Journal des débats 1982-juin-23 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Swart: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether you would intervene with Management Board of Cabinet on my behalf and on behalf of the other members of this caucus to get an answer to the appeal we made more than three months ago against the excessive increase in rates of home-heating gas.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): That is not a matter of privilege. It comes up in question period.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

STOUFFVILLE WATER QUALITY

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, during the past few days there have been news reports and members of my ministry staff and I have received inquiries from media concerning additional laboratory tests that have been taken in the Whitchurch-Stouffville area under the auspices of the Concerned Citizens of Stouffville.

The citizens' committee has held a press conference at which I understand the results of these sister chromatid exchange and aberration tests and an interpretation of the results, which were available in April, have been made public.

I am concerned by anything which may add to the level of uneasiness that has existed in the Stouffville community. To avoid another possible stream of misinformation or incomplete information, I wish to inform the honourable members of the background of the tests, involving six Stouffville residents, which were provided to the medical officer of health for York region and to my ministry during the last week of April.

Earlier this week I reviewed the significance of those chromosome tests with the associate medical officer of health, Dr. John Hodgkinson, with medical advisers to my ministry in the Ministry of Labour and with my staff. Dr. Hodgkinson first informed my ministry on April 26 that he had received the results of laboratory tests for chromosome changes conducted by a US laboratory on six residents of the Stouffville area.

My ministry's director of environmental approvals was advised of this information at the time he was considering his decision on the application by York Sanitation to expand its local landfill site. Members will recall that three days later I announced the director's decision to refuse the application for expanding the site and to require the company to close the existing site under conditions prescribed by my director. The director further ordered the company to provide an alternative water supply to residents in the immediate area of the landfill site.

The director, Mr. Tom Cross, consulted my ministry's medical advisers in the Ministry of Labour on the chromosome test report.

Then, on April 28, Dr. Hodgkinson and our medical advisers met with members of the families involved and with a representative of the citizens' committee to review the test results. Subsequent to this meeting, our medical experts advised the director before he confirmed his decision on the landfill site.

Our medical advisers did not and do not accept the supplementary, nonmedical interpretation of the test results provided at that meeting, since, in their opinion, the interpretation was prepared by an individual who is not qualified to interpret medical matters.

Subsequently, Dr. Hodgkinson and our environmental health advisers consulted a wide range of literature and qualified medical research authorities in Canada and the United States and found that there is no general agreement in the medical community on the significance or interpretation of this type of chromosome study as related to environmental toxins.

However, all the experts consulted did concur on the following: Our knowledge of the causes of chromosome abnormalities is incomplete; normal ranges of chromosome abnormalities are uncertain; the comparison of results from different laboratories is difficult, since each lab establishes its own normal range; pregnancy, the birth control pill, smoking and viral infections can all cause high levels of chromosome abnormalities; and, finally, all public health studies of chromosome abnormalities must use well-matched controls, be done by the same laboratory and be studied blind.

For these reasons, it was concluded that the study results were inconclusive. However, the York region health unit is considering the incorporation of this preliminary information as part of the in-depth medical study now under way in the area under its supervision.

As members know, the ministry's decision to refuse the company's expansion proposals and to require the orderly closure of the landfill site is under appeal. The company, York Sanitation, is challenging these decisions before the Environmental Appeal Board, and these hearings will begin on July 8.

The Concerned Citizens of Stouffville and individual residents in the area are entitled to participate in the hearings at the appeal and to represent their interests. I encourage them to take an active and constructive part in these proceedings. I can assure members that my ministry's staff most certainly will be taking an active part. The residents may, of course, introduce these chromosome results or any other relevant information for consideration during the hearings.

In closing, let me repeat that the director of environmental approvals was aware of this information and had the full benefit of advice from our medical authorities in the Ministry of Labour before issuing the final details and conditions of his decision.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINE SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister will be aware that there are 40 people from Bancroft and Madawaska in our public gallery today looking directly at him. These people represent the community and small business as well as the company and the union.

They had a meeting with Mr. Hugh Macaulay this morning. They were originally told that Mr. Macaulay was not present, but someone found him hidden in the plush of his carpet and he did meet with them. He told them the situation was, I believe, out of his hands and in the minister's hands.

What is the minister going to do to keep the Madawaska Mines open and the town of Bancroft alive?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the advantage of having attended the meeting to which the honourable member refers. I can only point out that I was in cabinet until just before the House was called into session. I indicated earlier this morning that, along with my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), I was prepared to meet with representatives of the visiting group, and I am looking forward to doing that right after question period.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, will the minister discuss with his cabinet colleagues the proposal that Ontario Hydro should give Madawaska Mines a partial contract to keep that mine open for at least six months or another year until the market situation improves or until definite programs can be established to provide alternative employment opportunities to the employees if the mine is forced to shut down after that period? Will he so instruct Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that I, along with my colleague, will meet with a representative group of those who have journeyed to Toronto today. In all fairness, I think I should do that and hear their representations and discuss the matter with them. They should be accorded that courtesy since they have come to Toronto to have that opportunity.

