can take him around my riding and take him to some buildings that have older people, some people that tend to have young people, some buildings that have quite a sprinkling of families, some buildings that only have one or two families.

These things happen for a number of different reasons: the quality of accommodation, the location, the recreational facilities, the age of the building, the rents, and all that kind of thing.

Therefore, in the main, people will still tend to seek out buildings where they feel sympathetic, where they feel at home. That’s not going to change because of putting this provision into the Act. But the power to kick families out of apartments should stop. The power to prevent people from moving into a building if it happens to suit their particular needs -- to prevent them because they have kids -- should stop now. I urge the minister to take this up as a matter of urgency and not to try and pretend that there are some kinds of discrimination that are good. They’re all bad.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy has moved that section 1 of Bill 9 be amended by adding a new subsection 3. I will dispense with the reading of it; it’s already been recorded.

All those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Mr. Cassidy: You hesitated there, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2.

The minister has an amendment to move.

Hon, Mr. MacBeth moves that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection 2:

The said section 4 as re-enacted by the statutes of Ontario, 1972, chapter 119, section 5, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“Subsection 9, clause (g) of subsection 1 does not apply to any bona fide superannuation or pension fund or plan, or any bona fide insurance plan that provides life, income, disability, sickness, medical or hospital payments, or benefits of a monetary kind to which an employee, his survivors or dependants are or may be entitled, that differentiates or makes a distinction, exclusion or preference between employees, or any class or classes of employees because of age, sex or marital status.”

It is further moved that the said bill be amended by renumbering sections 5 and 6 and sections 6 and 7, respectively, and by adding thereto the following section 5:

“Subsection 2 of section 16 of the Ontario Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 1972, being chapter 119, is repealed.”

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of that is to make operative the pension plans with a no-discrimination provision and to put them into the Employment Standards Act where they can be better administered. I think you have a copy of this.

Mr. Chairman: Yes. The hon. minister has moved an amendment. Shall I dispense with the reading?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, please.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale wishes to comment.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, because there are now two matters to be dealt with under the second clause of the bill, I would like, first of all, to deal with the matter which is set out in the printed form of the bill, before commenting briefly on the amendment which the minister has just introduced.

I think the minister is very unwise to insert the word “age” in subsection 6, as an exception to the prohibition. I can understand where you state that the provisions of this section relating to discrimination, and so forth, on the basis of sex or marital status, do not apply where sex or marital status is a bona fide occupational qualification and requirement for the position or employment.

I think it is quite possible, objectively, to establish the bona fide of that as a reason for discrimination in employment. There very well may be bona fide situations where that kind of discrimination should not be included among the classes of prohibited discrimination. When you get into the question of age you get into very slippery ground about the bona fides of denying a person employment on some other ground and yet try to state that the real basis of discrimination is not age.

It seems to me that any employer must be in a position where he can run the risk of establishing the reason why he does not provide employment to a person in such a way as to show that it is not a discrimination against that person because of age. It’s the kind of proposal that we in this party are not prepared to accept at this time, and we will cast our vote against the proposed amendment by the rewording of subsection 6 to include the word “age.”

We have already had a discussion on the question of age with respect to the preceding clause. What we are really saying to the minister is that age, as such, brings to mind assessments, decisions, subjective judgements, which the other forms of discrimination which we are prohibiting do not bring to mind. I pay tribute to the work of the Human Rights Commission in Ontario and to the government for its foresight in introducing it so long ago, but in the classification of age, particularly old age, there has not been sufficient study to protect elderly people against insidious forms of socio-economic discrimination.

I’m saying to the minister that he should not proceed with this amendment on that particular ground until there has been some further thought and study made in connection with it, and whatever report is prepared should be filed as a matter that could be studied at the time that such an amendment is introduced into the House.

With respect to the amendment which the minister has just introduced, I understand the reasons for it. I understand the study which has been made. I understand his proposals with respect to transferring this matter into the Employment Standards Act. I don’t quite see why you have to repeal this clause.

I would ask the minister to explain that to me, because we are now going to have an Act, the Ontario Human Rights Code, which will permit that kind of discrimination, and instead of it being dealt with as a matter of discrimination and human rights, we are going to transfer these provisions into the Employment Standards Act, and when we transfer them into the Employment Standards Act, we are going to be saying to people, “You no longer have the protection as a matter of human right; you’ve got it only by virtue of the Employment Standards Act.”

