Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of the House a group of grade 10 students and their teacher from Downsview Secondary School in North York. The school is located in the riding of Downsview, and some of the students come from my riding and some from the riding of the member for Downsview.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): What is this?

Mr. Young: In answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, during this week the grade 10s from this school are coming to visit the Legislature -- yesterday, today, Thursday and next Monday -- and the member for Downsview and I are co-operating to welcome these students and to call them to the attention of the House. I have given my welcome, and I am sure the member for Downsview would like to add a word to it.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would join with the hon. member for Yorkview in welcoming the students from Downsview Secondary School. Those hon. members who are saying “What is this?” are jealous that the same things don’t happen in their ridings. The borough of North York and the ridings of Downsview and Yorkview produce people who are interested in the affairs of this Legislature. So we join in welcoming them.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Well said.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food.

CEMA PROGRAMME

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement in response to a question that was asked by the member for Huron (Mr. Riddell) on Ontario’s position relative to the provincial ministers of agriculture report on the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency.

The provincial ministers of agriculture, meeting in Ottawa on Nov. 25, reviewed and discussed the report of their committee on the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency.

Here, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add as an aside -- and this is not in the statement -- that the committee that was established to prepare this study and report on the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency was set up at the Winnipeg meeting of the ministers and their deputies from across Canada, and consisted of a provincial marketing board official from each of the 10 provinces, with two from the marketing division of the Canada Department of Agriculture. The chairman of that committee was William Doyle, vice-chairman of the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board.

The recommendations of the committee were adopted by the ministers, on division, in amended form, and were presented by the ministers to the federal Minister of Agriculture, the hon. Eugene Whelan.

The following is a summary of their recommendations with respect to the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. The recommendations are in the areas of structure and administration, pricing and the quota system.

Structure and administration:

1. For an initial period of two years, CEMA should consist of a two-part administration:

(a) CEMA proper to consist of 10 provincial representatives, and

(b) A five-member executive committee.

2. The provincial representatives should be selected by the commodity egg board in each province and should be acceptable to the other signatories to the plan in each respective province.

3. The executive committee should consist of three persons appointed by the federal minister after receiving nominations from the provincial ministers; the chairman and vice-chairman of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency.

4. The division of powers and responsibilities between the executive committee and CEMA should be clearly defined. In general terms, most of the direct power would be in the hands of the executive committee. The executive committee would, within the terms of its authority, initiate and implement policy.

5. A general manager, who would be responsible for implementing policy decisions on a day-to-day basis, should be engaged by the executive committee.

6. More effective use should be made of the consultative committee to CEMA. It should operate as an advisory group to the executive committee.

The National Farm Products Marketing Council should appoint an impartial person to be the chairman and also provide a secretary.

7. A committee representing the signatories to the plan should be established to meet semi-annually to review operations of the plan.

8. The executive committee should submit proposals to the National Farm Products Marketing Council for approval for the establishment of limitations on the actions of the agency in the areas of inventory, levy and cash flow.

With regard to pricing:

9. The executive committee should establish intervention prices at base points in all provinces in the following manner:

The executive committee should establish the cost of production in each province on a standard formula. The intervention price should then be established for a base point in the province of lowest cost. The intervention price at base points in all other provinces is then established by adding the normal freight charge on eggs from that base point to base points in all other provinces.

10. CEMA should purchase all within-quota surplus eggs at the intervention price.

11. Free movement of all within-quota eggs should be allowed, provided the landed price on an equal basis -- bulk or packaged -- and at an equivalent trade level in the province of destination, is now lower than the prevailing price -- that is, same container, same trade level at the shipping point, phis all transportation charges.

12. Provincial commodity boards should be allowed a discretion of two cents per dozen above intervention price. If a province exceeds that discretion, the executive committee should sell eggs into that province and should not remove any surplus within-quota eggs from that province.

13. The executive committee should vary the intervention price in line with market conditions.

Quota system:

14. The authority for enforcement of quota should be delegated to the central agency and be implemented by the executive committee.

15. The executive committee should carry out the monitoring of quotas.

16. Producer quotas should be based on layer numbers, and provincial legislation should be amended -- where required -- to provide for production control.

17. The members of CEMA should establish the total national annual quota and the executive committee should establish the weekly provincial quota.

18. The executive committee should give early consideration to a review of the level of quota exemptions.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the summary of the report, which is much longer than that, of course, submitted to the ministers for consideration, and which was, in turn, forwarded on through the minister to the committee of members of Parliament investigating and doing inquiry work into the structuring and administration of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

CEMA PROGRAMME

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I’d like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food if he is aware of the announcement made yesterday, I believe, that British Columbia was withdrawing from participation in CEMA? In his opinion will this mean that the usefulness of the national marketing agency will be at an end, and what would Ontario’s position be in that connection?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of it, yes. I heard that on the news last night. I can’t see that it will jeopardize the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. I think there has been some concern for some time by the British Columbia producers as to whether or not they wanted to participate in the plan and whether they felt it was really doing them any good.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Did the minister, in taking part in the meeting, respond to the statement made by the representatives of Prince Edward Island some weeks ago that it was production in Ontario that had, in fact, dislocated the orderly marketing programmes that CEMA had endeavoured to utilize?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I don’t intend to be drawn into that controversy, Mr. Speaker. I don’t share that opinion.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did the minister let them know at the meeting that he didn’t?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, we certainly did. I think everyone is entitled to his opinion whether it’s factual or not. Of course, that’s typical of my friends across the aisle. Sometimes they don’t share the proper opinion either on many hems that are really factual as far as we are concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If you’ll permit me a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the opinions of the minister are factual and the opinions of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry of Prince Edward Island are not factual. Is that what this minister is saying?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I didn’t say that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s what it sounded like.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Perhaps the minister would clarify what facts he would say are incorrect.

Mr. Singer: What is a factual opinion?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Quite seriously, I hope my friend didn’t take any offence at the comments I may have made. As far as I am concerned, I am not aware that the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry in Prince Edward Island did say that. I know he has not indicated that to me in any conversations I have had with him. It may have come out from some of his officials. The facts of the matter simply do not substantiate that particular situation.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

REVOLUTIONARY PAMPHLETS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to put a question to the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Is he concerned that pamphlets entitled “The Militants Formulary” and “A Guide to Viet Cong Boobytraps” are readily available apparently in this province and are leading at least one young person in the Orillia area to experiment with explosives that were very seriously injurious to that individual? Is there any control over the importation of this sort of printed matter into this province?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Certainly, Mr. Speaker, as far as the province is concerned, I don’t believe there is any control over the importation of material of this kind. For example, it may come under the Criminal Code which we administer. I am not aware of the particular pamphlet to which the hon. member refers and I’d like to get some more information before answering fully.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the minister aware of the unfortunate accident in the Orillia area and the fact that the local police, I believe, on investigating found copies of these pamphlets entitled “The Militants Formulary” and “A Guide to Viet Cong Boobytraps” with simple formulations how to make bombs to blow up automobiles and how to make grenades, fire bombs, and so on?

Hon. Mr. Ken: Mr. Speaker, if that is the case it may very well be an offence under the Criminal Code. I’d like to look into it further and reply to the hon. member at some later date.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Supplementary, if I could, Mr. Speaker: Has the minister asked the police investigators of the incident to give him the details from where these berserk pamphlets derived, and could he let the House know which group or individuals are responsible for the publication of these obscenities?

Hon. Mr. Ken: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would assume from what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said they are imported.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I’d like to know.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, I will get the full information on it and make a statement in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions from the Leader of the Opposition?

LAND TRANSFER TAX EXEMPTIONS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wonder if the Minister of Revenue is prepared to make a statement on the decision made in his ministry to exempt some further American firms in Ontario from the land transfer tax as was announced in the press recently. Would he not think that such an announcement would be of interest to the members of the House, together with a justification for the exemption?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do intend to do this, to issue a press release from time to time as these exemptions are granted, explaining the reasoning behind the exemptions.

I think it should be mentioned in respect of H. D. Lee that that company was in business here on April 9. At the time when we granted the exemptions initially -- that is before the order went through and it was eventually gazetted, but at the time when the submission was received from H. D. Lee and approval was granted for the purpose of relinquishing the high rate of tax on the acquisition -- there was a general feeling among many of my colleagues and me that reasons other than the April 9 principle were appropriate there, such as the generation of business in an area that could well do with another manufacturing concern. In other words, that was a geographic area that merited it, and indeed, in addition to generating new jobs, it would generate new jobs in an area that could do with them.

The principle under which it would fall, if that application came to us today, would simply be that back in that instance, that was a company that was in business here in Canada on April 9 last.

To come back to the member’s question, Mr. Speaker, I would say yes, it is my intention to elaborate to give whatever particulars are appropriate at the time when these exemptions are granted. There will be less and less of them as time goes on, of course, for the very reason that when the Act is passed, they will then be able, to swear that they fall within the section and subsection and thereby avoid the higher rate of tax if the facts apply to their particular case.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is it properly and factually reported that the exemptions far surpass the revenues that we have enjoyed under the application of the new law?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, I think that’s correct, Mr. Speaker, and it’s to be anticipated that that would be so. I think the exemptions to the aggregate about $2.6 million and the revenue from the same end of the tax, the non-resident tax, is roughly $1.3 million met at this time

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary if I may, Mr. Speaker: Doesn’t the minister think it adds insult to injury to the Canadian businesses that are going out of production, not to say the squandering of public money, to grant an exemption of $27,000 to H. D; Lee over and above the $1.1 million which various levels of government have contributed to it? Would the minister consider revoking that decision?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I think one has to recognize that in the administration of any statute, particularly a taxing statute, you have to do so with as even a hand as possible. I think it would be unfair to treat one company in a different fashion from another company when they both fall, or all of them fall, within a particular set of guidelines. So I would have to say no, I don’t think we would consider reversing that decision.

If the company merits other support from other quarters, or treatment in some fashion other than via this tax, that’s another matter. But so far as the criteria are concerned, that my colleagues and I have established for exemptions from the high rate of tax, they are, I think, reasonably clear, relatively clear today --

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I agree with that. You ask for it, you get it. How much clearer can it be?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- and the company clearly falls within them.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Singer: -- could the minister say, in regard to the companies that he recently exempted, whether the reasons for their exemption are those embodied in the amendments presently before the standing committee, or whether there are other reasons over and beyond what he is now proposing as an amendment to this statute?

Hon. Mr. Meen: By and large, the amendments that are before the standing committee now, Mr. Speaker, would characterize the basic reason behind the exemptions that have been granted to these companies over the years -- over the last few months, I should say. There may be one or two other reasons that are not embodied in the amendments. I think, for example of the exemption granted to CIBA-Geigy an agricultural firm which is bringing in new technology, or represents that this purchase is for the purpose of developing some new technology presently unknown in the agricultural field. I am not, certain at this point whether that particular point is covered in the amendments before the House.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions from the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Lewis: Any further supplementaries, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, the member may ask a new question in a moment.

GEORGIAN COLLEGE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Has he, or anyone in his ministry or another ministry, undertaken an investigation into the circumstances at Georgian College which resulted in the resignation of Mr. John Bootle, a former dean of the allied health division at Georgian College?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): I am not aware of any investigation, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I wasn’t aware of the incident. I will inquire into it. It would sound to me as though it’s an internal matter for the college, but I will be delighted to see what information I can get for the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: While he is inquiring, would he as well look into the circumstances surrounding the awarding of a contract to Kemp Bay Developments Ltd. for the construction of a major building at Georgian College’s Barrie campus at a time when the president of Kemp Bay Developments, Mr. Horace Pratt, was also a member of the board of governors of Georgian College?

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

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

STUDY OF VINYL CHLORIDE

Mr. Lewis: I would like to ask the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: Further, as it were, to the announcement of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) about polyvinyl chloride or vinyl chloride emission levels, how is it that the men and women in the workplace who are subject to direct contamination from vinyl chloride have a level of allowable emission 100 times greater than the level of emission which is allowed in the community by the Ministry of the Environment, even given that one is over an eight-hour period and one is over a 24-hour period?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Well, Mr. Speaker, I was confused by the same set of data as the member was the other day when I saw the 0.1 parts, I think it was, per million versus 10 parts per million. The information I got back then, and I haven’t had it verified since, was that we were talking about two different compounds, although the statement may not have necessarily spelled that out, Perhaps I would need to refer to my colleague, the Minister of the Environment. I think we were talking about vinyl chloride monomer in one case and vinyl chloride in the second, and they were not talking of the monomer form, which is considered to be the dangerous one.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, could the minister take a little time to verify exactly what we are talking about? It may be that there is no misnomer and that the matters are comparable; if so, it would be interesting to hear how one justifies a level of 100.

LEAD CONTAMINATION IN PLANTS

Mr. Lewis: While the minister is at it, by way of a new question, could he find out why lead contamination within the plants is at an allowable level 15 times greater than is allowed by way of emission into the community? Could he perhaps explain that discrepancy as well?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it’s safe to say, again in general, that conditions within plants are often at higher levels than are permitted within the environment for the simple reason that people within a plant are schooled and in many cases protected against contact within the plant, whereas the public is not. Pretty rigid conditions are usually attached -- or hopefully are attached -- to the workers in the environment, both in terms of cleanliness and steps taken to have monitoring done on a regular basis and so on. As the members know, a worker in a lead plant who reaches, I think, 80 micrograms per 100 millilitres of lead in his blood is immediately removed from the working conditions until it drops to 60.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Well, maybe the minister could report further on it, since there does seem, on the surface, a certain lack of logic in allowing workers a concentrated exposure so much higher than that of the community, even though they are allegedly healthy and protected.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The best answer I can give to that at this point in time is that if the member read, as I’m sure he did, the report put out by Dr. Robertson a couple of weeks ago, to this point in time they are not willing to justify either the 80 figure or the 60 figure, for example.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. So why have different levels?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Simply because, as I say, the people in the plants have been monitored much more carefully and watched to see that they’re not being affected in a health sense.

CITIZENS’ COALITION ADVERTISING

Mr. Lewis: A question if I may, Mr. Speaker, of the Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Winkler): Might the Chairman of the Management Board -- well, I’m really not sure whether it should go to the provincial Treasurer. Maybe it could go to the provincial Treasurer, who speaks to John Robarts on a daily basis, and I know the Chairman of the Management Board rarely has time for him.

May I ask the provincial Treasurer if he might talk to John Robarts, who has now been made the commissioner to look into the largest regional government apparatus in Metropolitan Toronto, and draw to his attention both the indiscretion and the potential conflict of interest in participating in advertisements which are directly against the declared demands of civil servants in Ontario, while pretending to pronounce on the rights, including the rights to pay and fringe benefits, of civil servants in the largest regional government in this province? It is an indiscretion he should not permit himself.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, John Robarts is a great friend of mine and I see him as often as I can. In fact, I haven’t seen him for a month or thereabouts.

I did hear this morning that he was a participant in the advertisement. When I heard that from one of my colleagues I said, “I can’t believe it, because that is not John Robarts’ style.” I am not going to accept that report, although I certainly am interested personally and publicly --

Mr. Lewis: He said he had participated.

Hon. Mr. White: -- in knowing what role, if any, he had. Insofar as this citizen’s rights are concerned, I suppose, like other taxpayers, he has the right to express a point of view --

Mr. Lewis: Oh yes, sure. That’s why I called it an indiscretion.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and certainly one couldn’t argue that that is in any way contrary to his obligations as commissioner.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is not the Treasurer aware that when Colin Brown sent out his letters requesting support, the request was supported by a letter signed by John Robarts for this purpose?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Didn’t the Treasurer get one?

Hon. Mr. White: Well, I didn’t know that; or if I knew it, I had forgotten it. Now I surmised that Colin Brown was the mastermind behind the advert but, once again, this morning I was told he wasn’t, so --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It sort of had his style. One just had to look at the ad --

Mr. Breithaupt: Especially the “Hmmmm” part.

Hon. Mr. White: -- I am sorry, I don’t know how the advert originated or who sponsored it, but certainly I would like to find out.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I think the Treasurer probably sent them $100. Did he?

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since despite the Treasurer’s protestation, it really does compromise John Robarts in his dealings with public servants in the largest regional government in the province, may I ask the minister to look into the origin of the episode which he himself admits was quite out of character and out of style?

Hon. Mr. White: Well, as I said, I want to inquire into the matter for personal and public reasons and because I like to know about everything that is going on.

Mr. Breithaupt: To see if he can get his five bucks back.

Hon. Mr. White: However, I would point out to the House that Mr. Robarts is not reporting upon salaries, compensation or nonmonetary benefits.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, he may well. The terms of reference give him that right.

Hon. Mr. White: What he is doing is looking at the structure of a governmental organization.

Mr. Stokes: It will certainly limit his scope.

Hon. Mr. White: To suggest for one minute that there is some kind of conflict between his interest as a taxpayer in the level of Ontario salaries --

Mr. Lewis: Come on. It is like the chairman of Algonquin Park advisory board.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and his responsibilities as commissioner looking into the structure really is stretching credulity too far.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The Treasurer was ahead before he made that statement, but now he is getting behind.

Mr. Deans: Is the Treasurer a member of the Citizens’ Coalition, by any chance?

Hon. Mr. White: No, I am not.

Mr. Deans: How about the Treasurer’s colleague to his right?