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Energy explore avenues for the sale of uranium other than to Ontario Hydro to keep this mine open in Bancroft?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, obviously we share the concern of the member for Hastings-Peterborough, and indeed of a number of members, regarding any social costs that come with respect to the economics of the present time. Certainly, along with my cabinet colleague the Minister of Natural Resources, I welcome the opportunity to discuss whatever is in the mind of the honourable member and the minds of those who have come from his constituency.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a major statement is going to be made this afternoon about a further layoff at Inco until the beginning of October, a total shutdown, will the minister responsible prevail upon his friend the Premier (Mr. Davis) to reconstitute the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment so that this province will have some policy in place to deal with the ever-growing number of plant shutdowns when we have nothing in place to alleviate the crises that occur day after day to working people?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I hardly think that is supplementary to the main question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, these people have come here today in good faith. They have been reasonable. They are not asking for the world. People have moved to Bancroft and Haliburton because they love that area of Ontario. They have come here today as families, asking for consideration. The minister has helped to keep other communities alive when jobs were threatened and now he is in a position to help. Why not help Bancroft today?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, although I do not have a prepared text to read, I do want to assure you that I share the concern of anyone whose economic future is threatened through the loss of employment.

I happen to be a member from an area that has the dubious distinction of being number two in the province as far as unemployment is concerned. There is not a member in this House who is not concerned about the general economic situation. Indeed, we have discussed in this House many times the general problem and the solutions to be addressed thereto.

I am going to meet these people this afternoon in the spirit in which they have come. I am looking forward to that opportunity and, in fairness to them, we will sit down and discuss the matter with them.

Mr. Peterson: The minister should not forget that in this situation he can do something and that it is his responsibility. He should not forget that when he is discussing this.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Yesterday, in response to a question about the main themes of his budget, the Treasurer said that the major theme of the budget was the creation of jobs. He was presented with figures after the fact by the Ontario Restaurant and Foodservices Association showing there would be a loss of some 7,500 jobs as a result of his imposition of sales taxes on low-priced meals. The Treasurer disagrees with that figure. Can he tell this House how many jobs this province will lose as a result of his budget?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no jobs will be lost because of my budget and the Leader of the Opposition knows it. A great number of jobs will be created no matter how difficult the climate is. There will be 31,000 jobs in the government service, roughly 35,000 man-years in building homes and roughly 12,000 summer student jobs.

Mr. Peterson: That does not address the question of job losses in the restaurant industry, but the Treasurer did address the question of his make-work programs, his $34 million. Is the Treasurer aware that this money has been spread over 838 municipalities across the province? I will give him an example. Alexandria got $5,125 to create jobs; to utilize that $5,125, it is going to have to spend about $10,000 on materials to employ two people for a short time.

In view of the fact that he is now taxing the building materials these people will be using, and the treasurer of the local municipality has no idea where he is going to get the money to buy the materials, how can the Treasurer honestly say he is creating jobs with his program?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not think the Leader of the Opposition was here when the same question was asked by, I think, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) the other day. Each municipality has the right to choose the projects and determine the mix of labour and materials in the projects. If it has chosen one where the ratio is two parts materials and one part labour, that must be its priority in that community.

As far as the $5,125 is concerned, that may be just as important to that community as $1 million to another community, because it is based upon the number of general welfare assistance cases in the community. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) has made that assessment on the most up-to-date information he has.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, will the Treasurer now admit, as Mr. MacEachen has admitted by announcing he will bring in a new budget on Monday night, that his budget also was overly optimistic, that it took in assumptions of more than 100,000 additions to the labour force and has simply missed the mark? After Mr. MacEachen brings in his budget, will the Treasurer commit himself to complementing it with a job creation budget that will create jobs at the provincial level to attack the serious and massive unemployment problem which is growing daily in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, if I am taking any heat following this budget, and the member knows I am, it is because I have put up a good deal of money -- $556 million, by my rough count -- as an investment in jobs in Ontario. That investment consisted of $171 million for the general public works projects which were just alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition, $250 million that goes back to the small business people of the province through the corporate income tax, and $135 million of nonparalleling of the federal moves where we chose to show that we could not follow a federal lead.

We have given Mr. MacEachen the lead and the example. We have also given him some 50 recommendations in a paper, which the Premier (Mr. Davis) gave him in February, called Blueprint for Economic Recovery. I hope and trust that on Monday night we will see a federal budget that reverses its fundamentally incorrect position, because this province stands ready to work with the federal government to do anything that gets more jobs in this province and this country. We do not want to have any more fights with them. We simply want them to accept some of the recommendations that have been made.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, we still do not have any concrete evidence that the figures the Treasurer is giving us are based on anything other than some airy-fairy notions of himself and the staff in the Treasury. There is nothing to prove that any of these jobs are going to be created.

A community in my constituency, called Rainy River, received an allotment of $2,000 under the Ontario employment incentive program. To utilize the money it is going to cost the municipality an additional $600 in materials to create one job; that is to paint a municipal building. There are going to be those material costs.

The Canada Employment Centre in Fort Frances has indicated there are 1,153 people looking for employment. Is the Treasurer planning to direct any additional funds to the north and the one-industry towns, all of which are facing these problems and where there is no cushion of other industries to absorb the impact?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the thing I usually hear from the member for Rainy River is how overly generous my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) is in dealing with the problems of the north. The member is always accusing us of having too many projects of that nature.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I never said that. I know the pressure is getting to the Treasurer.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): What are you standing up for? You have asked a question and the Treasurer is --

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am on a point of order, because the Treasurer has misled the House.

The Acting Speaker: No. You have asked a question and the Treasurer is answering your question.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The pressure is obviously getting to him and he is reverting to these kinds of crappy tactics instead of dealing with --

The Acting Speaker: The member for Rainy River has raised a question and the Treasurer is in the process of answering it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Even before my budget came out, with the co-operation of the federal government -- for which we thank them -- we worked out what is called the section 38 use of unemployment insurance funds. I am sure my colleague knows, and I am sure the visitors in the galleries will be interested to know, that this kind of money is used where large numbers of people are unemployed.