It seems to me that the minister would have been well advised to forget the tidiness of the matter, leave it in the Human Rights Code as it is presently worded, and have the time come when a proclamation will be issued, and in addition, provide in the Employment Standards Act for the kind of provision which he will be introducing, because that then would be permissible. If it were permissible under the Employment Standards Act it would not of necessity therefore be barred under the Human Rights Code, because there would be other considerations rather than the fundamental consideration of discrimination in the sense which we are trying to prohibit it.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister wish to comment?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, the first remarks of the hon. member for Riverdale had to deal with the matter of age, and I think the only answer I can give him -- which again may not be satisfactory to him -- is the fact that we want the legislation to be as practical as possible. In other words, if the legislation is to be respected and accepted by the majority of the people of this province, I think we have to steer away from it appearing to be in any way unreasonable or ridiculous in any manner.

The examples that I have been given for age are such things as police forces. As you know, we deal specifically with the ages between 40 and 65. There have been some police forces that have encouraged retirement at 60. That may not be the best ex- ample, because maybe they should find other employment for them between, say, 60 and 65, but they can’t all become armchair people, particularly in some of the smaller forces. These smaller forces want policemen of ability and in full vigour.

In regard to heavy industry, I think that is the place where we probably have the best example, because there are sometimes people who feel that they are capable of doing heavier work than they obviously are able to do, and when we say you have got to take this person on at 55 or 60, for a job that most of us would probably agree is beyond the physical capabilities, we tend to bring the whole code in disrespect. So we want to remove this.

The deciding factor as to whether it’s a bona fide consideration will rest with the commission. It’s not as though it’s an arbitrary decision made by the employer or the other party concerned. The bona fide of the matter is a matter for the commission itself to decide and I think that they can deal with that in a very real and practical sense, although I agree it is a matter of opinion in many cases, but it is not the opinion of the employer.

I agree, in part, in regard to the insurance. It’s a case of tidying up the legislation on hand. Our employment standards people are the people who are in everyday contact with such things as contract negotiations. They are also setting minimum standards, as you know, and that’s where the expertise is. I think the problem might be if you had two boards -- that is, our employment standards officials and the Human Rights Commission -- deciding on when the terms of a pension or a retirement scheme were being breached on the basis of sex.

Since it is such a complicated matter, as you know examining the report, we feel that it should be best handled by experts who are in our employment standards field, or who will be there, and not by the commission, which for the most part are ordinary citizens who, talented though they may be, are not particularly skilled in the matters of insurance and pension schemes. We feel that it should rest with our employment standards branch, where we will have experts on evaluating the various types of pension schemes.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Chair- man, I’d like to support the point made by the member for Riverdale, with regard to police forces or any other employment, because it is quite easy for medical examination and tests to decide whether or not a person is physically fit, and there are other bases of judging a person’s fitness for a job than just age.

I can well remember the newspaper story last year about Mr. Johansen, of Quebec, who went down to the docks in Montreal to see about a job on a ship to get back to his native land of Norway, and he was taken on, much to his pleasure, because he wanted to get a free trip back. I forget how he served on that ship, but it was certainly mostly as a deck-hand. Mr. Johansen did such a fine job on his trip over that they said “Any time you want to come on board with us again, fine.” He is 40 years older than the minister is. He’s 95.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Obviously in better shape.

Mr. Deacon: That man’s ability -- he could run up the stairs here, he could do anything. He has the physical stamina and he has the physical condition of a person of 60 years younger than himself. There are such individuals we come across, because they made that one of their objectives in life, and discipline themselves accordingly.

I find many, many individuals who are not fit for their jobs at many years below their retirement age because they have not taken care of themselves -- and others who have. Why should we provide for discrimination on the basis of age?

I mention to the minister that he should recognize the fact that medical examination can certainly test very well whether a person is physically able to do the job. There are other types of tests that can certainly indicate whether or not a person is qualified with regard to his mental capacities.

I think that we’ve got to get away from this excuse that is so often made for shutting out opportunities to senior people who have taken pride in keeping themselves fit and young in outlook as well as in physical condition.