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): He is the president.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

MINERAL PRODUCTION STATISTICS

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Natural Resources tell us when we can ever lay our hands on the up-to-date annual statistical report on mineral production in Ontario, as he promised in the House but which we are unable to get from his ministry beyond the year 1970, because apparently the minister is preparing for a mines ministers’ conference and the information which the minister said was available is not available?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, it is quite correct that we are having a mines ministers’ conference this week in Ottawa. I will certainly check on that delay and find out why it has not been given to the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, can the minister delay further debate on the mining tax bill until we have the mining tax statistics, which the minister says are regularly available but which, no matter how often we ask, we can never get from his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I certainly can’t do that because I don’t regulate the order of business of the House --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Nobody does.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Nobody does.

Mr. Lewis: Who does?

Mr. Breithaupt: “I will do what I can.”

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and that particular bill is not in my ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

ESSEX COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH COUNCIL

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware of a recent research committee report submitted to the Essex County Hospital Planning Council that recommended a district health council? Has the minister received a request for the establishment of such a district health council, and will he give it favourable consideration?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that district health planning councils are an integral part of the ministry’s plan, yes, we would be pleased to work with them. Insofar as being particularly aware of the study, no, I am not, but I will be pleased to look into it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

SEAFARERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have a question of the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. In view of evidence now available linking Warren Allmand to the SIU, specifically that be has received both money and other election help from them and, in addition, that Allmand’s official agent and head of his Liberal association, one Joseph Nuss, is also the SIU lawyer and has been in receipt of a retainer from them for several years, will he recommend that this government now hold a royal commission into violence in the SIU, since it is obvious that we cannot expect one from Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that the hon. member is getting his information mainly from this afternoon’s newspaper and --

Mr. Breithaupt: The member for High Park put them in there.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- certain articles regarding campaign contributions by the SIU to politicians in the Montreal area and, I believe, the paper mentioned the east and west coasts. On that basis there is more reasons really, for a federal inquiry than a provincial inquiry.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, if I may: I haven’t seen the article the minister is referring to. What I am referring to specifically is a specific link between Mr. Allmand, the Solicitor General, who is supposed to be looking into this matter, and the SIU. Obviously, we are not going to get a royal commission from Allmand and we’re not going to get one from Munro.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Shulman: Will the minister order one?

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for High Park have a question?

Mr. Shulman: Yes, will the minister order one?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I would think if there was a federal inquiry, in all likelihood it would be launched by the Minister of Justice, Mr. Lang. I would just have to repeat what I have said in this House, and what my colleague, the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) has said --

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): They are pretty important out there.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- that this is a federal organization. It is an international union. It involves seamen from all parts of this country, as well as from the United States. The allegations that the member says of bribery and wrongdoing, and things like this, have taken place in ports outside of this province. It really makes sense that it should be a federal inquiry.

Mr. Shulman: But the minister can’t be certain. Mr. Speaker, I will be sending you written notice that I am not satisfied with that answer, and will request time to have the minister respond to it.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions? The member for Ottawa East.

OHIP PAYMENTS TO DOCTORS

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. I wonder if the minister might advise why chiropractors in this province are able to charge over and above the fee that is paid by OHIP per visit, and why he doesn’t regulate them as he regulates the medical profession to charge only that amount that is given by OHIP?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, they don’t come under the Medical Care Act and hence at the present time they’re not cost shared in any way at all by the federal government.

I think the member had better check into that. Does he realize that when we pay medical practitioners, the federal government pays part of the cost and, therefore, they fall under the federal Act in terms of the way we treat them? There are other groups of practitioners who do not currently fall under that grouping, and we receive no moneys from the federal government for them.

We think we should. We think they’re legitimate expenses and the Province of Ontario has seen fit to pay 100 per cent of the amount of money that’s contributed to a chiropractic treatment. That is what the member is talking about, isn’t it?

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. Roy: I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary to the minister’s answer: In spite of what he said, does he feel that he cannot get together with them or control them as to how much they are going to charge? Secondly, does he feel that it’s fair that a medical practitioner, in fact, should be getting less per visit, in charging some $2 or $3 over and above the $5 per visit being paid by OHIP?

Hon. Mr. Miller: As I say, the Act didn’t govern our arrangements with them, and they were made at a time when we wished to have a certain amount of coverage for certain services rendered and paid for by OHIP.

Recently, the optometrists were included on the same basis as physicians. I changed that regulation recently, because we deemed that the service rendered by an optometrist was very closely equal to that rendered by an ophthalmologist for refraction. So I think they get $16.70, less 10 per cent, as an ophthalmologist would.

As time goes on we’re looking at each of these. But the member realizes there is one other limitation. The province pays only up to $100 per year if the patient is going to a chiropractor. It pays only one visit per year to an optometrist. There were certain other restrictions, I believe, in osteopaths and chiropodists.

Mr. Roy: Yes, may I ask one final supplementary on this?

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Will the minister undertake to correct what I consider to be an imbalance, in that a doctor, with all his experience and his expertise, is in fact making less per visit because of the 10 per cent discharge, than in fact chiropractors. Does he think that is fair?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am not able to judge the fairness of it. I am certainly setting up practitioner review committees -- members may recall we discussed that during the estimates -- and these practitioner review committees are to do the same things as the medical review committee did -- decide whether the charges are fair for the services rendered.

I think that’s the first step in that process, but I would think we would only have the right to regulate their charges if we paid all that were rendered. At this point in time, we do not; and that’s why, to this point, we refuse to do so.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

IMPAIRED DRIVER CONTROL

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Solicitor General regarding the continuing massacre of motorists by impaired drivers in Ontario: Has the Solicitor General made any progress in deciding how to keep impaired drivers off our highways, roads and streets?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Well Mr. Speaker, I would think the quickest answer to the hon. member’s question would be that we enforce the law that people who are drinking and driving be charged with the appropriate offence under the Criminal Code, and that the full penalty under that code he imposed on those people who are convicted of drinking and driving.

Mr. Burr: Supplementary: In addition to increased enforcement, is the minister not considering increased educational measures?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may know there was a conference in Toronto in September dealing with this particular subject. Representatives from all provinces were here and some international representatives. The Attorney General has a programme, now, of educating people to the dangers of drinking and driving. There is, I believe, a film that has been produced on this subject which will be shown at this time of year, which is most appropriate. We are doing everything to emphasize to people, by way of statistics and other means, the dangers involved in drinking and at the same time operating a motor vehicle.

One of the things that concerns me is that the provisions regarding suspended licences under the code are not being imposed as much as they should be.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

OHC BRIBE CHARGES

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Solicitor General: Could the Solicitor General bring us up-to-date on further police investigations in relation to the gifts given to 20-odd OHC employees, which resulted in charges; and tell us whether or not it can be anticipated that charges are going to be laid against those people or the organizations which gave the gifts?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, I am sure, knows this particular investigation is in the hands of the Attorney General. He has indicated in answers in this House that those particular charges will be considered along with the charges that have already been laid against the people involved in the allegations of bribery involving OHC.

Mr. Singer: Well, I wonder if the Solicitor General --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Singer: Yes, supplementary: Could the Solicitor General explain that a little further? Are there any charges now pending against the givers of the gifts? If so, why has that not received any public attention?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, I haven’t said that, Mr. Speaker. I said this was being contemplated and looked into by the Attorney General. He has indicated in his answers in this House that the case isn’t closed as far as the givers are concerned.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, when is the Solicitor General going to close it; or open it?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a supplementary on this?

Mr. Speaker: This is the final supplementary.

Mr. Roy: To the Solicitor General: Does he not feel that in the administration of justice, people are looking on this with cynicism? An investigation has been going on for possibly eight months now, and still no charges have been laid against the people who in fact gave the gifts -- only against the ones who have received them. This seems to be a pattern that is going on in events of this nature in this province.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I don’t want to comment on that other than to say, Mr. Speaker, that the people who are involved, shall we say as givers, are certainly involved in this investigation. They are involved in the charges that have been laid up to now as far as evidence is concerned.

Mr. Singer: There are no charges against them.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As I say, this case is not closed. Charges have been laid. Once those are processed, I am sure further information will be given to this House as to any other possible charges.

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

EXTENSION COURSES IN NORTHERN COMMUNITIES

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Is the minister aware of the tremendous pressure exerted upon Confederation College in Thunder Bay and the tremendous need for extension courses under its supervision in many, many communities in the far north, particularly the Indian communities? Will the minister prevail upon the federal authorities, through a transfer of funds to Confederation College, either through the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs or through Canada Manpower so that it can attempt to meet that tremendous need for special classes and upgrading in northern communities?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of it and, in fact, we have been pursuing this matter with some people from the college, both in the Manpower end and possibly through Indian Affairs for a slightly different kind of programme.

Mr. Stokes: Supplementary: Can the minister indicate whether any funds will be made available, either through his ministry or through a transfer from, the federal government, for these extension courses, during the coining winter?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’m afraid I can’t make any commitment at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but as soon as we have something I’ll be delighted to let the House know.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions from the Liberal Party? The hon. member for Rainy River.

FARM WORKERS

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Has the minister arrived at a decision as to bringing the farm workers in the province under the Employment Standards Act?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the matter is still under consideration. I hope we will reach a decision on it shortly as to whether we will and, if the answer is yes to that, as to just what sections of it will be brought into effect. The Minister of Agriculture and Food and myself and our respective ministries have been examining it and hope to come to a conclusion shortly.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Reid: Will a decision be made by next spring or summer, so that if the minister does decide, the people will be aware of it and this will be in place for next year?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I would hope the decision would be made before the end of the year, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

ACUPUNCTURE

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Has the Minister of Health had an opportunity to find out from the College of Physicians and Surgeons what their position is going to be with regard to cleaning up the acupuncture clinics to ensure hygienic conditions?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I got a letter from them, that I think last Thursday or Friday morning I implied was in the mail to me, stating the conditions under which they would be examining the acupuncturists who are now practising in the Province of Ontario for licensing, registration, accreditation or whatever it may be called. I am also meeting with the acupuncture association representatives this afternoon at about 4 o’clock to discuss their point of view, to see if these are fair requirements, and I intend to carry on my discussions with the college.

Mr. Deans: May I ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. Is the minister aware that the Hamilton Academy of Medicine had contacted the College of Physicians and Surgeons on two occasions at least over the course of the last short period of time, asking that they initiate some action and that there had not even been a reply, let alone any action forthcoming?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not. I really think the questions that arose in the House and the articles in the Globe and Mail have done us a favour in the sense that they have perhaps brought to the attention of the college the fact that it is a serious problem, one on which the member and I probably agree completely.

Mr. Deans: Would you permit me one final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary.

Mr. Deans: All right, thank you.

Mr. Stokes: The final final.

Mr. Deans: Would the minister agree -- if this is a self-governing body and if it takes public disclosure or public pronouncements in the newspapers to be dealt with in the Legislature for them to become aware of and to act upon some problem areas within their own discipline -- there is something wrong with the way in which they govern themselves?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is not my role to defend the College of Physicians and Surgeons, but I can say it wasn’t as clear-cut as may appear. In fact I have met with them every single month since I became a minister and have discussed this issue every single month. Quite honestly I have been very concerned about the potential problems, and quite honestly I had to convince them of the potential problems. I believe I have done so and I believe the newspapers have in fact accentuated that concern. So I don’t really see any likelihood that they will do anything but hasten their work.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, would you permit one further question?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, in view of the circumstances we’ll allow one final supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Wouldn’t the minister think that his duty is not to defend them but in fact to attack them, since it indicates that they have been lax in their responsibility, particularly when there is an indication; the way the legislation now exists, that people who want to become acupuncturists can learn to do so by applying for a correspondence course which would permit them to practise?

Mr. Breithaupt: Send them down to the local Singer centre.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The legislation doesn’t permit that. The lack of enforcement has permitted people to do that.

Mr. Deans: That is by the self-governing body.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I would say that I am just as concerned about people not schooled in it, who may feel they are otherwise qualified to do it.

Mr. Roy: The minister is not showing it.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Far from defending them, I said it is not my role to defend them. I was explaining.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, I think it is the minister’s role to attack them if they are not doing their job properly.

Hon. Mr. Miller: What I do privately -- and I have been doing it privately -- is somewhat akin to that.

Mr. Roy: We’re not talking about --

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

Mr. Deans: I don’t want to needle the minister unnecessarily, but he should move in more quickly.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Welland South wants to ask a question.

PAYMENTS TO PHARMACISTS

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Health. What steps is his ministry now prepared to initiate or to expedite a backlog of interim payments to pharmacists under the drug benefit plan?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that question presupposes that there is a backlog. I would like to verify that fact. I have not had a single call from a pharmacist or from the association to indicate that there is.

Mr. Reid: He can have mine.

Hon. Mr. Miller: We pay on the basis of $3.25 per line on the sheets put in; they are to be paid monthly at least, and if, in fact, there is a problem that’s specific, please let me know and I’ll look into it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

STARRATT-OLSEN POWER SUPPLY

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Natural Resources: Do I understand correctly a letter from Mr. George Gathercole of July 3, 1974, that the Ministry of Natural Resources has accepted the responsibility for working out proposals for the servicing and providing of electrical power to Starratt-Olsen, and the transfer of that responsibility from the Madsen mining company to Ontario Hydro? And can the minister report what state that is at the present time, in view of the fact that the residents of Starratt-Olsen have been informed that the electricity to their water pump will be cut off Thursday, and if it is cut off the water supply to those 25 homes will be frozen and the houses will be uninhabitable for the winter?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in this particular issue for about a year now because of my concern for the people of Starratt-Olsen and the area I represent, and I have only been going on that basis. I would say to the House that the hydro power supplied to the Starratt-Olsen community -- and it’s just a small group of homes about a mile and a half or a mile from Madsen -- is supplied through the mine. It is not supplied by Hydro. The conditions of the line itself are deplorable. It needs something like $30,000 to bring it up to standard.

I endeavoured to bring the Madsen Red Lake people and Hydro together; they agreed at that time that if an arbitrator was established they would accept the arbitrator’s decision as to the price of the line and Hydro would pick it up. We appointed an arbitrator, and then when the decision was handed down the management of Madsen Red Lake indicated they wanted no part of the arbitrator’s decision at all. So it is hung up there, and I have to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that Madsen Red Lakes Gold Mines has changed ownership in the last few months, and it’s --

Mr. Stokes: Good corporate citizens.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I was as annoyed as the member is about the whole situation; I am still annoyed. I intend to follow up a further appeal with the new owners, but that’s where the situation stands at the present time.

Mr. Lewis: The minister has until Thursday.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: Yes. Do I understand correctly that it is not only the minister’s responsibility because he is the member for the area, but do I understand Mr. Gathercole’s letter correctly when he says the Ministry of Natural Resources was then provided with alternative proposals under which Ontario Hydro would take over supply to the customers in Starratt-Olsen? Does that imply it is a ministerial responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have contacted Hydro and I have contacted the Ministry of Community and Social Services to have the same formula applied that was applied at Aroland, I believe. There was a proposal and a formula was applied there. That is the proposal to which he refers.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Foulds: One more supplementary: As a matter of urgent public importance, can the minister take immediate steps --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: -- in order to see that electricity is not cut off until then?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Waterloo North has the floor.

CAR RENTAL AGENCIES

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In view of the fact that municipalities are allowed to pass bylaws regulating and licensing car rental agencies, does the minister think they should be allowed to include in such by-law a minimum fee which is allowed to be charged, which in the case of Waterloo region’s bylaw is $10 per day, thus preventing such firms as Rent-A-Bug which only charges $5 a day from starting in business in our region?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): It is the first time I was aware that a municipality legislated the fee that a private entrepreneur could charge. I certainly am not any expert in municipal affairs. I know nothing about them but it would seem to me --

Mr. Good: Does the minister know anything about consumer protection?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I do, that’s why the member asked me the question, and he is looking for the answer. I would just pass on this observation that if any firm has a doubt, I think it should consult its solicitor to find out if, in fact, the bylaw is ultra vires of the municipality which the member has mentioned.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

FAMILY PLANNING STUDY

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Can the minister indicate when the task force report on family planning and birth control will be tabled, in view of the fact the study was completed in April?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether it will be tabled or not but the whole area is under very active re view.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Martel: Could the minister indicate if he is willing to table that report?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It’s a report, Mr. Speaker, that involves several ministries.

Mr. MacDonald: So what?

Mr. Deans: What has that got to do with it?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): That’s the way they hide reports.

Mr. Lewis: They did that with the daycare report. The two of them sit over there and suppress the evidence. What is it with their ministries?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

DRAFT BEER GLASSES

Mr. Roy: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Why did he remove the control and the supervision his ministry had over the size of beer glasses for draft beer? Why did he discontinue that practice?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the so-called beer glasses with the tide lines on them were removed, I think, 10 or 12 years ago.