Where the federal government effectively gives us the money it would have paid in unemployment benefits, we in turn add to that, to bring it close to the figure people would have earned had they retained their original jobs, and to go forward with a series of necessary projects. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) is working on those. They cover the mining area and forestry at the moment. We are also looking at parks, fisheries and a number of others. We recognize that it is better to keep people at work than to pay them to stay at home.

The Acting Speaker: I believe the member for Rainy River indicated that the Treasurer misled the House. If that is so, I ask him to remove those remarks.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, given the intense pressure the Treasurer is under and the fact he does not know what he is saying most of the time, I will take back those remarks.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. On May 25, I asked the minister whether he was prepared to table in the Legislature the names of the companies covered under the lead regulation, the names of the unions or of worker representatives on the health and safety committees and the up-to-date data with respect to lead assessment. The minister responded that 533 companies came under the provisions of that regulation, 252 had completed the assessment and 148 were in the process of doing the lead assessment.

Can the minister indicate to me why it is necessary that he has to direct 133 companies to get on with the lead assessment six months after those regulations came into effect? Does the minister not now realize that many of the companies are totally ignoring Bill 70 because they know when they are caught violating the act, all the minister is going to do is slap them on the wrist with a wet noodle?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that is basically the same question the honourable member brought up yesterday but presented in a different manner and with a different substance.

The lead regulations did go in six months ago. I think the ministry has done a most commendable job in implementing them to the extent it has thus far. As he mentioned, there were 500-odd companies in question. They have all been visited. We have basically done all the initial work required to implement these regulations. We are right on target and we have nothing to apologize for.

Mr. Martel: Since the regulations have been in effect for six months and he has had to direct another 133 companies to get on with doing just the basic assessments, can he tell me how long it is going to be before these companies are forced to have a lead control program in effect? How long? How many years?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: If the member refers to the report I sent to him, he will note that most of that is already under way.

Mr. Martel: I have that report and I cannot find anywhere in it where it says anything with respect to control programs.

I point out that unions are involved in 79 per cent of those companies that have lead assessment programs under way. Where there are no unions involved, only 66 per cent of the companies have programs under way. As the minister did not provide the names of the health and safety committee members in the report that was given, is he prepared to provide those names to me for all of those plants, both union and non-union? I happen to believe that where they are non-union plants, the chance of protection is even less and probably there are no committees. Will he supply me with the names?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am well aware of the percentages and circumstances which the honourable member has described to me. Certainly I will be happy to provide him with the information he has requested.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for my friend the Minister of Labour, who gave me some interesting figures yesterday.

Is the minister aware that from January 1, 1981, to January 1, 1982, his inspectors issued 282 violation orders at Rio Algom? Is he also aware that in a six-month period, from January 1 to late June 1981, they issued 325 orders to Denison Mines for contraventions of the act dealing with things such as failure to have eyewash fountains and showers proximate to dangerous compounds; failure to take precautions for blasting safety; failure to install and maintain fire doors in underground mines; and failure to have proper warning systems for motor vehicles? The list is endless.

Can the minister tell me in how many of those violations he has asked the federal government to institute prosecutions?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an exact number; I know it is substantial. I would advise the member that we have been holding negotiations with the federal government as to a more appropriate method of inspection for the uranium mines.

Mr. Martel: I do not think the problem is inspection. I think the problem is one of prosecution.

Yesterday, the minister indicated in the House there were 234 cases prosecuted in 1980-81 and 390 cases prosecuted in 1981-82, for a total of 624 prosecutions in two years. Is he aware that the violations by Denison and Rio Algom alone in one year exceed the total number of prosecutions for two years? Is it not time the minister signalled to the corporations that they have to conform to this act? Otherwise, it is a waste of time.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: In addition to the actual prosecutions that are undertaken, there are many other files that go to the legal branch for consideration and advice as to whether an appropriate action can be taken.

I suggest the ministry is making the companies in this province very much aware of their responsibilities, and in the majority of cases the responsible companies in this province are observing their obligations.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, given the large number of violations and the relatively low number of prosecutions over the past two years, can the minister indicate whether he and his ministry now believe that the level of prosecutions has been high enough? If he does believe that, why do the number of violations remain so high throughout the province?

Certainly there is compliance, but very often compliance comes only after these violations are discovered on his ministry's inspections or after complaints. Why must there be a continuing series of inspections and complaints from labour unions? Why is there not compliance which would not lead to these violations in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons for the increased number of orders being issued is that we have refined our inspection procedures, and our inspectors are better trained at this time and are bringing forward additional concerns. That is something of a positive nature that has happened. I cannot see anything negative about that.

Mr. Martel: I am glad the minister said the responsible companies were making improvements. Is he aware that up until October 1, 1981, there were 95,000 orders issued in the industrial health and safety sector alone? There are two other sectors: mining and construction. Of those 95,000 orders issued the minister had to repeat almost 10,000 of them, a full 10 per cent.

2:30 p.m.