I fully support the position taken by the member for Riverdale and I ask the minister to reconsider this. It just isn’t right to have a continuation of the frustrations that this amendment persists in maintaining in discrimination over age.

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

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Chairman, I want to reinforce the comments of my colleague, the member for York Centre, with my experience as a member. I’ve received many, many letters from people from age 40 up to and including 65, who have complained that job opportunities for them become extremely limited, especially when it becomes a competitive job market.

These individuals in that age group I mentioned are probably as capable physically of performing duties as is anyone considerably younger than they are. But because of pension benefits on the part of industry, they are being discriminated against. They cannot work in the industry long enough to get any pension benefits.

I don’t think we should have the calendar decide as to whether an individual can or cannot perform services.

As my colleague did make mention, there are many other ways to judge the qualifications of an individual. But the calendar shouldn’t be one. We always say the job could be too hard or too heavy for the individual.

The individual himself will decide whether that job is too hard for him. If he can’t come along and perform his services or if he finds that it is beyond his physical ability to perform them effectively and efficiently he will ask either for a transfer or he will find other type of employment.

But we simply should not discriminate because the calendar happened to slip by a little too fast for one individual, even though he is physically able and mentally alert. I think this is the wrong approach completely.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to comment further?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, in my own personal thoughts, I regret that we have to put any age in there at 65. I have recently taken on as my executive assistant a man who retired at 65, and to my mind he is more valuable today than perhaps he ever was.

I would agree with what the hon. members have just said, that there are many people at 45 and 55 who are in better condition than many younger people. I’m suggesting that even 65 works a hardship in many cases and yet, as the member knows, these are involved again with pension plans and things of that nature. But the answer as I have it from the staff is that age exceptions are only granted after firm investigation and review by staff and formal vote of the commissioners. So putting age in there is not going to automatically say that one can then exempt on the basis of age.

Mr. Renwick: It’s going to make it almost impossible.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It then remains to show that it’s a bona fide basis for it. I’m still suggesting that there are some heavy industries, some types of occupation where it does become a bona fide exception, but the genuineness of that claim is not automatically accepted. The commission has to be satisfied in regard to it. I think that’s a more flexible and reasonable position to have than is presently the case.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has moved an amendment that section 2 of the bill be amended, etc. All those in favour of the minister’s --

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, so that we don’t get confused here, I think we are prepared to allow that particular amendment to pass, but we don’t want the passage of the amendment to carry the section because we want to oppose that part of the bill as presently written. It may well be that if the minister would agree that this could be called a new clause, we could vote on section 2 as it stands now, and deal with the minister’s amendment as section 3 and renumber the balance of the bill, if that makes sense.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I would think, Mr. Chairman, that that would be a practical way of dealing with it. I think we are agreed that the amendment which the minister has now proposed, which in fact would be a subsection referred to by roman numeral ix, is something with which we can agree, certainly, if the minister would move that that could become perhaps section 3 and the other sections be renumbered. I think we could get on with the voting.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t see any problem with that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Then we will vote on the minister’s amendment. This will not limit the debate or carry the remainder of the section.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There is some renumbering done in my bill, but as long as we make everything comply --

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the minister’s amendment say “aye.” All those opposed, say “nay.” In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the original section 2 -- I assume it’s subsection 6 -- on the original subsection 6? It will be renumbered. Is there any further discussion on that?

Shall that carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of it carrying will please say “aye.” All those opposed will say “nay.’ In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Breithaupt: We will stack this.

Mr. Renwick: We are prepared to stack.

Mr. Chairman: You are prepared to stack. Is there any further discussion on amendments or on any other section of the bill?

Mr. Breithaupt: I had asked, Mr. Chairman, the minister with respect to the matters dealt with in section 3. He is in effect changing a function from one branch of the ministry now to another. Could he explain the reasoning behind it and the manner in which these problems will now be dealt with?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, if I can read my note on this, section 7(a) continued the women’s bureau as a division of the Human Rights Commission. When sex was added to the Human Rights Code in 1972 as a prohibited form of discrimination, the Women’s Equal Employment Opportunity Act provisions were incorporated into the code, thus the Human Rights Commission took over the administration and enforcement of the prohibitions involving sex as a discriminatory practice.