Mr. Roy: It is not the ministry’s policy?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, it is not my policy. As I understand it, the operator is at liberty to use what size of glass he desires. There is no restriction on price. It’s one of the competitive things that now is met in the marketplace. It has been removed for a number of years -- 10 or 12 years as far as I understand it.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Roy: As the minister is supposed to be protecting the consumer, why would he not require that at least there be a label on the glass, stating the number of ounces per glass, as he does for bottles? Why doesn’t he do that so the consumer would know how much he is paying or how many ounces he is getting for his money?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, how far we should intrude into the business life of the average hotel or restaurant operator. I am sure that any patron on inquiring could find out the size of the glass. It doesn’t seem to me that he would be precluded from having that information if he asked. If the hon. member has a specific complaint to draw to my attention, I will be glad to discuss it with him, but I have received no complaints. I read an article in one of the Toronto papers the other day showing the different-size glasses and prices that were charged.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

CARLETON UNIVERSITY

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities, Mr. Speaker. Was it the ministry’s intention to force the closure of St. Patrick’s College when the new spending ceilings were issued for the forthcoming academic year for Carleton University?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Of course not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister aware of the concern in the Ottawa area about the threatened closure of St. Patrick’s College, which appears to be the only way in which Carleton University can hope to come anywhere within the spending limits that have been laid down by the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am just reading, and I haven’t finished reading it, a telegram from the survival committee at St. Patrick’s College. My understanding is that the college was divided into two parts at the time that Carleton was established. The school of social welfare, I believe, went to the University of Ottawa, and the remainder of St. Patrick’s is with Carleton. My understanding is that it’s an internal matter for the university and the college --

Mr. Roy: The minister was supposed to report that last week.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- and that there is no agreement or undertaking, as far as the government is concerned, for things to happen either way.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Auld presented the financial reports of Queen’s University, Kingston, and the University of Western Ontario, loth for the year ended April 30, 1974.

Mr. Breithaupt: No deficits yet?

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES ACT

Hon. Mr. Grossman, in the absence of Hon. Mr. Rhodes, moves first reading of bill intituled, the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, the present Motorized Snow Vehicles Act has been completely rewritten to implement the recommendations of the select committee on motorized snow vehicles and all-terrain vehicles. I’m sure the hon. members will welcome that rewrite.

CORONERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerr moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Coroners Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, this bill sets out a number of amendments which have been proposed as a result of the operation of the recent Coroners Act, 1972, and the experience that has been gained from that Act.

Mr. Speaker: Just before the orders of the day I should announce to the House that the hon. member for High Park has given me two notices, as required by standing order 27(g), that he is not satisfied with the answers by the Attorney General to his question yesterday concerning a public inquiry into the conduct of the SIU or with a further answer by the Solicitor General on the same matter today. Therefore, tonight at the adjournment hour of 10:30 the debates provided by standing order 28(a) may take place.

Orders of the day.

TAX SALES ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 112, An Act to confirm Tax Sales.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, it does seem curious that this sort of bill is being brought forward. One wonders what has developed, through the history of this kind of a situation, that has led us to --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There is too much noise in the chamber. Will people try to tone it down a bit? We can’t hear the hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): It’s the exodus.

Mr. Breithaupt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; one needs all the help one can get on some occasions.

It does seem curious, as I had said, that this kind of a bill is being brought forward to confirm tax sales; one wonders what the problem is in tax sales over the years. Tax sales were much more common, of course, in the 1930s. Hopefully, they won’t become as common again as they were at that point.

Apparently there has been some matter raised, no doubt either on title or through some legal opinion, that requires this confirmation. I presume that once we have the explanation from the minister we will be able to see the wisdom of the bill. I would appreciate hearing from the minister why he feels it necessary to bring in this kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker, not much needs to be said about this piece of legislation. Periodically the Treasurer -- and in the old days, the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- would bring down legislation of this kind. The procedures to which municipalities must go in order to validate and make final seizure of properties due to tax arrears are complicated. In the past there have been instances where they have slipped up in not following it with precision. Somewhere along the route these things have to be affirmed by the minister himself as the sale goes through. But even then, some technical failure occurs periodically. As I say, it is necessary simply to make a holus-bolus, blanket validation of all these tax sale proceedings in municipalities. It is a great aid, an enormous help to the legal profession in establishing titles to property in this regard.

The only question I think I would have to ask of the Treasurer (Mr. White) is whether this is done on any formal basis. In other words, has he set a period of time where he comes to it? It seems to me somewhat haphazard, the way this particular piece of legislation is brought to the House. It is not predictable. What does the Treasurer use as a rule of thumb as to when the time is right to bring in another confirmation of tax sales bill before the House?

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other hon. members who wish to speak to this bill? The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Just very briefly, I am wondering if the minister has had any representations or any dialogue with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), who is responsible for Crown lands in the province?

A situation has come to my attention on two or three occasions where a municipality was involved in a tax sale. Particularly in northern Ontario, where we have got this strategic land-use planning, it is ever so important to those who are responsible for formulating land-use plans that they know of the availability of certain parcels of land.

On two or three occasions, people at the regional level within the Ministry of Natural Resources were very surprised to learn that a municipality had disposed of land in this fashion without the Ministry of Natural Resources and their personnel ever having known about it.

So I am wondering whether the Treasurer has had any discussions with them? I think it is important that when municipalities do engage in disposition of land in this fashion, that there be some obligation on the municipality to at least advise and apprise the Ministry of Natural Resources of their intentions, to give them an opportunity to bid and to acquire that land if it seems to conform with the strategic land-use plans they have for that area. I hope the minister will take that into consideration, if not in here at some future date, because it is important. The people in the Ministry of Natural Resources have pointed this out to me.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have to express just a general concern about these tax sales, insofar as we find Ontario land being peddled from California to Florida to Maine to Australia. If one picks up a copy of any magazine, such as “Popular Mechanics,” I guess, if it is still in being, and other magazines, they state: “Cheap land is still available in Ontario.”

They talk about land in central Ontario, which is somewhere, I gather, between the riding of Thunder Bay and the riding of Algoma, being available at 10 cents or 20 cents an acre and other ridiculous prices like that. Tax sale land is being peddled abroad as though it was a fire sale.

It seems to me that in addition to policies that either discourage or prevent the sales of Ontario recreational land to foreigners, this whole business of tax sales ought to be regularized in some way so that people in the province who wish to know what kind of land is being made available can do so in a regular kind of way through the offices of the Ministry of Natural Resources down here, or in some other way, and not by writing off to some hole-in-the-corner entrepreneur who will give them a list of tax sale property for $2, $5, or $10.

Government information is being sold like that. I’m not sure how much of it is actually winding up in the hands of foreigners, but it’s something that I think is degrading for this province, to see our soil sold in a kind of bargain basement fashion.

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

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as the member for Kitchener has inferred, and as the member for Lakeshore has suggested, this is to ratify sales, to make it crystal clear that title has passed to the purchaser. This used to be an annual event, as I understand it, which has not been thought necessary in recent years. There are one or two court cases now which have put a small cloud on title, and for that reason we thought it would be wise to bring in the bill. In addition to that ratification, the bill removes any ambiguity there may have been concerning the serving of notices by the municipality.

Insofar as the sale of these lands for tax arrears is concerned, I think there’s no statutory defect.

If the Ministry of Natural Resources is not being informed or is not keeping itself informed, I think it’s a matter of practical communication, so I will undertake to discuss this problem with that ministry and see what, if anything, further need be done in order to keep them fully informed.

Insofar as some number of people acquiring this land and thereupon offering it for sale to others, be they foreigners or residents, I think we should contemplate applying to municipal property the same rules we have applied to our own Crown lands.

Mr. Stokes: The first chance of refusal.

Hon. Mr. White: This is a matter which I have discussed internally in my ministry. I expect it should go to the municipal liaison committee for their consideration and advice.

I’m sorry to say I can’t recall at the moment what stage this consideration has reached, but I will now give the undertaking to the members of the House that we will pursue this aggressively and put it on -- it’s probably too late for the December meeting, but if it is too late we’ll ensure that it gets into the January meeting.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 112. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Municipal Affairs Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: This is a kind of interesting alternative situation, where the tax sales procedure’s withholdings are not taken as applicable in a situation.

What I would like to know, without sending it to committee, is just how long the lands hang around in the possession, so to speak, of the municipality. If they don’t take certain actions or send certain notices, the lands are in a sort of dangling position and may be redeemed by an owner within certain periods of time.

The mention in the side notes here is that land is held without declaring it is required for municipal purposes and land which is not sold either directly or by auction under the legislation, can be sifting around for 10 solid years in the possession of the municipality. Unless they take those particular acts and meet those conditions, they aren’t in a position to sell the lands; nor are they in absolute or fee simple possession of those lands, really, because an owner may come out of the underbrush and seek to redeem the property, provided these things aren’t done.

I know the government is seeking to foreclose this in some cases, but I wonder if the Treasurer really achieves the business -- of vesting in the municipality in a way -- with a definition that forecloses the possibility of redemption after a set period of time.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: This bill is, in a way, almost a companion bill to the previous one with respect to the confirmation of tax sales. It allows the municipality to formally obtain title to the property and presumably then be in a position to pass that on.

Now the bill, as we see it, is attempting to regularize that presumption. As the member for Lakeshore has said, the point is raised with respect to the complete foreclosing of the interest of someone who has appeared on the title to the property.

Presumably, the reason for his amendment will be to regularize the procedure so that the municipality will be able to pass along a clear title, which in turn no doubt at some date in the future, will again be confirmed by the passage of another one of the bills, such as Bill 112.

Have there been some recent examples or opinions which the minister has received concerning the registration procedures and whether they are faulty? Perhaps the minister could just advise us as to that when he does respond on the bill.

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

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, the court cases I referred to earlier, I do believe, have brought certain matters to light which these two bills together attempt to remedy. They are highly complicated, legalistic points, which frankly I am not competent to deal with in detail. If the hon. members wished, I would put these matters into a standing committee and let my legal officials discuss the legalities with lawyers who are members of the opposition. That may not be necessary.

My understanding from the explanations provided by my law officers, is that there has been some doubt about the requirement imposed upon municipalities with respect to lands being sold to satisfy tax arrears, and that the alterations being made in this bill will remove those ambiguities. Now sir, beyond that I am sorry to say my legal competence will not carry me. But I repeat the offer: If the lawyers opposite want to sit down with my experts and discuss these technical matters, I am very happy for them to do so.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Lawlor: No, send it to committee.

Hon. Mr. White: No; there is no point in sending it to committee of the whole House.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Send it out to a standing committee.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister is so modest he --

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

Mr. Renwick: No.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Standing committee.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the wish of the House that the bill be referred to standing committee?

Agreed.

Mr. Lawlor: The Treasurer has to defend his legislation like a hawk.

Hon. Mr. White: Justice.

Mr. Speaker: The bill will be referred to the administration of justice committee.

Agreed.

INCOME TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 128, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, this bill, of course, brings into play at long last the commitments which form part of the budget of this province brought out by the Treasurer in April of this year.

It is interesting to note that the personal income tax rate remains at 30.5 per cent for this year. At least in the year before an election we are not going to see a change. Whether there is a change immediately thereafter or not, of course, only time will tell.

In my reply to the budget, I commented earlier on some of these particular items and I see no need to repeat the comments that were made at that time. The matters that are being changed in this bill, in fact, date from the date of the budget and the passage of this bill will simply be the way of formalizing the commitments which the minister has made in his budget address. I suppose we could comment at some length with respect to the changes in the particular tax credits that are referred to in section 2. Whether they are sufficient or not is something which no doubt many members will comment upon as the debate on the formal budget resolution continues. I do not think it is necessary to comment at this time on those matters, because as I have mentioned my comments were made earlier on in the budget debate.

The various formalities which are included in this bill are matters of government policy and I suppose that any of the comments or suggestions at this point may fall on ears, if not deafened at least ears which have made other considerations and decisions earlier on. That is not to say that we mightn’t get a full and a sufficient hearing, but I don’t think that the comments we might bring at this stage will make any change in the passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Cassidy: We are rushing here, Mr. Speaker, to get ahead of each other to comment from the New Democratic Party. I regret that weather and other things -- including municipal elections, which are now held in December unfortunately -- kept me away from the House yesterday.

I do want to comment on the bill, though, because when the principle was raised in the House as a part of the minister’s budget speeds he made a great song and dance about the radical revisions of the tax credit scheme which were proposed as part of that budget. Unfortunately I don’t have with me our precise calculations about the effect of the new tax credit arrangements, but I can put one or two general comments on paper, and possibly we could return to the specifics when it comes to the committee stage of the bill. I think it should probably go to the committee stage.

The first thing is that the tax credit is mainly still available to people as a result of their occupancy costs in property which they happen to occupy, whether as tenants or as owners. It never made any sense to us to allow tax credits of the order of $400 or $500 to be permitted, because this was simply pandering to people in a very peculiar situation who happened to have the advantage of great resources behind them, even if their current taxable income might happen to be low.

As I recall, the kind of example that was given to the minister was of somebody who had a property which was very expensive to maintain, say a hobby farm up in King township north of Toronto, or in Maple, which cost them in the order of $6,000 or $7,000 or $8,000 a year, but who had basically quite a small income. The kind of situation would include the scion of a wealthy family who occupies a property that has been bought for him with some family money and some inheritance money, and he is paying off a mortgage but is still studying at York University and, therefore, his overall income is not very great. That is the kind of individual who would be in a position --

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): How many of those are there?

Mr. Cassidy: There are not very many. But why should they be permitted to go through in the Treasury’s kind of loophole?

Mr. G. Nixon: The member is reaching.

Mr. Cassidy: I realize that, but the Treasurer is reaching in allowing this kind of tax credit. There is no realistic situation the Treasurer can advance to the House today that would justify increasing the maximum tax credit from $400 to $500 on the grounds of equity or fairness to people on modest incomes, because people on modest incomes are simply not in a position where they can benefit from tax credits which are that great.

As I say, I wish I had the specific figures available to me. As I recall, the maximum tax credit which a person with a small taxable income would be capable of getting would be of the order of maybe $150 to $200, and no more. Likewise for a pensioner, the maximum tax credit that a pensioner might have would be of the order of $200 and perhaps, on rare occasions, $250. Now that’s pretty darn small, Mr. Speaker, and it certainly doesn’t justify the increase in the limit on the tax credit which can be computed.

The second thing is that the Treasurer is guilty of what can only be described as double-counting, because he has made a great to-do over the course of the last six months, I think it is, about the doubling of the tax credit on property from $90 to $180 -- I think I have the figures correct -- as is proposed right here. What he hasn’t mentioned is that at the same time the deduction of one per cent of taxable income was changed to a deduction of two per cent of taxable income.

The double-counting came in this way, Mr. Speaker. The Treasurer was saying that the doubling of the property tax credit from $90 to $180 was a means of compensating people for the increase in fuel costs that came about because of the energy crisis during the course of the past year and one half. In fact, in Conservative literature in the by-elections in both Stormont and Carleton East this was put forward as a major element in the government’s inflation-fighting programme. They kept on saying to voters: “We have doubled your property tax credit to $180; that means you are going to be $90 better off.”

The fact is that the combined measure of doubling the property tax credit, and then increasing the deductible from one to two per cent of taxable income, in effect gives more tax credits at the lowest end of the income scale. For people who have no taxable income at all, for example, either those with a very small income or those with a large number of dependants, there is a real increase -- small but real -- of around $75, $85 or maybe $90 in certain rare cases. For that small step towards a guaranteed income for the poorest members of our society; okay, we welcome it. We would that it were something more concrete, more positive and more sensibly thought through; but nevertheless we welcome any small step. On the record, I think it is fair to say that the cost of living for those families with no taxable income has certainly gone up by more than $90 over the course of the past year. But nevertheless something was done.

For the average family in the province however, a family earning the industrial wage of $180 a week, or $9,000 a year, there is no real benefit, Mr. Speaker, from this combined change. If they have a taxable income of about $5,000, then the doubling of the property tax credit increases what they keep out of their income by $90, but the doubling of the deduction takes away about $50 or $60 of that amount, and they are therefore left with maybe $25 or $30. This is not helping them to have a better kind of overall position if the Treasurer is trying to apply the money also to reducing the impact on them of the energy crisis.

In gasoline alone, the average family is paying more in four months to run its car and for necessary transportation than the $30 or $40 which they might get from the Treasurer’s change in these tax credits and deductions. In fuel oil, the increase for the average family has been of the order of maybe $100 to $150, which is far greater than the $30 or $40 your ordinary home-owning family might possibly expect to get -- and many families will get far less than that.

I think it should go on the record that this Treasurer deals in legerdemain, that he is a prestidigitator. He is always trying to pull the blinds over the beads of Ontario people and trying to convince them that they are getting something that they are not getting at all; and he is doing that in this particular case. People are not getting an additional $99 a year as a result of this particular budget; they are getting somewhat less than that

For the average family income in the province, which is up over $12,000 a year, in fact there isn’t a single thin dime, either to increase the equity of after-tax incomes or to compensate or help protect those families against the increased cost of energy in their fuel oil and gasoline bills.

The other major part of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is the increase in the pensioner tax credit, which is a grandiloquent and magnificent $10 a year--something like 90 cents a month, something like three cents a day. The Treasurer in this particular bill goes down as “Three-Cents-a-Day John,” because that is all that he is prepared to do for pensioners.

If I can return to the general concept, Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party have not found fault on a general basis with the direction in which the Treasurer appears to be moving in that tax system. What we do find fault with, though, is that he is simply tinkering, playing, dabbling, titillating and nothing more in the kinds of moves be is making to try and get greater equity in peoples’ disposable incomes or in their after-tax incomes by use of the tax system.