Is the minister aware that if we compare the total violations of all of them combined to his prosecutions alone, he is prosecuting less than one half of one per cent of the violations that occur? Does he not realize that this is a licence for them to continue to violate the act?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not sure whether the honourable member asked a question or was merely making a statement. I can only repeat what I have said before: I feel the ministry has made great strides in enforcing the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The member will never be completely satisfied, nor will I, but I assure him that, while he has a great measure of concern, I also have a great measure of concern and I am just as determined as he is. I commend him for his initiatives in this respect; I did that in this House last week and I am pleased to do it again, but his measure of concern and initiative on this matter is no greater than mine.

MINE SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, who, I believe, is visiting in the back row.

In view of the fact that the cost differential between the Madawaska Mines' proposal of the citizens' committee and the lowest bid from Saskatchewan amounted to $10.2 million, how can the minister justify allowing this mine to close? The cost to the government, which could easily exceed $5 million in the first year, would include such items as relocation expenses, unemployment insurance benefits and the costs involved in the newly announced mining sector employment bridging program. In addition, there are the benefits accruing to government from money spent locally and outside the community, and the multiplier effect that these expenditures create.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows that the decision on the five proposals was made by the Ontario Hydro board.

Mr. Eakins: Does the minister not see the situation in Bancroft as symptomatic of the problem being faced by other towns across the province where employment is largely dependent on the mining industry or some other single-resource industry? Why does the government not formulate a program that will deal with these problems in a meaningful way, keeping in mind the smaller towns and more rural parts of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is what I thought the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) was doing last Friday when he made a very detailed statement, the contents of which we look forward to discussing with representatives of those who have come from that area today.

LANDLORD AND TENANT DISPUTES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) I will put my question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister aware of the gaping loophole in the Landlord and Tenant Act whereby tenants can be summarily evicted by mortgage companies when those companies foreclose on a landlord? With the escalating numbers of foreclosures the practice is spreading, and lawyers for the mortgage companies are encouraging it.

Will the minister recommend to the Attorney General or perhaps to the cabinet that the Landlord and Tenant Act be amended so that mortgage holders who undertake proceedings to obtain residential property under power of sale or action of foreclosure will be deemed to be landlords under the Landlord and Tenant Act so they cannot evict the tenants?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as the member quite properly pointed out, the Landlord and Tenant Act falls within the domain of the Attorney General. I will be pleased to draw his comments and suggestions to the Attorney General's attention.

Mr. Swart: Would the minister also ask the Attorney General to investigate the cases of two Welland families evicted by the sheriff on three or four weeks' notice even though the rent was fully paid and in all other ways they were good tenants? These two cases are Mrs. Beverley Plourde, of 71 Graystone Crescent, and Mr. and Mrs. Jean-Paul Tessier, of 50 Tenth Street, in Welland. The two mortgage companies who did this are Canada Permanent Trust and Guaranty Trust. Further, would the minister have him consult with the lawyer, Rod McDowell, at the community legal services office in Welland who will confirm this practice? If the government finds it is being done and that it is quite legal under the law, as I assure him it is, will the minister ensure he personally will take action to have that legislation amended?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the member's comments to the attention of the Attorney General.

MINE SHUTDOWNS

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the Madawaska Mines problem. It is directed to the Minister of Natural Resources.

I know that a minute ago the Minister of Energy stood up and said, "We are going to do this group from Madawaska and Bancroft the courtesy of meeting with them today to discuss this problem." I remind the minister these people came up from Bancroft a couple of weeks ago. I do not know whether he was in on that meeting. They discussed the problems they had encountered with the Minister of Energy and, I understand, the people from Ontario Hydro.

Today, the Minister of Energy tells us again he is going to do them the courtesy of meeting with them. I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources what new proposals or ideas he is going to offer to these people or what he is going to tell them this afternoon about keeping that mine open.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and I share his concern with respect to Madawaska Mines. I know he and his party are also concerned about the Umex closing in Pickle Lake and have raised that in the Legislature. He is also concerned about the problems of the Sudbury basin as they relate to the world demand and world price for nickel and has raised that in the Legislature.

What we have indicated and continue to indicate is that we are taking steps to get resource development going, particularly in single-industry communities. The member might look at the programs we have announced over the past six months.

They are applicable to small rural communities with respect to industrial minerals. We have done development and exploration work to identify the deposits. We have commenced our industrial mineral program with respect to the deposits of industrial minerals in eastern Ontario specifically. We have become involved in giving grants under the industrial mineral program, which support has had a positive impact on the long-term viability of those deposits in eastern Ontario.

It has had a positive impact in terms of import substitution, which last year was in the order of $106 million. It has had an impact on the small communities of Madoc and Perth. We indicated this in the statement last Friday, which the member has conveniently ignored.

We are looking at permanent programs with respect to the graphite deposits in the Bancroft area and are working with the private firms which have mining rights with respect to those lands. We have worked with the communities and with the forest products industry in eastern Ontario with respect to the surplus in hardwood that is available. There could be a permanent industry located there to utilize that surplus which will give more jobs than are at present involved in Madawaska Mines.

We have indicated availability of short-term, temporary help in that community and that the long-term priorities of the ministry and the government are to establish industry in that community. We think that in light of the world- market situation and the costs of carrying not only uranium inventories but nickel and gold inventories at and above world prices, this is the effective way to go to guarantee long-term security for the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Grey- Bruce.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Away we go.

Mr. Sargent: And away we go, yes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think you are already there.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The interjections are becoming a bit heavy. The member for Grey-Bruce has the floor.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, this minister and Mr. Holt of Ontario Hydro are running true to form. They have not told the total truth. They have misled the press and the people of Ontario. When Mr. Holt said he justified the awarding of this $400 million contract to a Saskatchewan firm with our money, he justified it by saying Madawaska could not stockpile for 30 months at a cost of $50 million. That justified the minister --

The Acting Speaker: May I have your question please?