The remaining functions of the women’s bureau relating to equality of opportunities for women, by the direction of Management Board, have been assumed by the women’s programme division under the direction of Mrs. Ethel McLellan, executive co-ordinator. The women’s bureau has become redundant as it formerly existed. I don’t know whether that answers the question.

Mr. Breithaupt: While it may have become redundant, are the personnel involved and the programme being entirely transferred, or will something called the Ontario women’s bureau continue to remain redundant?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I have a note on this, Mr. Chairman. This was carried out two years ago, and all investigatory staff -- three in number -- were transferred to the commission. Additional resources were also added -- five officers -- giving coverage in 11 regional offices. Previously the bureau was located only in Toronto.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, we have a vote in this matter. We would be content to stack it until the end of the morning if that is wanted.

Mr. Chairman: Can we do that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Do you mean to vote before the House recesses for the day?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Before the House rises, yes.

Mr. Breithaupt: Or is it more practical to call in the members?

Mr. Chairman: I think we should call them in now.

Mr. Breithaupt: Very well, Mr. Chairman. Call in the members now.

The committee divided on hon. Mr. MacBeth’s amendment to section 2 of Bill 9, which was approved on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 38, the “nays” are 21.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion carried.

Subsection 6 of section 2, as amended, stands as part of the bill.

Bill 9, 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 reports one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

CORPORATIONS TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves second reading of Bill 82, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, 1972.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, on this bill it is my understanding that the minister is going to send the bill to standing committee so that, as a result, many of the comments that could be made on section-to-section can be dealt with at that time. There are a number of changes in the bill which are going to affect the rates of corporate tax in the province and also the matter dealing with the development of certain definitions concerning matters such as the family farm and that sort of thing.

I don’t think there is anything particular that can be said on the principle of the bill at this point and I think that the discussions can more usefully be held in standing committee when we deal with it section by section.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker, I think we will spend just little longer on it than that. I think too it should go to committee because of its intricacies.

I was thinking this morning how curious it is in the Legislature that when tax bills are introduced it is almost exclusively the legal profession that is on its feet. I find that anomalous. There is no reason in the world why this particular faction or ilk of society ought to be handling legislation of this kind day after day.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): It is because of the verbiage; nobody else can understand it.

An hon. member: It’s the wording I can’t understand.

Mr. Lawlor: It also proves something I think, monumental and elemental, with respect to the legal profession, for which we ought to give ourselves a coup de grace. We are the only ones with the formidability and the guts to tackle, with a wave of the hand, so to speak, cavalierly --

Mr. Stokes: I wouldn’t say that.

Mr. Lawlor: -- the terrifying complexities and intricacies of even so slight a measure as I hold in my hand. To take a look at it --

Mr. Stokes: If you lawyers were the meticulous grammarians you hold yourselves up to be, we would be able to understand that kind of legislation, too.

Mr. Lawlor: Would you intervene and stop my colleague from --

Mr. Speaker: Maybe you had better settle that outside.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): I am on the member’s side even though his colleague isn’t.

Mr. Lawlor: I find the Tories rather negligible to get along with these days, but it’s one’s own colleagues who give all the difficulty.

Mr. Breithaupt: Aye, there’s the rub.

Mr. Lawlor: It covers, Mr. Speaker, four basically grey areas. The first one has to do with the family farm corporation; the second with mining taxation in some of its aspects; the third with the small business tax credits, which are being introduced as a novelty and for the first time and which I for one at least find fairly acceptable, except in one area I have misgivings about these VICs, the venture investment corporations. That is an area in which I would like the minister to thoroughly equip himself for the purpose of committee to see what the tax incidences are, what the flow-throughs would be, what the savings might be, and whether it will be really efficacious in aiding small businesses; whether you could really put your finger on any quantitive measurement of benefit to small businesses.

After all, the legislation is retroactive and is in effect at the present time, strictly speaking, and it should have given an impetus by this time to the business community in this regard. For a long time under this particular head we have pilloried the Tories -- and the member for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly) knows this only too well because he himself has spoken on the measure and has been the one lone vocal voice of the Conservative Party in this province in that particular regard, that is forfending in the interests of the small businessman. As far as his colleagues are concerned he has had more of a fight with them on that particular matter than he has had with us. This is the first glimmering possibility that something may be done in this area which would make an impact in this particular field.