It’s notable, Mr. Speaker, that at the recent meeting of welfare ministers, Ontario was the holdout against efforts by the federal government to move quickly to some form of a guaranteed-income system for people on low incomes. Whether it was the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) or the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) or the Treasurer, Ontario’s approach was not to go that route but was to use the tax credit route. Our experience in the province, Mr. Speaker, is simply that the tax credit route is quite thoroughly inadequate for the needs of low-income families in the province. If the Treasurer wishes to use the tax credit route as a major means of equalizing after-tax incomes, then more power to him, and I would almost hope that thin “red” Tory streak which occasionally dares to show its head --

Hon. Mr. White: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I will not have that said about me.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member continue?

Mr. Cassidy: The minister may be thick in girth, but his ideology is only seldom red in hue. That’s why I refer to it as a thin “red” Tory streak -- maybe I could call it a thin streak of “red” Toryism and the minister would be happier.

Mr. Ferrier: The Treasurer is wearing a red tie.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. White: True blue all the way.

Mr. Cassidy: At any rate, Mr. Speaker, we are not getting any radical kind of change, and in fact poor people in the province are steadily falling further behind rather than moving further ahead with the succession of budgets that has been introduced by this particular Treasurer and his predecessors.

If he wants to come before us seriously with a tax credit system to equalize incomes or to move a large stride towards equalizing incomes in the province, then let’s see what he’s got. But this kind of tinkering just isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. I wish the Treasurer would stop crowing so much when he accomplishes so little.

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

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, from $305 million to $375 million in one crack -- a $70 million increase -- is some tinker, I would say. But before I get into those details let me review briefly the background of the tax credit system and let me remind the members that Ontario was the first jurisdiction in the world to introduce a meaningful tax credit system, that being an evolutionary way to bring about a guaranteed annual income for everyone in this province.

Mr. Lancelot Smith was appointed to a royal commission about 1962. He was charged with the responsibility of making the tax system here more progressive and effective, taking into consideration all taxes -- federal, provincial and municipal. He and his experts considered the tax credit system very carefully and recommended against it. The select committee which was established in June or thereabouts in 1968 had no biases, I think one could say, in approaching the matter. We found ourselves subjected to the daily persuasion of a very clever economist from McMaster, who was consulting economist to the select committee, Mr. John Allan, now a senior official in the federal government -- with the Ministry of Finance, if I’m not mistaken.

Mr. Allan explained to the hon. member for Lakeshore and I and the other members of that committee --

Mr. Cassidy: They were the only two members of the committee, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. White: -- the undoubted advantages of the tax credit system, with the result that the select committee did so recommend; and I think if my memory’s correct, recommended that unanimously. In 1969, the Treasurer of the day, Mr. Charles MacNaughton, accepted that recommendation and we embarked upon, as I say, the world’s first tax credit system leading to guaranteed annual income.

As I have had occasion to mention in the House before, about a year and a half ago the British government announced it was embarking upon a tax credit approach to guaranteed annual income. At this time Mr. Heath claimed they were the first such jurisdiction to contemplate such a progressive measure. Our legislation, in fact, had been in force for several years.

Mr. Lawlor: It also went to VAT.

Hon. Mr. White: When I became Treasurer, Mr. Speaker, we were dedicating $180 million to this programme. In my first budget, in April 1973, I increased that dramatically from $180 million to $305 million, which took the average credit per household from $78 to $127. And last April I found it possible to increase the resources from $305 million to $375 million.

Now, this $70 million, which the hon. member for Ottawa something --

Mr. Renwick: Centre.

An hon. member: Take-off inflation at six per cent a year.

Hon. Mr. White: Ottawa Centre calls a tinker, constitutes about 1½ points of personal income tax; and a couple of points, I suppose, or nearly a couple of points, of corporations tax. It constitutes about 75 or 80 per cent of all the proceeds from our gasoline tax. So by any definition, $70 million is not a tinker; $70 million constitutes an increase in one year of 23 per cent; and as I’ve pointed out, in two years we have more than doubled this programme.

But this isn’t the only move we’ve made. There are some even bolder. We’ve introduced the first guaranteed annual income scheme in this province’s history -- still the largest in the world to the best of my knowledge -- for the elderly, blind and disabled.

Mr. Cassidy: After a number of other provinces led the way.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s where the Treasurer begins to go overboard.

Hon. Mr. White: We have, at the same time, increased in the last few years our grants to municipalities by more than $1 billion to a new total of more than $2.4 billion, all of which take the burden off the property taxpayer and make our entire system more progressive.

Mr. Lawlor: It doesn’t amount to a guaranteed annual income; it’s just nibbling away at it.

Mr. Cassidy: The property tax hasn’t dropped any either.

Hon. Mr. White: The complaints made by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre about occupancy costs pandering to people with great resources behind them and low income, is just one of those mythical ghosts that float through the none-too-realistic minds of socialists. There may be one person in a million who has enormous resources and no income, but to single out that kind of example and to suggest, or imply, if in fact this was the idea, that this should bring about some kind of dual income and wealth criteria, quite frankly would make the entire operation completely unmanageable.

Mr. Cassidy: We see no other reason for increasing the tax credit.

Hon. Mr. White: However, if the hon. member is serious about it, let him show me how both of these objectives could be embraced in one formulation simple enough to be understood and utilized by the average taxpayer in this province.

Mr. Renwick: The Treasurer hasn’t mentioned his land transfer tax yet.

Hon. Mr. White: The hon. member has pointed out that the maximum credit for a pensioner would be a couple of hundred dollars. In point of fact, that isn’t true at all. The maximum was raised from $400 to $500 and the effective average for people in my town will be probably $230 or $240 this year.

He accuses me of sleight-of-hand in respect to moving the property tax credit from $90 to $180, thereby scooping in hopefully some portion of the increased heating costs, while at the same time increasing the deduction from one per cent to two per cent of net taxable income. In point of fact, Mr. Speaker, this was done in part at the urging of the NDP to make the entire process more progressive, and as we did increase that deduction we did shift the benefits onto the lower-income groups.

Let me turn to the budget once again. Those with gross incomes up to $5,000 received tax credit benefits totalling $72 million of the $180 million in 1972; $140 million of the $305 million in 1973; and now $182 million of the $375 million in 1974. The proportion paid to the lower-income groups has risen while the moneys paid to the middle-income groups has remained more or less constant. As the member pointed out, there is a real increase to the low-income earners.

Ontario has led the world in this respect. My hope for the future for this province is that we can continue the determination to invest large amounts of money in an ever-increasing tax credit system, which brings to bear the impersonality of the income tax form; the confidentiality of the income tax form; the lack of regular supervision à la field workers, which is symptomatic of the income tax form, which brings with it all of the disciplines which we are used to in this society of the income tax system and which does certainly provide universal benefits to the less prosperous groups within our community.

Mr. Lawlor: The federal government doesn’t want any part of it.

Hon. Mr. White: The federal government doesn’t want any part of it? That is further evidence, surely, that we are on the right track. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope and expect that all members of the Legislature will support this additional innovation and enrichment to the tax credit system which Ontario has pioneered.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Lawlor: Committee.

Mr. Cassidy: Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Minister, committee of the whole House?

Hon. Mr. White: I am a servant of the Legislature. Free the servants!

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

UNIVERSITIES CAPITAL AID CORP. ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 132, An Act to amend the Ontario Universities Capital Aid Corp. Act.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, this bill briefly deals with a re-enactment of a section which will add the Ontario College of Art as one of the institutions whose bonds or debentures issued for capital aid construction projects may be purchased by the Ontario Universities Capital Aid Corp.

In this subsection, the Art Gallery and the Royal Ontario Museum are the other two parties, and of course following the procedures taken by this government, the debentures of these organizations, when approved, are available for purchase, if that purchase is approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. We had a somewhat lengthy debate several days ago dealing with the addition of these kinds of institutions to those for which the Minister of Colleges and Universities can make the suggestions for this kind of capital development.

In that debate we referred to the situation whereby deficit financing and all the other sorts of problems which presumably are the right of independent organizations and universities are seen to be, of course, the ultimate responsibility of this Legislature. Just as we have this kind of a debenture programme available here, we see once again that projects such as the Art Gallery and the Royal Ontario Museum, and now also the Ontario College of Art, are in spite of any presumption of the day-to-day independence of the institution, still the final obligation of this Legislature to ensure that they are successful and that they flourish.

So long as we are aware of that ultimate responsibility, we of course are therefore in a position to deal with these groups and organizations, even though they have their own statutes, with the reminder that it’s the people of this province who are the ultimate persons who are going to pay, of course, if those institutions are not successful.

We commend the minister for adding the Ontario College of Art to this list, because we think that it is a logical extension following the other two that are in that subsection at the present time. We will support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to confirm the assumption, which I’ve made since this bill has been on the order paper, that the purpose of the bill for practical purposes is to provide a facility for the funding of the debt incurred by the Ontario College of Art during the course of its renovation and expansion programme. Of course if that is the case, I would hope that the minister would give us some indication of any discussions which have taken place with the board of the Ontario College of Art as to the extent of funding that will take place and to the total principle amount of debentures or other securities that may be issued once this bill is passed.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of any outstanding indebtedness which would be covered by the purchase of debentures from the Ontario College of Art. I think that has been handled by annual grants. I hark back now to the days when I had that responsibility as Minister of Colleges and Universities, at which time the college was not on a BIU system, but rather the BIU values which would have obtained were considered, and an annual grant was made to cover operating and capital costs. I think this is not intended to enable the province to buy debentures covering any previous capital investment, and my officials confirm that now.

Along with other measures, such as the adoption of the BIU system for the Ontario College of Art, the increase in its status to the equivalent of one of the universities of the province, the determined efforts made by its own board to enrich its curriculum, strengthen its faculty and so forth, this is one more endeavour on the part of the government to raise the status of the Ontario College of Art to that of a senior post-secondary educational institution in this province. It does seem unreasonable not to include them in the Ontario Universities Capital Aid Corp. Act because of the characteristics which they share with all of those institutions now in the Act.

Beyond that, I do believe that one can argue that there has been a better appreciation in recent years of the fact that education is a continuing process and is not confined to primary, secondary or post-secondary schools. The Act now includes the ROM and the AGO.

The college itself has reached out into the community in several ways. They have their own small gallery there; or did have when I was minister. I’m sure they still have. They are offering, if I’m not mistaken, a variety of courses so that persons like ourselves can take supplementary education at any age; and those endeavours will be broadened, no doubt, as time goes by.

So these cultural institutions, the ROM and the AGO, and the more formal educational institutions like the universities of Toronto and York are bridged, in a manner of speaking, by the Ontario College of Art, which stands midway in the cultural spectrum between the cultural institutions and the more conventional university institutions which I have mentioned. So I think we are doing the right thing when we add the Ontario College of Art to the provisions of the Act in front of us.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 160, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Employees’ Retirement System Act.

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

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): I have a few comments on this bill.

The operation of the OMERS board, looking after the pension plan payments of all the municipal employees within the province who are duty-bound to have their pension funds with OMERS, has come under some criticism in the last few years. The criticism, Mr. Speaker, has been due to the fact that the pension funds have been invested in the government, one might say; the government has used these funds, and the controversy has been over the rate of interest paid by the government for use of these funds.

As we are well aware, the government has used more and more funds from pension plans of various sorts within the province to finance its operation and I believe now the sum is well in excess of $1 billion. I believe about $1.2 billion is now available from the various pension plans from which the government borrows funds.

There is one question I would like to ask at the outset, Mr. Speaker -- and maybe the Treasurer could answer -- and that is, why is it that the government borrows funds in that amount from OMERS and other sources, when the bill which we passed last spring giving the Treasurer authority to borrow moneys was only set at $800 million? I know that the net result of the borrowing would be about $800 million because he, in fact, did pay off some of the present provincial debt with the extra amount. The province has borrowed well in excess of $1 billion from the various pension funds, but the authority to borrow was limited to $800 million in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the exact name of that bill escapes me for the moment. It was authority for the province to borrow funds up to $800 million.

Since OMERS is a part of the source of funds which the government borrows, and since it has not been necessary for the province to go to the public money market for several years -- I guess not since Mr. Robarts and the present Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) went to Germany to borrow the 50 million marks -- we find that the financing of the province has now become dependent on the pension funds which are generated by OMERS, teachers’ superannuation funds, and in particular the Canada Pension funds which are generated in this province and returned by the federal government to the province.

The rate at which the province will borrow moneys from OMERS was set a few years ago when the present Minister of Energy was provincial Treasurer, and it was tied to the weighted amount of interest paid by the province when it borrows moneys on its own behalf, or if in fact it hasn’t borrowed money on its own behalf on behalf of Ontario Hydro. In years when the province does not borrow money on the public money market it, of course, has to back Hydro’s borrowings. I understand that that is the rate that the government pays to OMERS. Now, this bill brings in two other matters which affect that interest rate, in that it regulates the interest rate paid to OMERS in relation to the long-term debentures and bonds which are, by definition, “those borrowings and paper between 20 and 30 years.”

That must have some significance, but not being active in the bond or money market, I don’t know what it is. However, I suppose it has some significance that short-term borrowings of the government, if there be any short-term borrowings, would not be included to establish this rate. I presume short-term borrowings, if they are done by Hydro -- and I am not sure if Hydro does any short-term borrowings -- could be at a higher rate than long-term borrowings. That might advantageously affect the rate which OMERS would receive if all borrowings that are backed by the province were taken in and averaged out to establish the rate of interest paid to OMERS. So I would like the Treasurer to comment on that.

The rate is also affected by the fact that only borrowings within the Canadian capital money market are considered when the rate is established. I am sure that must have some significance in that it will affect that rate, perhaps at a lower interest rate, as the Canadian dollar goes up. I suppose the rate would increase on the foreign markets as their money is devalued.

An hon. member: That wouldn’t affect it.

Mr. Good: In any event, the minister can probably explain that to us.

Now, the other main change in this Act is that the pensions board itself will be allowed to retain a portion of the money accumulated to the credit of the fund, as the minister and the board may decide. I understand the minister has said that in 1975 that would be about 20 per cent, if I am not mistaken. Perhaps he will comment on that.

The OMERS board can then invest that money in certain investments, subject to the limitations of the Pension Benefits Act. The part that I don’t understand, Mr. Speaker, is why the Act says that this shall then be treated as a separate pension fund. That would be for administrative purposes only, I presume, and it would be a separate fund administered by the board, which would not come under the same administration as the other funds that are invested with the province. Perhaps we could get an explanation on that.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the only other thing I would ask the minister to comment on is whether some of the other problems have been resolved. The minister said last year there was going to be a complete review of the OMERS Act as to the scope of independence there would be for the OMERS board to set their own investment rates. I suppose this is now going to come as a gradual concession, as is 20 per cent rate increases.

I think there were other things regarding the benefits under the pension itself; when the pensions did arrive, they were under consideration by the task force that was investigating and studying the whole OMERS matter. Perhaps the minister could comment briefly on some of those aspects, too.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this bill. We know that the OMERS pension fund has been under severe pressure for the past several years. When the province first instituted the plan, it took the attitude that, by some divine right, it had complete and total control over the moneys accumulated under the plan. There has been considerable pressure by various municipalities, municipal organizations and employee groups to have these funds released to the benefit of the municipalities concerned. I don’t see, within the amendments that we have before us now, that the desires of the municipalities or their associations have been met or even that the employee associations have been taken into consideration.

Recommendations on municipal fiscal reform were prepared by the Association of Counties and Regions of Ontario in October, 1972. I’ll quote from recommendation 14:

“We recommend the establishment of a pool of funds for use of municipalities by the province which would be similar to that currently available to district boards of education. The obvious way to establish such a fund would be the use of moneys in the Ontario Municipal Employees’ Retirement System fund.”

I can’t find any quarrel with such a recommendation. We all should understand that there is no provincial contribution whatsoever into this fund. The province doesn’t accept any liability if there were a deficit to be accrued. The employer pays his percentage and the contributing municipality pays the other percentage, so I am at a loss to understand why the Treasurer has not acceded to the demands made by them.

A further recommendation came from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario on the subject of the investment of funds paid into the Ontario Municipal Employees’ Retirement System. They recommend: “and further, that municipalities have access to OMERS funds.” So you see, it is pretty universal, and if one looks into the matter one has to agree with the demands made by the municipalities concerned.

I should also like to point to a statement by the Treasurer himself entitled “Public Finance,” dated October, 1973. The Treasurer is quoted here: “To encourage municipalities to make greater use of their credit, Ontario is considering releasing some portion of the pension funds generated by the Ontario Municipal Employees’ Retirement Scheme.” So the Treasurer himself at that point in time came to the conclusion that the municipalities should have access, and that is precisely the thrust that I would like to make here -- that the municipalities have been short-circuited in the minister’s view and that they have no specific right to this fund.

I did try to investigate what is meant by section 3(3b), which states that the board will have the right to invest certain amounts of funds which are released by agreement between the Treasurer and the board “subject to the limitations of the Pension Benefits Act.” I have looked at the regulations as contained under the Pension Benefits Act and I don’t see in there that there is even any such provision. The Treasurer might correct me on that, because it makes reference to a Canadian statute which I couldn’t get my hands on.

I would ask the Treasurer: Do the regulations as contained in the Pension Benefits Act preclude this investment or advisory body of the OMERS board from making investments or buying municipal debentures? Are they specifically denied that right? I wish the Treasurer would answer that one specifically, even though I would rather have seen it contained in legislation and it should have been directed that a certain percentage of these funds should be put into municipal debentures.