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Sargent: It is very important to get this across. The minister justified taking this contract by claiming a saving of $50 million. That is a totally false statement.

In the meeting today, how can he justify paying Denison and Steve Roman and his boys $60 a pound when these guys would provide it for $30 a pound? How can he waste $50 million a year of our money in political shenanigans, under the table stuff we know nothing about? The minister really has to ask himself that question. The people are getting through to what he is doing in Hydro. We are getting sick and tired --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has asked at least one question.

Mr. Sargent: How can he justify paying $50 million more to Steve Roman than to Madawaska? Will he please tell me that?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member said I misled him and misled the house.

The Acting Speaker: No, I was listening carefully.

Hon. Mr. Pope: He said I was involved in political shenanigans. I don't know what the hell he is talking about.

HOUSING FOR EX-PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. In April, many weeks ago, she received a copy of the Ontario Social Development Council's report on adult residential facilities. We received it yesterday, and met with the group today. I would bring to the attention of the Speaker that the ministers have not yet deigned to meet with the council.

Could the minister tell me whether she accepts recommendation number one on page 2 of the brief -- no doubt she has had time to read it by now. It suggests that the province undertake immediately to draft comprehensive legislation and integrate existing legislation with respect to the licensing, standards, funding, monitoring and jurisdictional responsibilities related to adult residential facilities, so that adults with special needs, such as ex-psychiatric patients, mentally retarded adults and disabled adults, can receive a network of residential services and support services around this province for the first time in years? In other words, will she support NDP policy, which we have been pushing in this House since the mid-1970s?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I was asked during estimates yesterday if I had received the brief. I indicated we had received the brief, and that we were attempting to bring the ministers together to meet with this group and would do so at our earliest convenience. I am not prepared at this time to suggest to the honourable member whether we are accepting specific recommendations. I would only point out to him that many of the recommendations in the brief, the programs and proposals, are already under way. In due course, we will be very happy to meet with the group and have them present their brief to us personally.

Mr. R. F. Johnson: It would probably be presumptuous for me to relate the length of time it has taken the provincial secretary to meet with this group and her interest in the concerns they have raised.

The committee which is looking at the Planning Act revisions voted down a motion from the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) the other day to bring in amendments to the act, which, as in recommendation number four of this brief, would ensure that municipalities do not, through restrictive zoning, prevent the establishment of an adequate number and range of community-based facilities across this province. Will the minister now say whether she is willing to support that motion, or whether she is going to stick with her encouragement policy of group homes so that we continue with the patchwork of permissive, exclusive and discriminating zoning practices relating to group homes and other residential facilities around Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: We had a discussion about this group home policy during the estimates. I indicated to the honourable member that the policy the government initiated some two years ago was still in effect. We will continue to encourage municipalities to accept the responsibilities of providing group homes in their own communities for the people there who need the facilities. We will continue with that policy.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, is the minister willing to tell us she will at least meet with them before the House adjourns for the summer recess so that we can voice these concerns to the cabinet committee that will be hearing them in the hope that we can get speedy action on those recommendations?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, we will meet with them just as soon as it is convenient.

I think the member can appreciate that we do have many other groups of people to meet. We have many meetings to attend. We have just had estimates and we have to be in the Legislature. We will establish our priorities; I am not going to have the members on the opposite side telling me when I should meet with anyone.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, this question --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: She has been taking instructions from the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe).

The Acting Speaker: Order. I am unable to hear the question from the member for Halton-Burlington.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, this question is of the Minister of Energy. It is another one of those Ontario Hydro mismanagement questions that are becoming altogether too common in this Legislature.

This question refers specifically to the $2-billion contract with Petrosar. It was for the supply of oil which has so far cost Ontario something like -- and the figures may be a little bit antiquated -- $45 million for not taking the oil on that take-or-pay deal.

I asked the Premier (Mr. Davis) about this last December 15. He said he would undertake to discuss the matter with the Minister of Energy, get information and bring it back to the Legislature. He did not bring it back but I expect he has discussed the matter with the minister.

Can the minister now tell us the precise total cost to the Ontario consumers as a result of this blunder? What will be the cost of not taking the oil by 1992, which is the expiry date of the contract? Since the price of the oil is not market-related, which is contrary to past practices, to what exactly is the price related? What would be the cancellation cost of that contract with Petrosar?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is always advantageous to have hindsight. Hindsight is always 20-20. I have to analyse decisions that are made by very responsible people in the light of the circumstances at the time, keeping in mind the importance of security of supply of fuel, in order to look after the requirements.

The member, as is his right, has asked for some specific information, and a lot of detail. It seems to me that aspect of his question should be put on the Order Paper and the member, no doubt, will do that.

Mr. J. A. Reed: We are about to solve the problem much more simply than that. Will the minister table the contract?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would have to give some consideration to that particular question in view of whatever undertakings there may be as part of the negotiations. Indeed, I will take that under advisement but I cannot make any undertaking at this particular time.

The Acting Speaker: A supplementary from the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms. Bryden: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: I hope they are leaving you alone, Marion.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

[Applause]

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Beaches-Woodbine has the floor.

Interjections.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have a standing ovation from this side of the House. I am hoping to have one from the other side too.