I have my doubts, and I also have the cost-benefit analysis situation in mind, and the social implications of VICs as rewarding certain factions of the population by way of reduction in taxes over against what they should fairly pay. In other words, it may be a bonanza for the wealthy in somewhat the same way as the interest on municipal borrowings is to certain very large taxpayers in the United States of America where again, it’s something of a ripoff. I don’t want VICs to become ripoffs.

VICs is a secondary matter within the larger picture of a small business corporation in helping the small business to operate.

The more important aspect in the legislation are the MICs -- the mortgage investment corporations -- which are coming on stream in this country, federally and otherwise. It is a new invention and is designed to institute a flow-through of funds. The MIC itself is restricted, first of all as a Canadian corporation and, secondly, as one concerned with investment in mortgage markets only. With the flow-through of funds through that corporation, the corporation will not bear a tax burden in this particular regard. The end recipient is the shareholder in that corporation. The tax will fall into his hands and not in terms of dividends, but in terms of interest and the benefit in tax savings.

I would like to see that spelled out. It’s infinitely helpful when you’re dealing with legislation of this kind to have a document like the highlights of the Ontario budget, where it’s given in simplistic terms, if you will. In other words, it’s broken down as examples, as to how it may operate in a particular context. That’s the kind of thing I’d like to see -- just a little -- with respect to MICs; so you can transfer it from this polyglot language that we have in front of us over into mathematical terms which are immediately evident on the page.

In that particular way, I would ask the minister to give some thought to that. I’d ask him to give good thought to that with respect to the bulk of his tax legislation -- at least those ones which he would have to admit in all conscience, that he himself found very difficult to parse and to analyse. Some of the side notes are totally delusive as things presently stand. Those notes didn’t help anybody at all. If a little mathematics was thrown in on the side, so to speak, as a gratuitous sop to the opposition, and even, perhaps, more of a sop to the minister himself, to his self-understanding in these matters, then we would all suddenly hit a transverse vein. Our tangents would meet somewhere in the infinite distance and we would come together in speaking about the same thing in legislation of this kind.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): That’s where two parallel lines meet.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): He just insulted the member; a transverse meet.

Mr. Lawlor: I was thinking of Albert Einstein; but they do actually meet in eternity, don’t they?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Sure, that’s what parallel lines mean.

Mr. Lawlor: Does the minister think we’ll live long enough?

All right. In respect to the family farm situation, the tax year has now been reduced as a mortgage investment to a flat $50 under section 10. But there is one good move caught up in this thing; that is, that those people who are in the horseracing market, raising horses for meets, are excluded.

We have spoken about that in the case of our own homegrown favourite capitalist -- I won’t even mention his name -- as being a beneficiary of public largesse to the point where parallel lines meet throughout our history of this province. Again, a certain segment, the clutch of social consciousness arises in this legislation excluding that particular category, and in the process of doing so.

The mining stuff is quite a bit more difficult, and I would like the minister to clue me in before we get into committee with respect to some aspects of the matter. I take it, although I haven’t had an opportunity to check this thoroughly, that portions of this mining legislation are not within the dimensions of this legislation at all, but rather within the Mining Tax Act. I just deal with these things. I can’t remember if it went through in the spring.

Mr. Renwick: No, it hasn’t. It’s still on the order paper. Ask him if he’s going to deal with that bill or if his colleague is.

Mr. Lawlor: Incidentally, on that point, is the Minister of Revenue going to be dealing with the Mining Tax Act or is the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier)?

Hon. Mr. Meen: It is not in my ministry, so far as I am aware.

Mr. Renwick: It’s the Treasurer’s (Mr. White) bill, eh?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I can’t answer that at all.

Mr. Renwick: It’s on the order paper in his name. It seems funny for us to be debating this that way -- half in one ministry and half in the other ministry.

Mr. Lawlor: Funny! It’s one of the most grotesque and anomalous things in this province that we should have to truncate legislation in that particular way. It’s constant. By what throwback, into what antediluvian time are we operating here that when a thing is presented in the budget estimates as whole, as a package, we find ourselves dealing with the Treasurer as the spokesman for mines, and with the Minister of Revenue in a completely different capacity? Yet the whole thing ties in.