I am also a little bit leery about section 3(3a), dealing with the amount of the funds which would be released from investment in Ontario government debentures -- the amount or percentage of the fund. I would like to know if there is a formula developed for determining the percentage. Is it a percentage value or is it a dollar value or would it be just at the whim of the Treasurer of the Province of Ontario? It seems to imply that the Treasurer still has full and total control over the disposition and investment of these particular funds.

I do agree that the legislation has some merit in that there is a certain percentage of funds that is going to be released. I agree with that but I think the Treasurer could have gone a lot farther in reaching the needs and demands of the thousands and thousands of municipal employees, employees of boards and commissions and municipal councils, in their demand that these funds generated solely by themselves should be put to their benefit.

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

Mr. Cassidy: There is just one point I would raise to echo what the member for Sudbury has said, that is, it doesn’t make sense to me when there has been so much difficulty with OMERS in the past and when, frankly, the validity of the powers of municipal employees to get better pension conditions has been thwarted, because of the inadequacy of the return on OMERS investments for the Province of Ontario, that the crucial subsection (3a) should be left completely unspecific. It seems to me that the legislation should say specifically, at least for the first two or three years, what is the minimum proportion of resources that will be made available to the trustees for them to invest in securities other than those of the Province of Ontario. That should be very specifically laid out.

The minister is liable to say what a great job OMERS has done and so on. I recognize with him that the pensions don’t only bear relationship to the contributions, although they do mainly in the case of OMERS. Nevertheless, if decent interest rates had been paid, there would be more flexibility and more power on the part of the trustees to have approached the province for better terms and conditions for their pensioners rather than having to come cap in hand as has been the case in the past.

Would the minister state as a question of policy what portion he intends to agree upon in the first year? Will that be a minimum? Will it increase over a period of time? What is his target for the proportion of free resources in any year from pension contributions which will be made available to the trustees to invest as they wish, either in government debentures or in other securities?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask one question of the minister. Of the number of members of the board, how many of them are from the persons who contribute to the OMERS plan itself?

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

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, OMERS was a tremendous breakthrough 15 years ago. At that time, members will recall, there were dozens, maybe hundreds, of little pension plans sprinkled all over this province, some of them without very much expertise behind them, and some of them rather small quantitatively. All of them were quite different one from another, so that it was impossible for a young man or woman to start as a clerk in Exeter and move up to be assistant clerk in Strathroy and one day to be the chief administrative officer in London without leaving behind many pension benefits.

One of the objectives of Mr. Frost, if I remember correctly, in bringing in OMERS was to strengthen the municipal employees system all over this province, enabling the young man or woman to go into municipal administration as a professional knowing that he had the mobility to move from place to place and work his way up the ladder to one of the most senior positions. As OMERS was introduced under the supervision of a board, an arrangement was made to ensure over a protracted period of time -- 30 years perhaps, maybe 50 -- the viability of the plan. That’s the reason that Ontario agreed to provide debentures with fixed interest, so that benefits could be calculated on an actuarial basis.

When one of my hon. friends says that we’re dependent upon these borrowings, I think it would be fairer and more accurate to say that they are dependent upon the debt which we create for them. Just as, in fact, a modern industrial state such as Canada is dependent upon the debt generated by the federal government in order to keep this enormously complicated monetary machine working away. In the absence of such a debt, quite frankly, a modern industrial state such as Canada would be impossible.

Some years ago when the hon. Charles MacNaughton was Treasurer, it was decided to convert all outstanding annual obligations into one important new document, and at that time a rate of interest was agreed upon -- there being no dissent, let me say. A generous rate of interest was decided upon; I remember the explanation very, very well in our caucus -- the explanation by the Treasurer that it was going to cost us more money, that it would strengthen this particular measure and enrich the municipal system across this province.

What happened, of course, was the rate looked less and less attractive as interest rates elsewhere went up. So about a year ago I was faced with a proposition, with certain of these arrangements coming to conclusion on Dec. 31, 1973, as to whether or not I would convert as per that old arrangement or on some richer basis. Frankly, I was getting advice from some who said a deal is a deal -- people very sympathetic towards OMERS too, I’m quick to say -- and the deal was to convert these open debentures at such and such a rate of interest. While that may not be a good deal today, it was a good deal when the deal was made. In Treasury your obligation does not go beyond that arrangement.

Now it seemed to me, rightly or wrongly, that we had a particular obligation to the OMERS group, because unlike some, the teachers’ superannuation fund for instance, this is self supporting. The moneys come from the employer. When my hon. friend from Sudbury says that we contribute nothing towards this fund, I point out that we’re carrying 60 per cent of the educational costs in this province from the provincial taxpayers, so we’re paying 60 per cent of 50 per cent of the total inflow from that direction, and we’re paying about 48 per cent, perhaps 49 per cent, of the municipal costs. So, we’re paying about half of half of those contributions and thus we are the most substantial contributor, indirectly, to the enormous funds pouring into the OMERS pension plan.

At any rate, as I say, when I was faced with this conundrum a year ago I decided to do the decent, in part because the fund is self supporting, in part because it seemed to me to be anathema to permit a particular group of people -- in this case municipal employees -- to in some fashion subsidize the taxpayers in general. We struck a new bargain which cost a very large amount of money in year one and hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of the contract, so we did the decent on that occasion.

Faced with broader considerations, once again I wanted to do the fair thing. There was considerable agitation to free up some or all of these enormous funds for investment in instruments other than provincial debentures. Quite frankly, had they had that right in years gone by, my guess is they wouldn’t have done as well as they did by investing in Ontario. However, I know as a politician that this point will never be made until the participants in OMERS have an opportunity to compare their earnings in Ontario debentures and their income from non-Ontario debentures. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that when HOOP, the Hospitals of Ontario Pension scheme, was given this freedom, its rate of return was something like two per cent in contrast to many pension plans, particularly in the United States in the last year, which have been heavy in equities, which seemed so attractive a couple of years ago, it must be said, with Dow Jones hitting 1,062, or whatever it peaked at, in contrast to today’s 635 or thereabouts:

What kind of result have they had in the last year or so? Well, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. They have had a minus return. So the returns being enjoyed by OMERS in the best credit instrument available in North America -- that is to say, Ontario government bonds -- the return on those very safe debentures looks pretty good, I dare say, in contrast to a couple of years ago, when equities were booming through the ceiling and other funds looked to be superior in some sense to this one.

The $800 million, which was the permissible limit contained in a bill earlier this year, has nothing to do with OMERS at all. OMERS is a separate authority to borrow. That $800 million was the additional incremental moneys which Ontario could borrow. Of course, as the hon. member very well knows, we have reduced our outstanding public debt by $594 million in the last 19 months or thereabouts, and the legislative authority which we obtained was simply to enable us to borrow in the name of Ontario for use by Ontario Hydro.

The reason for the separate fund is because the portion to be invested in securities, other than Ontario debentures, comes under the Pension Benefits Act, which provides certain limitations. We will be considering the proportion not invested in Ontario bonds as a separate pension fund so that the proportions required by the Pension Benefits Act will be applied to that portion of the total moneys and not to the aggregate amount, which includes the investments in the Ontario bonds. That is the reason for that.

Some questions were asked by the hon. member for Waterloo North about the independence of the board. The board has the statutory authority and responsibility for investing these moneys, and it has the legislative capacity to establish an investment committee to advise it in the matter, whether that committee be internal or external. It thereupon becomes the responsibility of the OMERS board to direct the investment of up to 20 per cent of their new income, starting in 1975.

If I may take just a moment on this, there was the possibility of having the minister responsible to the Legislature, with an OMERS board concentrating on the benefits side, and an OMERS investment board, so to speak, concentrating on the income side. It seemed to me that having two boards coming together in some coalescence and reporting to the minister was not as clears a line of responsibility as the solution which we have arrived at and which is mentioned in this bill, namely having the minister reporting to the Legislature, with an OMERS board totally responsible for the activities of OMERS reporting to the minister and with an investment committee, internal or external, reporting to the board.

If the performance is not good, you know exactly who to go to. The minister of the day will go to the board and say, “Hey, it is not good enough.” And if the performance doesn’t improve, I suppose there will be changes made to the chairman and to the board itself. If, on the other hand, the board isn’t getting the performance which it desires and requires from the investment committee, I suppose they will change the committee; and this will keep the lines of responsibility very clean.

The member for Sudbury uses words which are intended to provoke, no doubt, and in that respect are very successful.

We have no divine right to these funds. We are attempting to secure the future of thousands and thousands of municipal employees. I have gone into the history very briefly. In fact, it’s a much longer and much more successful story than I could possibly tell in an impromptu debate of this kind.

We have no divine right. We have a very serious obligation to protect pensioners, 10 years or 50 years from now. For that reason, we are attempting to accommodate what he chooses to call the heavy pressures. In point of fact, these have been inspired by him and certain other people; certain dissatisfactions which have no grounding and reality, but are rather the deliberate ploy of politicians with separate motives of their own. These persuade members of OMERS, because of variations in benefits between them and another subsidized fund, that they are getting lower rates than are sustainable.

This isn’t a fact at all. We are turning up a very good rate of interest, as I do believe the future experience of this board will prove. When they find themselves getting more money on the Ontario side than they are getting on the other side, only then will the realization come to the thousands of people thus protected that they’ve had a good deal from Ontario. The proportion of the fund freed up for investment in other than Ontario debentures may be put into a variety of instruments, including municipal debentures.

The member for Sudbury used the words, “the right of the municipality to the funds.” The municipalities have no right to those funds. The municipalities may sell their debentures in the market and the OMERS investment committee may recommend, and the board may purchase, municipal debentures through the market. They are not an Ipso facto extension to OMIC. We have the Ontario Municipal Investment Corp. right now, which will take issues from municipalities if our borrowing rate, plus a small increment, is less than the market rate they themselves would have to pay.

But let no municipal authorities in this province think they have some kind of automatic access to these moneys. The OMERS board’s obligation is to the participants in OMERS; it isn’t to fund the municipalities in this province. If the OMERS fund buys municipal debentures, turning up an appropriate rate of return for their participants, there will be a new source of moneys for the municipalities. That is a by-product of the changes we’re making, but I’m quick to say it is not the principal purpose of the changes we’re making.

The member for Ottawa Centre -- who jumps in and out of here like a jackrabbit; and I see he’s jumped out now -- talks about “decent interest rates.” What’s he talking about? Decent interest rates! When we made the deal several years ago, we paid better than the going rate. When we adjusted that a year ago, we paid sip to or better than the going rate. What’s he talking about? It’s absolute foolishness.

Here, again, I have to say when a proportion of the total income may be invested in debentures other than Ontario, we will have the arithmetic proof that we’ve done the decent thing by this very important and prestigious group of citizens.

I was asked to comment, as a matter of policy, on the new constraints. The OMERS board has set forth a policy document, dated April 9, and called “The Ontario Budget Statement.” It will be entitled to invest up to 20 per cent of its total 1975 income in securities other than Ontario. If the board, on the advice of its investment committee, decides to invest five, 10 or 15 per cent in year one, that will be, no doubt, acceptable to the government. Because, quite rightly, they are a little concerned about the expertise and the mechanisms which they have yet to develop, and which they are now developing, to look after these very important investments. Because of their long-lived responsibilities toward recipients decades from now, of course they’re going to approach that with a degree of care and caution which doesn’t typify the member for Ottawa Centre or some of his colleagues.

Now, the question was asked as to how many members of the board are actually OMERS participants. I am informed that there are two employer and six employee contributors, for a total of eight contributors out of 11.

So, Mr. Speaker, these measures in this bill are completely in keeping, I do believe, with the recommendations of the OMERS report, the author of which is Mr. Paul Hickey, who has a long experience in these matters and whom I am glad to recognize in the House here today. He has been involved in this since the very beginning of the plan, 15 years ago or thereabouts, and he has been a source of strength to us as we evolved this new, and no doubt better, arrangement. Mr. Al Reeve, who was with my ministry and is now the general manager or managing director, is also here. I congratulate and thank both of these gentlemen for the good work they are doing on behalf of the participants in OMERS and the people of Ontario.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

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

INCOME TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill 128, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to this bill and, if so, to what section?

The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Section 2.

Mr. Chairman: Nothing in section 1?

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Lawlor: We have four or five of these credits around now, the newest one being the small businessman’s tax credit, which of course is contained in other legislation than this. But the minister perhaps could explain or send over a mathematical calculation having to do with the change of the one per cent to the two per cent of the taxable income in a year. What is the rationale behind that? I would like to know how you work it out in some detail.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): Well, sir, we have large volumes of statistics dealing with this very subject. I rather believe I loaned copies of a graph flowing from the columnar statistical tables to the member for -- he has been so quiet these days I have forgotten what he calls his riding -- Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). I think he can photocopy those. However, let me send you all of this data, which will show that the middle income ranges received the same or a little bit more than they had the previous year, while the lower 20 or 30 per cent received very considerably more.

There are some rather aggregate figures in the budget papers themselves.

Mr. Lawlor: Take table 7 in the budget papers.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, I was thinking of table 9 on page A-13. It shows the distribution of total Ontario tax credits and really shows the relative shifts in benefits to the lower income groups.

Mr. Lawlor: It doesn’t touch the problem I was talking about -- taxable income offset.

Hon. Mr. White: Oh, I see. Well, I will get that information for you. I will have it sent.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments, questions or amendments to any section?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Yes, on section 2, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you very much. The minister said to me that I was putting outlandish comments on the record in criticizing the proposal to raise the maximum credit from $400 to $500. I worked out for the benefit of the minister some hypothetical examples. I would ask him to put a couple of examples on the record too to show where actually lies the need for increasing the total from $400 to $500. Frankly, I think it should probably be reduced. At any rate, it should not be increased. The only people who are to benefit are the friends of the member for Prince Edward-Lennox who are in this very rare and unusual situation of having lots of assets but not very much current income.

I’ll give you the examples, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): How does the member conclude that?

Mr. Cassidy: Well, he could speak to the debate as well.

Mr. Chairman: Would the hon. member direct the questions to the minister through the Chair?

Mr. Cassidy: I was being interrupted from my left flank, from the rump, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The member is so far to the left there is nobody to the left of him.

Hon. Mr. White: There is nobody on his left.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: The Treasurer keeps on trying.

Hon. Mr. White: He has got to turn right to shake hands with Mao Tse-tung.

Mr. Cassidy: The first example I would give would be is it possible for a couple or for a family with a number of children, if they have a normal kind of income and pay what we would consider normal kinds of costs for their housing, to benefit from this increase from $400 to $500 in the maximum exemption? As far as I can see, the answer is no.

Take a family with 10 children. There are not very many of those these days. They would have a credit of $64 for the sales tax, a credit of $180 basic and a credit equal to two per cent of their rent, which, for the sake of argument, we will assume is $400 a month or $4,800 per year. That gives them a total credit of $340 total, Mr. Chairman -- $64 for sales tax, $180 for basic and $96 for their rent.

Hon. Mr. White: Plus $180 if they are elderly parents. That makes it $520.

Mr. Cassidy: Elderly parents? The elderly parents get it separately. Given all of that and assuming they have $6,500 in gross income and, therefore, have no taxable income, then their maximum credit with 10 kids is $340. That assumes that they pay rent at $4,800 out of a total income of $6,500, which is clearly --

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): That example is typical all right. How do you pay $4,800 rent when you are only making $6,500, Mr. Chairman? Give a reasonable example.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s a very good question. From minister’s limits -- the $400 to $500 thing -- I don’t know who is meant to benefit. It doesn’t even benefit this kind of hypothetical situation which obviously is pretty outlandish.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Fantastic.

Mr. Cassidy: In the next example -- the minister has the figures in here -- a couple, both over 65 years of age with gross income of $2,000 and rent at $1,750, get a credit of $368. If their rent goes up to $2,000, so that every penny they get in gross income is going out on rent, then their tax credit would be increased by $5 and they would be then left, I guess, with $30 a month from the credit to pay for their food, their clothing and all the other essentials after paying their rent.

Maybe I’ve found one here for the minister. At $4,000 gross income, if they paid all of their income in rent they would then be eligible for a tax credit of $430 or $440; I have found a place where the minister’s exemption might be deemed to apply. But it simply isn’t realistic to assume that an elderly couple is going to be paying $4,000 in rent out of a total gross income -- not net income -- of $4,000, and that income includes, of course, all other pensions.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Not with the GAINS programme.

Mr. Cassidy: The GAINS programme is included. This is gross income, and income under GAINS is eligible.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member will address his remarks to the minister through the Chair.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The difference being $2,700 times two. Right there that would be $5,400 minimum.

Mr. Maeck: Yes, $5,400 minimum.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, Mr. Chairman, a family with $5,400, that paid $5,000 a year in rent would have a total credit of about $410, I believe; at any rate, it is unrealistic that old people are going to be paying that much in rent. They pay far less.

The other example I had was two adults -- and this is a hypothetical situation -- the children of E. P. Taylor, for example, or some scion of London, who have an income of around $3,000 a year, and therefore no taxable income, but who occupy a family estate on which they pay taxes of $2,880 a year. This is for the sake of discussion, Mr. Chairman. Their property tax credit would be $288 plus $180 plus the sales tax credit, for a total of $500. But something is very fishy when people who occupy a property that is worth between $150,000 and $250,000, but who happen to be income-poor for various reasons, obviously of choice, but who have all sorts of resources around them, can get a maximum tax credit increased from $40 to $500 while people in much lower income brackets don’t get very much at all.