[Applause]

2:50 p.m.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour: We have just received the 1980-81 annual report of the women crown employees' office. I would like to ask the minister whether it took over a year to bring out this evaluation of the government's affirmative action program in the public service because the women crown employees' office is badly understaffed, or because the other government ministries are not cooperating in sending in their evaluation reports? Or was it because the minister is ashamed of the facts in the report, which show almost no progress in the past two years in moving more women into the better-paying and higher-echelon jobs, or in closing the gap in average pay between men and women in the public service, which still stands at 28 percentage points?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the answer to all three questions posed by the honourable member is no. I would follow through, though, by indicating that if she reads the report objectively, I think she will find many positive and encouraging signs of the progress that has been made within the civil service of Ontario.

Ms. Bryden: One of the less positive signs is the fact that the number of women in the clerical module went up by almost eight percentage points from 1980 to 1981 and now stands at 78.3 per cent of the total public service employees. Does the minister not agree that this signals a complete failure of his affirmative action program directive of 1980 to move women out of the clerical ghetto and sharply indicates the trend is in the opposite direction?

Will the minister tell us what steps he is taking to make implementation of the directive more effective, and what increase in funds has he persuaded the Treasurer to allot to the women crown employees' office for this year?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I do not believe the women crown employees' office requires any additional funds or personnel. They have been doing a most commendable job and I think this report indicates just that.

Let me make a few comments: It is very interesting to note that whereas in the entire work force women earn about 60 per cent of what men earn, in this provincial government women earn 72 per cent of what men earn. Certainly that must be a strong indication that the provincial government is far out in front of the rest of the country in this respect.

Also, in this past year gains were made in women's representation in eight underrepresented classification groupings in the Ontario public service, including administrative, professional and operational modules, the executive compensation plan and the law enforcement services category. There was a decrease in the number of women in the lower salary ranges and an increase in women's representation in the higher salary ranges at a rate greater than men's.

There was an increase in the number and percentage representation of women in executive positions at the same time as the total number and percentage of male executives decreased. There was an overall increase in women's participation in the Ontario public service. Women participating in accelerated career development initiatives increased at a rate approximately 70 per cent higher than was originally planned.

There was the establishment of the affirmative action incentive fund enabling more women to participate in accelerated career development initiatives. Finally, there was more than full achievement of numerical planning targets for hiring and promotion of women into classes with underrepresentation of women.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I want to give the minister a couple of statistics and ask him to comment on them. I notice the minister was patting himself and the government on the back for the fact that here within the Ontario ministry --

[Applause]

Mr. Wrye: Go ahead and do it, but there is no justification for it. They are still 28 per cent below.

The Acting Speaker: Your supplementary?

Mr. Wrye: In the Ministry of Correctional Services the wage gap has narrowed 3/10 of one per cent. In the Ministry of the Environment the wage gap has narrowed a massive 2/10 of one per cent. The Ministry of Natural Resources has done a terrific job; the wage gap there has actually increased 3/10 of one per cent. While the gap in this ministry has narrowed by two per cent, the average salary of women remains at only two thirds that of men.

When is the minister really going to get serious about narrowing the wage gap? When is he going to stop kidding around with a number of minimal gains? These simply allow him to pat himself on the back but do nothing for women in the public service.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not patting myself on the back. I take no credit for what has happened. The credit should go to the people who are working in the affirmative action programs and in the crown employees' office, and to the people who are working in each and every ministry in an effort to improve the situation, something they are very definitely doing.

I would ask the member to please bear one thing in mind. In this past year there has been little movement of employees within the civil service. That does create a problem in adjusting the proportion of women employees to that of men.

MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Revenue.

In view of the controversy surrounding the 6,826 property reassessments based on alterations, additions and renovations to Toronto homes, and in view of the fact that 73 per cent of the ministry assessors in Metro Toronto at present are involved in the frivolous task of preparing a section 63 simulation study, would the minister tell us how he expects a mere 60 assessors to reinspect over 6,000 homes in preparation for the appeal hearing?

Has he entered into discussions with the Attorney General to develop a method of hearing the appeals without creating an incredibly large backlog of assessment review cases?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the appeal process and the follow-up reinspection that happens on every appeal are taking their normal course. These are working in very well with the section 86 program, as we still call it. Looking at the whole of Metropolitan Toronto, it is not causing any great difficulties at all.

If there were any difficulty or any hold up it was in this Legislature acting on Bill 60, getting it through and making it law a relatively short time ago instead of several weeks sooner. I appreciate it was not the representatives of the second party who caused that delay, I want to make that very clear; it was the representatives of the third party who caused the delay.

Since the bill has become law, we have gone ahead with the communications plan of contacting the people involved and the reinspections, again tying right in with the overall inspection program under the section 86 impact study which is progressing the way it was anticipated it would and with no great difficulties.

As far as the actual hearings by the assessment review court are concerned, the honourable member has acknowledged that the assessment review court per se is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Attorney General. We have been working closely with the court system to ensure there would be advance awareness of these additional appeals that would have to be dealt with. They are being funnelled into the regular procedures in the regular time slot and the total calendar concerning each particular neighbourhood.

These appeals will not be dealt with in isolation or separately, but as part of the overall appeal process on a neighbourhood basis.

Mr. Epp: I appreciate the minister's comments with respect to not attributing a delay to this side. Since February of this year, we had been after the minister to try to bring in some kind of rational legislation, which he brought in some months later.