It’s because of a preservation that certain territory has been carved out to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Minister of Natural Resources. That is a precious preserve. In no way will it be alienated; in no way will it be infringed upon. That had better be ended. It’s time that the Minister of Revenue covered the waterfront. I think that it can only bespeak one thing -- a special, self-interested, vested bunch who want to have the arrogation of their own taxes within their own hands so that the province will not be able to get to them.

Mr. Renwick: He wants to make speeches about it and take credit for it.

Mr. Lawlor: And that can’t be permitted in a tax field which is, by definition, uniform and must be non-discriminatory to elicit the best sense from the population as a whole, who have to pay these taxes to have a little group lived off and lend to it special privileges and benefits. It is just beyond me.

The Treasurer said in a speech to the Canadian Society of New York on Sept. 10, 1974, in his somewhat flamboyant manner, even with respect to such a dull matter as taxation, on page 5:

“The second new incentive involves a change in the processing allowance, particularly when the processing is done in northern Ontario. This allowance will be enriched in three significant ways. First, there will be a sharp increase in the allowance rates for ores refined in Ontario.”

I looked through your legislation and I can’t find that sharp increase in the allowance rate.

“Secondly, a new incentive category is to be established for companies that carry processing in northern Ontario beyond the prime metal phase.”

In your legislation it takes it up to the prime metal phase, but where is this “beyond”? I don’t see that. It’s certainly not in the legislation before us. It may be in the other.

“Thirdly, companies will be allowed to apply the allowance when capital works are constructed rather than when they are completed and put into production.”

I anticipate that the other legislation will contain these matters or -- and I could be very well wrong -- that somewhere, enmeshed in all this verbiage, there are allowances made under these three heads.

Apart from that, the government knows our remonstrances with respect to the depletion allowance picture. I would dare hope that the Minister of Revenue, in this very capacity, however onerous the chore may be, would take some time out and take a look at Carter. Four million dollars were spent on that document, which has now been stuffed on to the garbage heap, never used, but it’s a mine of information -- far more so than the work that the minister and myself did on the select committee. As a matter of fact the work which we did on that committee was somehow foreshortened --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Does the member mean Carter or Smith?

Mr. Lawlor: -- because there were so many brilliant people, all the brains of the country, working on Carter at that time. We had the devil of a time trying to get people who had competence in the various fields in which we were interested. Doesn’t the minister remember that?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Is the hon. member talking about Carter or Smith?

Mr. Lawlor: I am talking about Carter. Carter had pulled in all the best thinking in the country and we had a difficult time trying to find anybody left to feed into our Smith committee any wisdom, any remote lore in these fields, and particularly, in the timber field and in the mining fields. In any event, there are long passages which, when I was young and my eyes were not as dim as they are today, I spent reading in Carter. In those passages, Carter comes down heavy and comes down with all the weight of intelligence against the depletion allowances. They are abrogated, they are discarded. The mining interests and the resource industries are much too powerful in this country in political terms to have a sensible position like Carter’s accepted.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, in view of the time, may I determine if there will be other members wishing to speak on this bill or would the hon. member then find this convenient to move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Lawlor moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I have informed my colleagues across the House of what the order of business will be, but I will read it again. We will continue on Monday with the item that we are on, that is, item 10. Then we shall proceed with items 7, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 27, hopefully in that order. I will inform the House about the resolution standing in the name of Mr. Lewis at the earliest opportunity. I am trying to arrange it now. I would hope that possibly it will be on Tuesday but that is not confirmed. The House will not sit next Wednesday.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, before the motion for adjournment is put, the minister says the House will not sit, but the committee will sit; is that my understanding for Wednesday?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am not certain. I haven’t consulted with the committee. If they desire to sit, I believe that that is their prerogative.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I would presume that the committee handling Transportation and Communications estimates might well be going on. As the House leader is aware there were several days the committee could not meet because of the absence of the minister in this past week.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I believe that that is the position.

Mr. Breithaupt: I would expect that the time will be sufficient to complete those estimates, but I would presume that that estimates committee would likely sit on Wednesday in order to get in the sessional days before the cutoff time.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is agreeable to me, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, if because of the involvement of the cabinet in northern Ontario that becomes impossible, I will see that the allowance is made.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 o’clock, p.m.