I’d like the minister to say why it is that those people, hypothetical as they may be, stand to benefit, and why it is therefore that the limit is being raised, because none of the examples that I have put forward of people who are poor are realistic. People with 10 kids on $6,000 a year don’t pay $4500 a year in rent. People who are couples of 65 and over, earning $5000 and $6,000, don’t pay $4,500 or $5,000 a year for luxury penthouses in Benvenuto Place or places like that. They live in much more modest accommodation.

I just don’t see the purpose of this increase in the limit, and I’d like the minister to say whether he has got some instances that could persuade the House that it really is worthwhile increasing the maximum and that it isn’t just a knee-jerk reaction either by the minister or directed to a particular group of which he is aware, who don’t really need the benefit, or that it’s a knee-jerk reaction by civil servants.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The whole basis of the minister’s tax credit system, as we have said on many occasions, is based on a total misunderstanding -- I think a deliberate misunderstanding -- of what a guaranteed annual income concept is supposed to be. But I am not here to argue that particular point at this time.

When we talk about these minor tax credits which the government introduces as a method of equalizing the distribution of income, I’d like the minister to try to give me the present facts about income distribution for the Province of Ontario. The information I have is only based on the total Canadian figures and, as I understand it, they are the latest figures available. I think they are extremely striking and deserve a little bit of comment. There is no particular merit in anything I have to say other than that these were the statements given by the hon. Marc Lalonde quite recently in Toronto, based on the latest statistical information which was then available.

I’d like the committee, Mr. Chairman, to just note some of these startling facts about what happens in Canada, and presumably in the Province of Ontario, to the people in the lowest 20 per cent of the income brackets of the country:

1. There was a total of five million families, including couples without children, in 1972.

2. Twenty per cent of the families, one million of them, received less than $5,516 a year.

3. This means that one fifth of all Canadian families were required to live on incomes of less than one half of the national average family income.

4. The share of total Canadian family income being received by this bottom 20 per cent of the families was less than six per cent.

5. The distribution of income of individuals is biased even more in favour of higher income people than is the distribution of the income of families.

If it were not for the transfer payments by the various levels of government to the lowest income groups, the 20 per cent of Canadians receiving the lowest family income in 1971 -- which is the latest year for which they were then available -- would be receiving not six per cent of the total family income in Canada but only 3.4 per cent. Put another way, for families actually receiving $4,000 or less, over 50 per cent of their income came from transfer or social security payments.

The hon. Marc Lalonde made a number of other points. The next most important one that struck me anyway was:

“Despite the redistribution measures governments have undertaken [and the minister will agree that these are redistribution methods he is using in his tax credit system] that is, despite the increases in social security payments and despite the progressivity of the income tax, income distribution in Canada has changed very little in the past 20 years. The share of family income going to the bottom 20 per cent of Canadian families has not increased; nor has the share going to the top 20 per cent decreased; and similarly, the shares of the middle 60 per cent have remained relatively constant....

“In 1951 the families in the bottom 20 per cent of the income scale received 6.1 per cent of the total family income; in 1972, they received 5.9 per cent. Their share did not increase.”

Well, one could go on. The conclusion which the hon. Marc Lalonde spoke of was that the shares of family income enjoyed by these several income classes have remained remarkably stable over 20 years despite the enormous increases in social security payments. If anything, the relative position of the lowest income group has deteriorated. Whereas in 1951 the families on the bottom 20 per cent of the income scale had to live on 58.5 per cent or less of the median income, in 1972 they had to live on income of 53 per cent or less of the median. This is not to say that the absolute incomes of the poor have not risen. Of course they have, but they have risen less rapidly than the average incomes of others.

He himself drew these three conclusions:

“1. There is a remarkably large number of individual Canadians and families receiving a very small share of the total income;

“2. The share of income going to the lowest paid individuals and families has been increased enormously by the improvements in Canada’s social security system, relative to what it would have been without these changes; but

“3. Nonetheless, the share of income going to the several income classes, has remained remarkably constant over the 20 years.”

All I am suggesting to the government is that it has been the government for this period of time. I would assume that the income distribution figures in the Province of Ontario for the lowest 20 per cent would be relative to the figures which are given for the whole of Canada in relation to their total income. If not, I would like to see what the income distribution figures for the Province of Ontario are on the latest statistics and on the basis of the 20-year period used by the hon. Marc Lalonde.

So that when we are asked, in dealing with a section of this bill, to deal with the family credits, for the government to stand up and attempt to take credit for the fact that it’s the first jurisdiction in the world to have introduced this kind of a scheme, something called a guaranteed annual income scheme, leaves me just a little bit cold. Because, if anything, you have done less than maintain the relative position of the lowest 20 per cent. And in speaking, when I say “you,” I mean you and the federal government under all of the joint programmes which are designed to assist those persons in the various low income groups and, presumably -- and I’ve only referred to the statistical information for the lowest 20 per cent; the other figures are available in the speech as well.

But for those people in the lowest 20 per cent, you’ve done little if anything to permit them to survive in an economy such as ours, which is now plagued by inflation and now threatened by a form of recession. And it just seems to me that is doesn’t really quite make sense for the minister to take that kind of credit. I think a small tinge of modest humility on the part of the Treasurer, recognizing the intractable, difficult nature of the problem, would be much more appropriate than extolling the question of whether he or former Prime Minister Heath in Great Britain were the first ones to come up with this scheme.

Until you begin to grapple with that kind of income distribution problem in the Province of Ontario, it’s going to be extremely difficult to make us believe that this kind of tax credit system is the equivalent of what we consider to be a guaranteed annual income. I’d suggest that the minister some day take out of the library the book which outlies nine different versions of the guaranteed annual income scheme.

I would suggest the scheme put forward by this government is the most niggardly of all of the possible schemes. I’m not an expert; I’m not an economist any more than the minister is a lawyer. I’m simply saying to the minister that the fundamental question of the distribution of income in the Province of Ontario is a continuing, difficult problem, a difficult problem of government and one which has got to be recognized by government and one which the government has to be prepared to understand, and not to keep telling us that they’ve got the finest system in the world, or that they’re the first ones in the world.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. White: Let me deal first of all with the comments of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre and the remarks about the $500. Let me make it clear that the $500 is not a minimum, it’s not a mean, it’s not a median, it’s not a mod; it’s exactly what I said it was, namely a maximum.

Mr. Cassidy: Which is not needed.

Hon. Mr. White: Why a maximum? Because there may be -- I said one person in a million earlier, when the hon. member was quarrelling with the idea that some people who had a high property-to-income ratio would be getting undue benefits. That’s the reason for the maximum.

Why do we go up from $400 to $500? Because, in general, the system of credits had been increased by approximately 25 per cent -- or to be precise, 23 per cent. So the illustrations were required as set forth in one of the budget papers. I’m looking at page A-10 and following it to make it abundantly clear that the $500 didn’t have application to most people.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the Treasurer give an example of someone in need who would get more than $400?

Hon. Mr. White: Well, I guess grandparents entitled to the pensioner benefits, with a large flock of grandchildren, would be up to the $500; certainly more than $400. The hon. member, inadvertently by selecting illustrations, provided one set of circumstances that would yield tax credits of $430.

Now, to come to the more meaningful point raised by the hon. member for Riverdale, I’m not trying to take a lot credit for tax credits. That came from the collective wisdom of Lawlor, myself and our mates on the select committee of 1968. I’m not trying to take any credit as the Treasurer because I didn’t introduce the system.

Mr. Renwick: If I happen to make any interjections, I don’t want the Treasurer to believe for a moment that they are directed at my friend from Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: I will take the credit for that part of it that is official, but --

Hon. Mr. White: I bad the feeling that all of the credit for the credits might go to your colleague, while all of the imperfections were caused subsequently by us on this side of the House, so I am not enjoining the member’s colleague in our sins of omission and commission.

Mr. Lawlor: Does the Treasurer really think that the tax credits will become a guaranteed annual wage?

Hon. Mr. White: Yes, I do, if the members here present fully comprehend and support it.

Mr. Lawlor: Can you give us the up-to-date figures?

Hon. Mr. White: I don’t know what the numbers are in Ontario, although the Ministry of Community and Social Services will know. They have been working very, very assiduously for a couple of years, putting together a wide variety of data and explanations of options open to us in keeping with Marc Lalonde’s objectives to try to rationalize the system and provide more resources for these lower-income groups.

Mr. Lawlor: They won’t do it by way of tax credits.

Hon. Mr. White: So while the figures that were used by the hon. member were for Canada, I don’t suppose Ontario’s are a lot different. Why hasn’t this changed, given the strivings of politicians of every political hue in provinces all over this country? That is the conundrum. The answer isn’t known. I am glad to say that the Ontario Economic Council has taken this on as a special project. This matter was discussed with me by the chairman of the Ontario Economic Council several months ago. The study is under way and I hope it will reveal some of the answers.

I was interested to hear about the five million families, including couples, 20 per cent of which will be one million families, because this is the figure I have used in casual conversations. If we are spending $4 billion, which is one of the numbers one hears, for all kinds of benefits, including pensions and --

Mr. Renwick: All kinds of transfer payments.

Hon. Mr. White: -- all kinds of transfer payments, and it is probably higher than that now, we are, of course, looking at $4,000 for each of these million families. However, given the sliding slope of this curve, you wouldn’t have to give the person at the 20th percentile $4,000. This would make it possible, surely, to give the poorer citizens in this country $6,000 or something and slide it up from there. It is beyond my competence to design such a plan. Mr. Eberlee, I do believe, was one of the persons working on this and the research has advanced quite a long way. It is a co-operative effort with the federal government. So those attempts, coupled with the findings of the Ontario Economic Council, will I hope point the way to better performance in the future.

I think one cannot overlook, however, that the transfer payments per se are only part of the solution to having a just and equitable society. One has to look at the tax credits that we are talking about now, the GAINS programme, the lessening dependence on the regressive property tax, other new measures like free prescription drugs for those in need, the special rates for OHIP, and a variety of other measures, many of which lie on the revenue side.

Even more important -- and I make this point in all seriousness -- is the expenditure side. We are increasing grants to universities and community colleges. I am going to single this out for illustration. I haven’t seen these for a couple of years, but if one graphs the income and wealth holdings of the parents of students in universities, one has a population skew to the right -- that is, to the upper income groups. If one does the same thing with the parents of young men and women attending community colleges, one has a graph skewed to the left. When these two are added together one has a very close fit with the normal curve for the population as a whole.

When we announced the new grant for universities and community colleges, all kinds of remarks were made outside this chamber and in this chamber. I don’t think I heard a word on behalf of community colleges. It is very, very interesting the way in which the vigorous top 20 per cent -- because that’s what we are talking about -- succeed in maintaining their, proportion of overall national income and, I do believe, fairly successfully, of government expenditures themselves.

Here again we have endeavoured -- with limited success, I grant you -- to tilt government expenditures towards the lower income groups. That’s why, for instance, while total provincial moneys to universities have gone up 16 per cent this year, we’re going up by something like 19 per cent to community colleges. That’s the reason we’re investing more in public transit and relatively less in reinforced concrete overpasses. But it’s quite a fight, and I’m really looking forward to seeing the product of the Ontario Economic Council’s consideration of this problem.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps the minister would allow me to make a comment. I’m delighted to hear that we’re not going to leave the matter with the -- I’m not suggesting the Ontario Economic Council is not the place. It seems to me that the information which is required on income distribution is much better found in this ministry and in the Ontario Economic Council, provided we can wait so long for it. I’m glad it’s coming out of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, because that information, obviously, is never provided in the Province of Ontario. I’ve never seen figures of that kind of breakdown similar to the ones which Marc Lalonde gave. It’s not a criticism of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, because that’s not their function. They’re not geared to deal with that kind of question the way the federal Department of Health and Welfare are geared to deal with that problem.

This ministry, in fact, has the resources and the facilities to make the kind of calculations and to make the kind of statistical analyses which would provide us with the information, so that government policy can be redirected to that problem. To have gone this long and to find 20 years later that the lowest 20 per cent received the same portion, and all of the quintiles received the same relative portion then, it then seems to me that the ministry requires a total redirection of its thinking and some new ideas about it.

I’m delighted to hear the Treasurer recognize that the top 20 per cent, or the top 40 per cent, seem to be able to garner the ear of government with respect to the expenditures which are made and to benefit from them. It’s very difficult, without cancelling out all of the government’s expenditure side, except the transfer payments, to ever come up with comparisons between each of the five quintiles that are of any sense. I’m glad to hear the minister recognize it.

I really don’t want to go on. This is committee of the whole House. I just simply wanted to say that, one has to look at a tax credit system of this government in relation to the overall distribution of income to all of the members of the Ontario community. And, particularly, I think, in rightful comparison, this whole question of using the five quintiles as a basis of comparison -- rudimentary as it may be and based upon statistics which are not necessary absolutely current, but they are the best that we have.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, we have rather good statistics available from the federal government as they relate to income taxes. They are singled out for Ontario. I wouldn’t want it believed by the members of the Legislature that we have taken the lead in trying to develop alternative surveys for categorical programmes. Because, in fact, Mr. Eberlee, when he headed up that particular endeavour was reporting to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, although we have had input to that committee. The Ontario Economic Council, which does report to the Legislature through the Treasurer, is my more direct responsibility -- and they are embarking upon the study which I mentioned to the House today.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 2 carry? Section 2 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 128 reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 112, An Act to confirm Tax Sales.

Bill 128, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Bill 132, An Act to amend the Ontario Universities Capital Aid Corp. Act.

Bill 160, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act.

DOG LICENSING AND LIVE STOCK AND POULTRY PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves second reading of Bill 143, An Act to amend the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments with respect to this bill. We are going to support the bill. I think there are a number of good features in it. It’s an amalgamation of two Acts, the Wolf Damage to Live Stock Compensation Act, 1972, and the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act.

I guess it is a matter of streamlining the procedure for farmers who experience wolf and dog damage throughout the province. Farmers will be compensated for wolf and dog damage on exactly the same basis. In the instance of wolf damage the municipality will compensate the farmer, and then the municipality will be reimbursed by the province for wolf damage. In the case of dog damage, the municipality continues to compensate for that damage on the basis that the municipality gets the dog licence.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Does that include litter?

Mr. Gaunt: I see nothing wrong with that particular system. I really don’t know what is going to happen with respect to wolf damage throughout the province. It’s a thing that is recurring more frequently. It’s occurring in parts of the province which never experienced it before. I feel some additional steps are going to have to be taken to curb this kind of damage. I know in my part of the province this is becoming more and more common and the damage is more and more extensive. It seems to me that what the province has done in recent years is certainly not helping the farmers in coping with this particular problem.

As I understand it, the Ministry of Natural Resources paid out something in the neighbourhood of $51,000 for claims under the Wolf Damage to Live Stock Compensation Act for the years 1973-1974. I suggest to the minister that that figure is going to continue to escalate and we are going to see a very rapid escalation in the next few years, based on the reports of wolf damage and injury, and even death in the case of livestock killed by wolves.

I hope the minister, in conjunction with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), will give some thought to this problem, because I think it’s more serious than was first thought to be the case when the other Act was repealed. I recall the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. R. G. Hodgson) and others making some comments at that time and expressing some concern as to the effect this action would have. I think what he said and what others said at that time has really come true. The province is going to have to come to grips with it in a more effective way than has been the case to date.

Having said that, I want to leave that particular point for a moment and deal with the matter of dogs running at large. I would certainly agree with the principle enunciated in the bill where the trespass is enlarged in respect to dogs. It used to be that dogs were only trespassing if they were running at large on a highway. That was a very narrow definition. I think many of the municipalities and dogcatchers throughout the province wanted a broader interpretation of the Act than that in order to do their job effectively.

The minister has broadened that definition to include any place other than the premises of the owner of the dog. But then later on in the bill, he saw fit to restrict the right of an individual to enter any promises. That seems rather peculiar to me, because I think in the later section he has nullified any effect he had in the previous section where he broadened the definition.

Previously, I suppose we could take the case where a dogcatcher would be driving down the road and see a dog on another person’s premises, he didn’t have the right actually to move in and convict the owner of that dog of trespassing; but he could, I suppose, hypothetically, get out of his car, go onto those premises and chase the dog onto the highway. Then he’d be within his full legal rights to charge the owner of that dog with allowing it to run at large.

The minister has broadened the definition of that to include any premises other than the premises of the Owner of the dog, but he has limited the right of the dogcatcher or any individual acting on behalf of the municipality to enter any premises where he may feel that a dog is running at large.

In the final analysis, I say to the minister, I think the effect of broadening the definition of “trespass” has been completely nullified as far as the actual application of this Act is concerned. I would hope the minister would take a look at that again, because I think there could be a problem there. Perhaps we should be looking at redefining the right of a dogcatcher to enter premises where he has a right to believe a dog is running at large on premises other than the premises of the owner.

I don’t think I have anything further to say on the bill other than on the Wolf Damage Assessment Board. It seems to me that won’t be a very active board. I am wondering if the minister sees this as sort of the agricultural senate --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Gaunt: -- where people might wish to have an appointment to this board. But I really believe they are not going to have very much to do. Maybe in my later years, when I retire from politics, the minister might consider appointing me to the Wolf Damage Assessment Board.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Right after the next election.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I will keep it open until after the next election.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): For the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr. Gaunt: Then I would be able to see first-hand what would be required.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): He’s going to be like Jack Pickersgill. He’s going to appoint himself.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: At the same salary, I take it.