Since the minister is aware that last October there was a backlog of 48,000 cases of assessment appeals before the review court, I am not sure why he says these things are going to take their natural course, because at that rate they might be hearing them some time next year --

The Acting Speaker: Supplementary?

3 p.m.

Mr. Epp: Given all that, in view of the fact that the minister refused the challenge of Tax Reform Action for the People to attend a property tax assessment tour in the city of Toronto even though he was given a choice of dates -- it will likely take place on July 7 -- and in view of the fact that the minister has continuously defended the method and outcome of the 6,826 reassessments --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I am waiting for your supplementary.

Mr. Epp: The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) wants a question and I am sure we will get her one shortly.

The Acting Speaker: No, carry on with your supplementary.

Mr. Epp: I am directing this question to the Minister of Revenue. I wish he was not as keen as the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).

Given all that, are we to assume that the minister considers these reassessments to be accurate and fair? Does he believe there are no major inequities in the reassessments in any vicinity in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I did not fall asleep during the dissertation that led up to the eventual question.

As I have indicated to this Legislature on numerous occasions, the total assessment process is not a very scientific or definitive one in the sense of being 100 per cent pure. Yes, as I have said before, I am sure we have made some errors in the assessment program. Some of them have been caused by people themselves who did not respond and allow an assessor access to their homes after a couple of attempts to do so.

As far as I am concerned, and I have said this on many occasions, generally speaking the process was fair and equitable. Perhaps I will be proven wrong, time will tell. That is exactly what Bill 60 was all about and why I see no useful purpose in the offer made by TRAP to walk down a street of my choice and a street of their choice. They are not experts in the field and neither am I personally. Assessors are experts and the appeal procedure is set up to arbitrate differences of opinion in due course. In the end, I think we will find that justice will be served.

COLLECTION OF RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question of the Minister of Revenue regarding the penalty on so-called late filing by collectors of the retail sales tax. Will he get a legal opinion from the law officers of the crown as to the legality of imposing a fine on collectors of retail sales tax in northern Ontario because of the inability of Canada Post to get the returns down here by the 23rd of the month?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the member and I have discussed this issue privately, following a letter he sent to me, and the particular case is being investigated.

Frankly, this is not a unique situation. With the massive volume of payments we receive on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, sometimes delayed mail is not recognized as such and it can happen that a delayed letter will be processed as a late payment.

It is within the legislation itself to impose a penalty per se, plus the loss of the collection fee in the case of sales tax, for example. Normally, when we become aware of the penalty that has been imposed, we look at the payment record of the organization. If it has generally been a good one and they can make a plausible case that they did send it on time, we adjust it accordingly.

We have also done many other things to draw to the attention of vendors that they do not have to wait until the last few days to mail the retail sales tax. Equally important, we have made arrangements with the chartered banks so that vendors can make their payments there. A growing number of vendors are taking advantage of that. This cuts down the necessity of mailing and the cost of postage.

As far as this particular issue is concerned -- and again we are looking at the specific one and, I understand, a second one that is coming -- I think in most cases we end up working out something very equitable when it is a case of being held up in the mail. We are looking at the whole issue.

Mr. Stokes: Does the minister not realize that this penalty affects vendors through no fault of their own and may be as a result of the inability of his staff to process their mail and the inability of Canada Post to deliver it on time? The alternative he offers to my friend who has been penalized way up in Upsala -- he is 90 miles away from his nearest bank -- is that it is going to cost him $25 to pay it there.

Surely the minister could accept the postmark on the remittance as an indication of good faith on their part as having met the regulations. Will he not do that?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I think that is exactly what I said. In actual fact that is the practice.

Mr. Stokes: Why are you penalizing him, then?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: There is no delay in the processing of payments upon receipt. As a matter of fact, I think this government stands second to none in North America in the way of getting the cash flow into the consolidated revenue fund. Again, as I have been trying to explain, it is because of the volumes of payments that we receive from all of the various forms of taxation, that we do not always look at the actual postal date; but we look at the payment record of the particular vendor and we always give him the benefit of the doubt.

WASTEFUL CUTTING PRACTICES

Mr. Van Horne: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker. In early April I asked him a question about forest utilization, specifically about wasteful cutting practices, and he responded through reference to an earlier memo of his, in March, in which he indicated this topic was being studied. Further to that I put a question on the Order Paper asking how many companies had been charged in regard to wasteful cutting practices, and the response to that question on the Order Paper was that no companies have been charged under section 24.

In light of the minister's earlier comment to me that his committee would report by the end of June, I wonder if he can indicate: first, if he has been able to find out whether there have been any wasteful cutting practices; and second, if so, whether he is prepared to alter the charges section, which has not been changed since 1952?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member asked whether or not there had been charges with respect to a particular section, and the answer is that there have not been charges with respect to that section. There have been charges with respect to unauthorized cutting; there have been charges under other sections of that same regulation and the same act with respect to what he would consider to be wasteful cutting. If he wants to meet with me and get some idea of the amounts and the companies involved, I will be glad to do so.

The committee on utilization, I understand, has had meetings with different industry representatives in the last six weeks. I understand their report will be in my hands by the end of June, and we will be following up on that report with some changes in regulations dealing with wasteful practices in Ontario. We will make them part of any new licences or renewals of licences, and they will also be a significant part of the forest management agreement process.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Harris from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Natural Resources be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Ministry administration program, $46,109,200; land and waters program, $112,115,200; outdoor recreation program $76,183,000; resource products program, $113,968,600; resource experience program, $8,856,000.