Mr. Gaunt: In any case, if the minister would appoint me, I could perhaps do a little lobbying and see that I was appointed chairman. Then we could go on from there.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I thought I would restrict that to myself.

Mr. Ruston: The member for Huron-Bruce wouldn’t want that job.

Mr. Gaunt: No, I don’t really think I would.

Mr. Bullbrook: We have got him pegged for the pregnant mares urine advisory board.

Mr. Gaunt: Perhaps if the appointments aren’t too long in coming, I could handle both. In any case,” with those comments I say we are going to support the bill. I hope the minister will give consideration to the two points I raised.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to commend the minister for introducing this bill. It certainly will gain a great deal of support, and has, from constituents of mine. As members probably know, my predecessor, Norris Whitney, was the expert in this House, and probably in the Province of Ontario, in regard to wolves. He no doubt knew more about wolves than probably the wolves themselves.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: Other than the former member for Sudbury who was an authority, or the antithesis, I am not sure.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The former member for Sudbury, Mr. Sopha, at times rose to the occasion by way of interjection and by way of contradiction, but there is no question that Norris Whitney was the expert and still is the expert. I must say that his concern was very real indeed.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It sounds as though Norris Whitney wrote this speech.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We have experienced in Prince Edward county, and in other parts of my riding, a great deal of damage through the activities of the wolves and the hybrids. This loss has been aggravated by the problems the farmers were experiencing in terms of processing their claims, and once the claims were processed in actually being paid for damage to the livestock.

The mixed jurisdiction of the ministries of Agriculture and Food and Natural Resources, I think, unduly complicated the matter. In terms of the present legislation, of course, the township inspector will be responsible for examination of the carcass and whether the kill is a result of dogs or wolves. We will have one person who can examine the carcass. He will be there promptly and he will be a local person who will have an understanding of the local problems of the area and of the farmers who are and must be served.

I think this is just a tremendous change in the legislation. Hopefully, it will lessen the aggravation we are experiencing.

At the same time, there is still a concern in regard to the number of wolves and crossbred wolves and dogs. I suppose the wolf doesn’t have a predator except man.

When we discourage hunters from killing the wolves -- and I think we have done that to some extent in regard to taking off the bounty -- then we do have an increase in the wolf population. So I still think we have to make sure that we step up our predator control programme, because whether the person is compensated to some degree or not, it is still a loss to find that his herd has been attacked by wolves.

In the case of some animals there may be some argument as to whether they were dead before they were torn apart or whether they were actually killed by wolves. There still is that uncertainty, there’s still the concern; and there’s still the problem of processing claims. So I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture and Food will still work with the Ministry of Natural Resources, as I know he is doing, to step up the predator control programme.

I think that the current legislation, of course, will go a long way in helping the farmer. I may say just in closing, Mr. Speaker, that I had a very strong supporter and ardent worker of the NDP call me to ensure that I convey the message to the leader of that party to support as strongly as possible this legislation and it was badly needed and worthy of support.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: I know this bill is very badly needed in our community because just recently, I believe, the minister has been talked to by one of my constituents who has had problems in Emily township. She apparently has had a problem with the hybrids, which are the main problem. It is very hard to define whether they are dogs or whether they are wolves, and I am pleased that we are going to have a better and more efficient way of defining the damage and how it was done.

I hope part of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, will be that the notification of damage to a township clerk will be treated as sufficient notice in itself without notifying the local representative of the Ministry of Natural Resources, because often the people who are involved these days are part-time farmers, not necessarily full-time or living actually on their farmland. My problem in one or two instances has been in this vein, where the people live in the city and come back oh the weekends. Maybe they have somebody looking after their animals through the week, but when they get there they find some damage and they notify the local clerk, and there just hasn’t been sufficient evidence except for the clerk’s notification, let alone notification to the Ministry of Natural Resources. I hope this will be a matter that will be taken into consideration in connection with this bill.

The other problem I think we still have is a need for a little better predator control programme. I hope that the minister mentions to his colleague that there is a need, especially in some areas of Ontario where there are sheep and other animals, for further protection. I can mention one of two townships in my riding that I think need this soft of thing.

I know we have just recently received money for a better predator control programme in the county of Haliburton. We do need a predator control programme of a better nature in the townships of Somerville, Carden, Laxton, Digby and Longford, as well as in Emily, because in those townships we have wild dogs. The wild dog is very hard to catch, or it is difficult to determine if the predator control programme is sufficient in dealing with them, because in most cases a wild dog does not do the things a wolf does. While a man might be fully-trained and knowledgeable about a wolf, he doesn’t really know all that much about the wild dog, because it’s a mixture. Now, when these wild dogs are hunted, they run the fence rows, and that is not the nature of a true wolf. The wolf just takes out across country and leaves the territory. These wild dogs just run around, like chickens around a barnyard; they run around the fences and they’re a real problem.

The lady, I think, mentioned it to the minister. She had a problem with her children. The predator control programme officer, I believe, has moved out to try and do something in that territory. But we need a little better predator control programme in the county of Victoria. We’re on our way to a solution in Haliburton county. I think this legislation is good legislation, and I heartily endorse it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lanark.

Mr. D. J. Wiseman (Lanark): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on the changes in the Act. But I’d also like to bring out a point that I don’t think has been mentioned yet. The Natural Resources people have done a good job, but in all fairness they’re not farmers. When it comes to compensation, I hope some direction will go out from the minister’s office to the evaluators.

They pay according to the weight of the lamb, or whatever it might be, based on prices here in Toronto that day. They should take into some consideration the farmer’s other costs for that lamb or the sheep. In other words, if the lamb weighs 25 pounds, they pay a quarter of what it would have brought had it been 100 pounds here in Toronto. But we all know, those who come from a rural background, that the farmer has to take into consideration his pasture costs; his cost of breeding that old ewe again and having her in lamb for another year. So unless direction comes from the minister or one of his officials, probably compensation will be, earned on in the same manner.

As my colleagues mentioned, the members for Victoria-Haliburton and Prince Edward-Lennox, I think we have to get improved predator control for our area. I think maybe the Minister of Agriculture and Food could talk to the Minister of Natural Resources and see that we do get that.

In the county I represent, we have one man for the whole region. With the number of wolves he just can’t organize hunts against these wolves as he should. So I think we should, get more predator control officers to help to control the problem.

I would like to have seen it left with each county to make up their own mind whether they paid the bounty or not, but that’s another ministry.

I would like to congratulate the minister and ask him for gosh sakes to give these fellows who go out a little direction on what they pay to the farmer. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, it’s almost like Christmas here today, with everyone getting up and being in complete agreement and praising the minister for what he’s doing. And not to destroy the festive air, I too wish to stand in my place and say I will support the bill and congratulate the minister for bringing it forward.

Mr. R. B. Beckett (Brantford): There must be something wrong.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Heresy.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I’m from northwestern Ontario, where probably the stereotype idea of northern Ontario is one of, particularly at this time of year, frozen rock and trees. As the minister well knows, and I must congratulate him on his knowledge of my area, he comes often -- trying to get rid of me, I think, is probably part of the reason he’s up there --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Reid: But regardless of the motive we appreciate his interest in our area.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): He also buys cattle up there.

Mr. Reid: He knows, probably better than anyone else, that there is, at least in our area, a substantial farming community. We have something in the neighbourhood of some 25,000 cows, cattle and so on; it’s a substantial industry in the Rainy River district. We have suffered from predators probably more so than down in southern Ontario, not just the wolves and the brush wolves but the wild dog, the “half-and-half,” and so on and so forth.

I know the minister’s had many representations from the Rainy River municipal union and the farm organizations in the area to do something in this regard, because under the previous system, if the Natural Resources personnel weren’t satisfied that it was a bona fide wolf -- and I am not always sure how they arrived at that -- the farmer often had to take the loss. This Act will go a great deal further to satisfy their claims and their compensation, and provide the remuneration to which they are entitled.

I suppose, perhaps, we should throw in the fact that we’d like to see payment for bears too. I don’t believe it is in this Act. The odd time this too is a problem, particularly in those areas in northern Ontario where there are farming communities.

In any case, I am glad to stand and support the bill, and again congratulate the minister on bringing it forward.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Just a few brief remarks, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I support the bill, having had considerable experience raising sheep at one time in my life, but I am rather sorry there are not provisions made in the bill whereby a person can enter the premises where the dog comes from if he happens to have trailed that dog home, having had his sheep molested by the dog.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): By appointment with the dog?

Mr. Riddell: I think one should be able to enter those premises and have the right to do so. I can well recall being involved in a situation in which sheep were molested by a dog, the dog was trailed home, but I was not able to enter the premises. When I did get the policemen in on it they said: “If you can prove there is wool in the dog’s mouth then we can go in and probably do away with the dog.”

But by the same token you can’t enter the premises, according to this bill, even though you have trailed the dog home to that property where he comes from, knowing he has molested the sheep.

I am wondering if the minister could comment on that?

Mr. Speaker: Any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? The member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, what I know about wolves and dogs you could write on the head of a pin, but I am kind of curious about something and maybe the minister could answer it for me.

Mr. Renwick: The member shouldn’t make a statement like that.

Mr. Deans: Oh, well, I have got to tell the truth in this House, that’s a prerequisite, a requirement for membership.

I must confess to the minister that though I have a fairly large rural section in my riding, it is not something that has been brought to my attention frequently, although it obviously is a concern of a lot of other people in the area.

I would like to ask why it is that there isn’t some form of insurance against loss from this kind of thing. Why would it be done in this way, as opposed to, let’s say any other losses that a person would suffer as a result of accident or whatever else it may be attributed to. I have never quite understood why we would levy against a municipality, a municipality would levy against the taxpayers, and then it would reclaim indirectly from the government some or all of what it had spent.

I think maybe if the minister could explain to me the reasoning I might well understand it. I am certainly not opposed to ensuring that loss of livestock be covered, and certainly loss of livestock as a result of --

Mr. Stokes: Predation.

Mr. Deans: Predation; thanks. Predation, my colleague tells me. I wonder if that is in Webster’s or Funk and Wagnall’s.

Could the minister tell me something about the reasons why there isn’t an insurance programme? There is crop insurance, there is insurance against hail, there is insurance against every other thing. You are insured if your building collapses or if it catches on fire, whether accidentally or purposely, as long as you can prove that it was an accident. I would appreciate it if the minister could tell me about that, then I would feel more comfortable about supporting this kind of legislation.

The other thing I want to say is that I think it should be a requirement of municipal law enforcement officers that they spend a little more time trying to find the owners of these animals. I tend to think that quite frequently municipalities don’t devote very much time to it, they sort of write it off and it becomes a public debt; which may well be a little onerous from time to time and may not be quite appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: Any other hon. members to speak to this bill? The member for Essex South.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr. Speaker, my comments will be very brief, but one of the most significant details in this bill hasn’t been mentioned as yet, and that is the fact that game birds are now being included as poultry within the meaning of the Act.

The minister is aware that during the past two or three years the game bird fanciers have made representation to me, and through me to him. In fact last year I did introduce a bill for this very provision. On behalf of these game bird fanciers in Ontario I appreciate this inclusion in this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: I just want to lend my words of commendation to those of the members who have already spoken. As a matter of fact, most of the comments that I get from people are that the natural balance will take care of most predators. I realize there are certain areas of the province where this is a real problem. I have only had one incident brought to my attention, and it wasn’t wolves at all but wild dogs. Of course from a cursory examination of the bill this will be provided for, so I too would like to commend the minister for having brought this piece of legislation forward. I’m sure it will go a long way to meeting a lot of the problems which people have been experiencing as a result of predation.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Algoma.

Mr. Martel: The wolf hunter himself.

Mr. Deans: This is a memorable occasion.

An hon. member: What kind of wolves is the member going to talk about?

Mr. Stokes: It brings him back to his wedding night, doesn’t it? Remember that?

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): I’ll be ready to speak when these interjections are finished over there. We’ve got to let them have a little fun, Mr. Speaker. They pick on me a little bit because I’m good natured.

An hon. member: And good looking.

Mr. Gilbertson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to join with the others who have already spoken. The member for Algoma represents his people up there and we have quite a lot of farmers who have been bothered with wolves destroying the livestock and so forth. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak very long on this. I only want to say that I want to congratulate the minister for this step he’s taken. I really appreciate it and I’m supporting the bill 100 per cent.

Mr. Martel: This is the member for Algoma’s finest hour.

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

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I almost hesitate to get up because everything has been so pleasant.

Mr. Martel: That’s why the minister is blushing.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: First of all, I naturally appreciate all the support that has been afforded to the bill.

The matter of dogs running at large was raised by the member for Huron-Bruce. Frankly, I expressed the same concern to our legal branch when they were drafting the bill. The idea of putting in the section -- and I think he is referring to section 1(4): “Nothing in subsection 2 confers on any person a right to enter any premises,” -- is that what has happened in the past is, apparently, that where a person found a dog on his property -- this really refers to the urban community more than the rural community -- he has sometimes called the dogcatcher and said: “There are dogs on my lawn”; or “They’re in the garden,” or “They’re tearing up the flower beds”; something like this. The dogcatcher simply said: “They’re not on a public place; they’re on private property, so I can’t do anything about it.”

So section 1(2) of the bill says: “A dog shall be deemed to be running at large when found in any place other than the premises of the owner of the dog and not under the control of any person.” It makes it possible that the person whose property the dog is on can now call the dog control officer in the local municipality and invite him to come to that place, and he has the right now to go on that person’s property and take the dog under control.

Mr. Gaunt: Does that mean he has to be invited?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: He has to be invited. It simply prevents the dogcatcher from seeing a dog anywhere that hasn’t got a licence or a tag on it.

Mr. Renwick: Is the owner of the premises permitted to hold the dog there?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am not sure about that. But in any event he could go into any place and take that dog. We simply say the dogcatcher isn’t going to be able just to go down through the backyards of any lots in town, because one would get into real trouble in that regard. So that’s why it is there. I don’t think it will inhibit the bill, but it is put there as some protection to people who may not have the same feeling as others might concerning those problems.

The Wolf Damage Assessment Board to which my friend referred is involved, as the bill explains, where a municipality is making claims against the province for damages attributed to wolves. If there is so the doubt in the mind of the commissioner, before he submits payment back to the municipality he can refer that specific claim to the assessment board. They then have the right to thoroughly investigate the matter. I hope there won’t be much requirement for their use, and I don’t suppose there will be, but nevertheless we think it is important to have them here.

I support completely the increased predator control programme that is in the planning stage and is certainly being expanded on by my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources. We feel that there is room for this programme to be stepped up. It has been beneficial in some areas. We think there is room for a good deal more work to be done along this line, and I would agree completely with those who have so suggested.

As for the matter raised by my friend from Victoria-Haliburton on the notification of a township clerk re the damage, I assume that this applies where a farmer finds a loss to his livestock. Where this happens, it says on page 3 of the bill that the farmer “shall immediately notify a valuer for the local municipality.” He might do that through the township clerk, if he didn’t happen to know who the valuer was, but he would do it directly, Mr. Speaker, and would not have to call a local representative of the Ministry of Natural Resources. It would be done by the valuer, and we intend to call together the local valuers, on a regional basis throughout the province, for a brief meeting with them and some of the Natural Resources people, to describe to them the difference between what can be described as a wolf kill and a dog kill; because I am told by those who know that there is a significant difference. So the valuers in their respective municipalities can determine who should pay the bill; is it the local municipality or should the municipality then bill the province to pay for the loss sustained?

I believe it would be fair to say that where there is a loss attributed to dogs, local valuers do take into consideration the points raised by my friend from Lanark; much more so than perhaps those who did the appraising from the Ministry of Natural Resources, because I think they went entirely by the book and really didn’t take into consideration some of these other points. But, of course, the right of appeal was granted to the farmer, and in many cases the appeals were heard and upheld and more money was paid for losses sustained.

The matter of trailing the dog home, raised by my friend from Huron is a very real problem, and I am quite familiar with what happens. It happened to me once too, many, many years ago. It’s difficult to prove that fact and I don’t really know how one comes to grips with it. Some suggested that there be greater enforcement by the local dog control officers in assessing the damages against claims that have been made, and I would completely agree with that.

I recall one particular case, where damages had been sustained by a flock of sheep and the dog had been trailed right home in this particular case. The first question asked was how much damage had been done, before there was any ownership claim to the dog. When there were damages indicated that would have to be paid for, knowing full well that the township could come on to the owner of the dog, there was no claim made as to the ownership of that dog on that particular farm, although it was peculiar that we found that was the place he went to. So the appropriate action was taken by the owner. Perhaps a little more devotion to the family pet might have been prescribed there, but it wasn’t. I think there is difficulty in dealing with that subject and, frankly, the bill really doesn’t come to grips with that particular matter.

With regard to the question raised by my friend from Wentworth as to why there was no insurance against the loss, first of all, this bill is known as the Dog Tax and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act. The dog tax in most municipalities -- certainly in the rural municipalities -- is used to pay the claims of damages. It’s really the insurance premium that is paid.

Mr. Deans: Could I ask the minister a question now?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Let me just mention to the member further that if a farmer doesn’t agree with the amount of the limit described in the bill -- I have it here someplace; it’s in the original bill, what the limits are that can be paid; I think $100 for a sheep, a goat and a hog and $500 for a horse or a cattle beast are maximum amounts that can be paid -- then the farmer can insure over and above that, particularly if it’s purebred livestock. I think the insurance premium is about three to five per cent of the value that he places on them. This is being done.

Mr. Deans: Would the minister permit me to ask -- I am really curious as I don’t know and I’m not trying to be clever or anything -- what happens in the case of a municipality immediately surrounding a major city or growth area? Quite obviously, that municipality has a problem, because they’ve got the livestock, but the dogs could well be coming from the larger municipality and they get off scot-free more or less. What does one do then?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: This is true, and certainly that is the case around large urban areas. There’s no question of that at all. But the local municipalities normally are able to collect enough revenue to offset the losses they sustain. In the case of any wolf or hybrid losses that will be sustained, they will be paid by the province out of the fund that will be established.

I think really the bill does come to grips with some of the major problems that have been related to us many times over where there has been delay in the settlement, caused by not being able to find the local valuer or the person who could assess the claim in the Ministry of Natural Resources because that person had many other responsibilities. We think by bringing it back to the level of the local municipality and the local evaluator carrying out these claims, much of the distress and the concern will be eliminated.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): May I ask the minister a question?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Spence: In regard to Indian reserves, if wolves or dogs come out of reserves, do they collect a dog tax?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I don’t think they do because they are not assessed as a municipality. So I doubt if they would. It’s a difficult one but I don’t think that has ever been any problem. Frankly, no one has ever asked me that question before. I’ve never really heard that it was much of a problem.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the bill go to committee, not that I anticipate any problems at all but there is one other matter that I am considering. I don’t have a positive answer on it this afternoon and I would like to leave the door open to submit it to committee. If we can proceed with it, then I would like to deal with it at that time.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Committee of the whole House, yes.

Agreed.

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

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES ACT

House in committee on Bill 148, An Act to amend the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act.

Mr. Chairman: Would any member like to speak on any section of this bill, and if so, what section?

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Section 5.

Mr. Chairman: Section 5. Does any member want to speak on any section before 5?

The hon. member for Sudbury East on section 5.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I just want a clarification.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, just a minute. Maybe the minister wants to make a statement.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Chairman, with reference to last night, the hon. member for Thunder Bay had suggested an amendment with reference to recreation committees with Indian bands, and I am prepared to make that amendment if the hon. member wishes

J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I thought you had undertaken to do that.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes, but in order to do so, Mr. Chairman, I believe I’d have to amend the section of the Act, and I am prepared to do so now.

Mr. Chairman: What section would that be in?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That would be in section 4, Mr. Chairman.

On section 4:

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It would be an amendment to clause (c) of section 6b of the Act, that’s on page 2 of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle moves that in sub-clause (i) in the fifth line, after the word “bands,” be added “or the council of one or more municipalities and bands”, and that in subsection (vi) be added after “boards” in the third line, “or a board and the council of one or more bands” and by adding after “board” at the end of the seventh line, “or a board and a council of one or more bands, as the case may be.”

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The purpose here, Mr. Chairman, would be to provide as much flexibility as possible where an Indian band or two bands could form a joint agreement on recreational committees with an adjoining school board or a municipality or whatever the case may be. I think it is a very good recommendation and we are pleased to accept it.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. members of the House have heard the minister’s proposed amendments to section 4, subsection (1), and also to section (vi). Shall the amendments carry?

Carried.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that you are adding such items as food, clothing and so on in the Act, does this now mean that people can request a hearing before the board of review when a municipality, in fact, denies them this special assistance?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is in section 5, as mentioned here, by inserting after the word “including” in the fourth line the word “items.” This would be items such as food, clothing, prosthetic appliances and so forth. It is more or less enlarging the number of items that can ha purchased.

Mr. Martel: Let’s say the municipality determines they weren’t going to provide some prosthetic appliance under special assistance, would the client now he able to appeal that decision, or is it just that these are things that are available?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, there is no change in that respect. Provision of special assistance or supplementary assistance is at the discretion of the local municipality. However, as I indicated in my remarks last evening on second reading, the board and the directors do make every effort to have the municipality provide whatever assistance is necessary under supplementary or special assistance.

Mr. Martel: It is really too bad that some municipalities wouldn’t do it, then. I come back to the point, though. Most municipalities are simply holding out because this ministry refuses to pay its 30 per cent of use tonnage and I think the ministry should. I realize I am a bit off the target here, Mr. Chairman, but I think the ministry has really got to grapple with that problem. It is just outstanding and it’s ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The hon. member has indicated that it’s not really part of this section, but I agree with the comments of the hon. member. It’s our intention to fund special assistance of a higher amount.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 5 carry?

Section 5 agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I am really upset with section 6. The Swadron report certainly didn’t believe that this should occur -- that one person should hear the appeal. In fact, on pages 55 and 56, they have some rather uncomplimentary things to say about the board of review. When I see that one person can conduct a hearing, I am somewhat frightened by it. I don’t think the claimant gets the best break in any situation which has one person hearing an appeal.

Surety it makes sense, Mr. Minister, if there is difficulty in getting people -- two or three members from Toronto, or wherever they are located -- to the specific locality where the appeal is going to be heard, surely one might do like either the Province of Manitoba or the Province of Saskatchewan and have some local advisory boards. In fact, from those local advisory boards you could draw one or two people to sit with those who are going to make up the quorum.

Even the Workmen’s Compensation Board -- and I go before it rather regularly -- have two, and in most instances, three people hearing the case to give the client a fair break. And when there’s one, I think there’s a danger. I really do. I don’t think that the client’s case gets the consideration it deserves.

That’s not casting any aspersions on any of the people who make up the board of review at all. But two people will sit and discuss the case, I am sure, before they arrive at a decision. If there are three it is even better; I think three is ideal, because they can toss the situation back and forth. I think they come up with a fairer decision.

I would like to see you strike that section, Mr. Minister. I realize that it would mean a little work to put in place in various areas across the province the type of apparatus necessary.

Speed, of course, is one of the problems. I’m sure the minister has introduced this because it would prevent a delay in bringing together the appropriate number of people to conduct a hearing. But surely, based on the lines that his ministry has now in its regions -- five, I guess it is now -- the minister could set up an advisory board to deal not only with this specific problem but an advisory board that could tell the ministry where it’s going wrong or where it could improve conditions? We’d been trying to do that in the Sudbury area and got thrown out two weeks ago, as the minister knows.

At the same time they could have an added function. In fact, the minister would only have to send one person from Toronto, let’s say, to Sudbury or to Timmins, and he could draw on local people to make up the rest of the board. In fact, he could do it along ethnic lines. He could do it taking it from the client group itself. There’s a whole combination of ways he could devise it and there would only be one person necessary to be sent out from Toronto to any given locality.

In fact, if he had an advisory board, in each section under his ministry across the province, of people other than welfare people, I mean working in the field, then he could draw on them. If he went to the Sudbury area and he happened to need someone who understood Ukrainian -- because there are a variety of ethnic groups -- one of the people on his advisory board could be of Ukrainian descent and could translate for the person. I just use Ukrainian as an example. It could be Italian, French and so on.

I’m really concerned that we’ve got ourselves into a box. It’s contrary to what’s going on at the Workmen’s Compensation Board and it’s contrary to most boards to have a single person hear a request for a review, because I don’t think the client gets the best break. I would ask the minister to change that, even if it means that it will, as I say, take a little while until he gets advisory boards into place across the province. But I think that’s a retrograde step. It was recommended, I think in 1971, that we should move in the opposite direction, and now the minister is coming back to square one. Surely it’s time we improved the Act? There’s no sense bringing this gobbledygook back if we’re not going to improve on it. All right, the minister wants to respond.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate what the hon. member is saying, but I’d like to mention a few matters. One is that there is no change here. We were just transferring what was in the Family Benefits Act to the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act. I agree with the hon. member that often it’s preferable that there be more than one member. I haven’t got the percentage, but I would say that in more than half, probably two-thirds, of the cases, there are two and sometimes three members.

As I mentioned last night, even though there’s only one member -- but normally there are two and sometimes there are three -- the proceedings of the hearings are dealt with by the entire board every Monday. So there is the expertise --

Mr. Martel: Pardon me?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Every Monday. When a hearing is held, say Tuesday in Sudbury, the following Monday the proceedings of that hearing are dealt with by the entire board. There are some very knowledgeable and competent people on that board. They have legal advice and a decision is taken by the entire board. So no unilateral decision is made by just one member.

We feel that by this provision -- again this was recommended by Mr. Justice McRuer in this report -- provides more flexibility. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would be most reluctant to amend the existing legislation. I am advised that less than three per cent of hearings have only one member; less than three per cent. So the great majority of cases are heard by two or more members. As I mentioned earlier, this section was enacted by the Civil Rights Statute Law Amendment Act.

Mr. Martel: Well, I would say to the minister it is all well and good what McRuer might say, but for a person drawing welfare benefits, a person who has appealed, we have to recognize that this is the end of the road. If he is denied his application, based on a one-man decision, for him there is no tomorrow. That bothers me. Certainly my knowledge of the law isn’t Judge McRuer’s, but if I were in that position I would Feel somewhat more comfortable knowing it was a three-man board I was appearing before rather than a one-man board, even if it be in only three per cent of the cases.

It seems to me that somewhere else in this Act, and I was just trying to locate it, it says someone who didn’t sit in on the hearing could not be part of the decision.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): He can’t be a part of the decision if he wasn’t there.

Mr. Martel: Now, what is this nonsense you bring up that they come to Toronto and it is discussed every Monday and a decision is made? The Act says, in fact --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Martel: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, normally the decision is not made when the hearing is held, it is made at a subsequent date. There are some copious notes taken at the hearing and then, as I mentioned, normally every Monday the entire board meets and discusses the entire case. So there is the expertise and the knowledge of the entire board.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, on page 5, section 6 states:

“No member of the board of review shall make any decision of the board pursuant to a hearing under this section unless he was present throughout the hearing and heard the evidence and arguments of the parties, and except with the consent of the parties no decision of the board shall be given unless all members so present take part in the decision.”

Well, that is the direct opposite to what the minister is saying. He is saying they go out and they bring back these copious notes and then they all sit down and look at them and make a decision.

Mr. Martel: That’s what he said.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s what he said. If they are doing that, they are not doing it in accordance with the Act, and all the decisions that have taken place so far should be thrown out.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Chairman, I certainly don’t interpret the Act that way. In section 6:

“No member of the board of review shall make any decision of the board pursuant to a hearing under this section unless he was present throughout the hearing and heard the evidence and arguments of the parties, and except with the consent of the parties no decision of the board shall be given unless all members so present take part in the decision.”

So the decision is made by that member. However, he can have all sorts of advice. Sometimes it is a very complicated legal matter and that is why we have a legal solicitor to provide him with that assistance.

Mr. R. S. Smith: At first, though, you said that they discussed these and then they made the decision, which is not really the case.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The decision is made by the chairman of the hearing, but that chairman of the hearing can consult other members of the board and the solicitor.

Mr. Martel: That isn’t what he said.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That isn’t what you said a few minutes ago, but now you have got it right. As long as the minister knows what he is doing we are all satisfied.

I have a couple of other points I would like to make on this section. I agree with the member for Sudbury East there is no way that one person should sit on a hearing, because I have attended some of these hearings on behalf of people and really they are just sad. Some of the members on this board really don’t know what the Acts are under which they are making decisions. I was at one board hearing where a member spent the whole hearing leafing through the Act trying to find a part of the Act that would tell him what common law marriage was. Of course, that is not in any Act, as far as I am concerned, and I told him that two or three times, but he spent the rest of the hearing looking for it in the Act anyway -- and that fellow was from Cornwall.

But I would like to know who the people are who are on these boards and how many there are.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee to 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 progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I would like consent to move to statements.

Mr. Speaker: Does the House give permission to move to statements?

Motion agreed to.

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

Hon Mr. Winker: Mr. Speaker in view of the rather critical nature of the negotiations which are currently under way with respect to the operational services category, I am sure the hon. members would want me to keep them informed as to the current status of these negotiations.

The members will recall that in response to the association’s request for a 61½ per cent wage increase in a one-year contract, the government tabled an open wage offer which would have provided increases ranging from 18 per cent to 25 per cent over two years. For reasons which are now quite clear the association did not revise its opening position but chose instead to seek a strike mandate on the basis of the government’s opening offer. The result of such a vote was, of course, quite predictable. While the decision of the CSAO, resulted in a two-week delay in these crucial negotiations -- a delay which, in the view of the government was totally unnecessary -- the parties subsequently agreed to meet again on Dec. 2 and 3.

Since it is generally agreed that the initial demand of the CSAO could hardly be termed reasonable, it was expected that some modification of this position would have been made early in the negotiations so that the normal give and take of bargaining could have developed. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the CSAO has elected to depart from what might be termed the normal pattern of negotiations and has repeatedly refused to move off its initial 61.5 per cent position.

In the face of such intransigence, Mr. Speaker, the only course open to the government’s negotiators was to place their total mandate on the table with the expectation that the CSAO would live up to its recently stated policy and give the employees in this category an opportunity to vote on this very substantial offer. I have said on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, that the government prefers to do its bargaining at the bargaining table and under normal circumstances we would not release any details at this time. These, however, are not normal circumstances. We are less than four weeks away from a threatened illegal strike and I feel it is my duty, Mr. Speaker, to make the details of the government’s position known to the members of this House so that they and the people they were elected to represent may make an informed judgment as to the reasonableness or otherwise of the government’s bargaining stance.

While there are obvious advantages to both parties in a two-year agreement, the present state of the economy is such that the government decided it must be prepared to live with a contract over a shorter duration. Therefore, I am pleased to advise the House that the government this morning tabled the following position as a basis of settlement in a one-year agreement, effective Jan. 1, 1975.

Wages: Operational groups 1 and 6, a 15 per cent increase; operational groups 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8, a 17 per cent increase; operational groups 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, a 20 per cent increase; and operational group 14, an increase of 23 per cent.

Other changes: In addition to direct wage increases, Mr. Speaker, the government has offered the following changes:

A reduction in the number of steps in certain salary ranges which will result in increases ranging from three per cent to 7½ per cent for approximately 600 employees.

Certain industrial safety inspectors will receive additional increases to put them on a par with construction safety officers.

Approximately 200 employees in the Ministry of Correctional Services will benefit from an increase of the custodial allowance from $750 per year to $1,000 per year.

The total package, Mr. Speaker, will cost the taxpayers of this province an additional $32.7 million in 1975.

The CSAO’s committee considered our proposal over the lunch period and they indicated they wanted to discuss our position on the weekend with other officials of the CSAO. They have not yet moved off their 61½ per cent demand.

If I may repeat what our negotiators have said at the bargaining table, Mr. Speaker, the government’s spokesman saw no alternative but to take his full mandate in an attempt to bring about a settlement, and this he has done. It is the view of the government that the offer is reasonable and responsible in all respects and places the government’s rates in a very competitive position vis-à-vis those of other employers in the province.

A breakdown of the number of employees in the various groups shows that approximately 1,000 would receive a 15 per cent increase; some 2,500 would receive a 17 per cent increase; approximately 13,000 would receive a 20 per cent increase; and about 2.200 employees would receive an increase of 23 per cent. In total, approximately 15,000 employees, more than 81 per cent of the total category, would receive increases of 20 per cent or more as of Jan. 1, 1975. As a result of the proposed increases, Mr. Speaker, the average hourly rate for employees in this category will go from the current $4.27 per hour to $5.11 per hour and the average annual salary will increase from $8,900 to more than $10,650.

In order that the members may make their own comparisons to rates paid for similar jobs by other employers in the province, I would like to cite the rates which will result from some of the typical jobs in this category: Steam plant engineer 3 will go from $5.69 per hour to $6.54 per hour; maintenance electrician, from $5.25 per hour to $6.14 per hour; manual worker, from $3.73 per hour to $4.48 per hour; marine engineer 2, from $5.28 per hour to $6.46 per hour; meat inspector 1, from $4.71 per hour to $5.65 per hour; building cleaner and helper, from $8.65 per hour to $4.38 per hour; psychiatric nursing assistant 2, from $409 per hour to $4.91 per hour.

If the leaders of the CSAO have any consideration for the well being of their members and of all the people of this province, we believe they should give the employees an opportunity to vote on the proposed wage increases, rather than to rely on an improper strike mandate based on the government’s opening position.

We think, Mr. Speaker, that the employees have the right to expect this opportunity.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Does the minister call that collective bargaining?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Why does the minister do this?

Mr. Speaker: In view of the hour, then I recognize the clock --

Mr. Deans: Is it possible to ask a question since a statement has been made?

Mr. Speaker: On a point of clarification?

Mr. Deans: On a point of clarification. Has the CSAO taken the position the government has offered back and are there any subsequent meetings to follow the ones that have just taken place?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that we would consider any offer to go back to the bargaining table.

Mr. Deans: No, that wasn’t what I was asking. I am sorry, I didn’t word it very carefully. I assume the meetings broke off today some time. Are there any meetings scheduled to take place beyond the meeting that finished today? Second, has the CSAO asked for time to consider the government’s offer?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I must say to you I don’t think any other meeting is planned.

It being 6:09 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.