3:10 p.m.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. J. A. Taylor, on behalf of Mr. Barlow, from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 28, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Shymko from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the social development policy field be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Social development policy program, $5,448,700.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr19, An Act to revive the Calabogie Asbestos Mining Company Limited:

Bill Pr23, An Act to revive Peer and Smith Limited;

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting Co-operators Insurance Association.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 114, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) had the floor. I want to apologize on his behalf. It is Wednesday and his legal practice calls.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Stokes: On his behalf, can we get a remand?

Mr. Cooke: My law practice has collapsed, so I am here today.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very brief, but I do want to congratulate all the Tory members here today. How many do we have? We must have more than 20 members here.

Last night, when we were debating very important tax measures, there were four members of the Conservative Party present. Most of them were out back playing cards. They did not think the tobacco tax was important. They did not think their friends in the small business sector -- and we were debating a very important piece of legislation for the small business sector -- were important. Cards were more important.

What else did we debate last night? The land tax, which is very important to northern Ontario, was not important to the members from Cochrane or any of the other northern members. It was more important to go play cards in the whip's office.

The Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the bill.

Mr. Cooke: I am speaking to the bill. I am saying that this bill is important and I am glad that today at least 10 per cent of the Tory caucus is taking it to be important. Maybe it is 20 per cent, but last night it was not important. I just want to put a few --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The members are awfully rabble-rousing, including our esteemed Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and the member for -- they are still not listening. What can I do?

Mr. Breaugh: Name them.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Quiet in the front.

Mr. Cooke: I noticed the Minister of Education was not here last night. She was out rabble-rousing in Toronto instead.

I want to put a couple of statistics on the record to show how inadequate this particular piece of legislation and a major part of the provincial budget is.

To the end of April, 1,207 small businesses had gone bankrupt in Ontario. If that statistic is annualized, we are talking about 3,621 small businesses going bankrupt in this province by the end of 1982. Taking an average employment figure of five jobs per small business, which I would suggest is a conservative figure, we are talking about the loss of 18,000 jobs in the small business sector. One rationale the government has used for the tax holiday for small businesses that are incorporated and obviously have to be making a profit, is that the money will be reinvested and there will be the creation of 10,000 jobs.

We asked the Treasury officials about this in the lockup for the budget and it was made very clear to us the 10,000 job creation figure could not be substantiated in any way. It was a figure they sort of pulled out of the air because they knew it would be asked of them, either by the opposition parties or by the press on the night of the budget.

The fact of the matter is, even taking the two most optimistic figures -- no more than 18,000 jobs lost and 10,000 jobs created -- we are talking about at least an overall net loss of 8,000 jobs in the small business sector. Add to that the 7,500 jobs that are going to be lost in the fast-food and restaurant sector because of the tax policy on small business and we get a figure of over 25,000 jobs to be lost; 25,000 jobs. If we take a look at the job creation projections -- short-term jobs, the $171 million -- we are looking at 31,000 jobs to be created. Again, that is a very optimistic figure. Even assuming it is correct, we are talking of a net job creation of 6,000 jobs in this budget; 6,000 jobs.

That is a disgrace at a time when 575,000 people in this province are unemployed, at a time when the small business sector's backs are up against a wall because of the federal Liberal high interest rate policy. Yet this government, which claims to be a great friend of small business, refuses to bring in any kind of a program whatsoever for those unincorporated businesses and those incorporated businesses which are losing money.

This government's budget philosophy of helping only the winners comes through more clearly in the small business sector than in any other aspect of the provincial budget. We are very disappointed that some program was not devised, either using the tax system, which is something we would have considered, or taking the $250 million in forgone revenue as a result of this bill and putting it into some kind of program that would offer genuine, sincere help to the small businesses about to go bankrupt.

The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has said the money will be reinvested, because if it is not reinvested in small businesses it will be subject to tax. A lot of tax advisers have very clearly indicated that by going to them, by looking at their dividend and salary mix in order to take advantage of this tax holiday for small business, the owners of profit-making small businesses can get a lot more money out of their small businesses.

In view of the economic circumstances in this province and this country -- thanks to my friends to the right and their federal policies -- I do not think many small businesses will take advantage of this money and reinvest it in Ontario in order to create jobs.

3:20 p.m.

We cannot support this bill. Our budget task force has met with chambers of commerce across the province, with small business groups and with restaurant owners. I can say there is certainly not the kind of universal support for this bill that the minister and the Treasurer attempt to say there is. There certainly is not that kind of support.

I would venture to say, based on the fact there are only six members of the Conservative caucus in the House at this point, that there is not even universal endorsement of this bill and this strategy for small business within the Tory caucus. Only six members out of 70 are present, which represents less than 10 per cent of the Tory caucus. I think that is a disgrace when they have indicated that this $250-million tax holiday for small business is an important, almost central piece of their budget plans for job creation.

We will be voting against this piece of legislation. I would suggest that, in view of the federal budget that will be coming down next week, unless there is a substantial change in federal policy this government is going to have to look very closely at small business policy and the assistance that is provided to both the incorporated and unincorporated small businesses. If adequate help is not provided by Mr. MacEachen on Monday night, this government is going to have to revise its budget substantially to provide the kinds of assistance to small business and home owners that it has refused up to this point.

I am rather confused by the provincial government policy on interest rates because just a year ago the provincial Treasurer indicated that he did not believe anyone could do anything about interest rates in Canada. He said if they were lowered that would mean the dollar would he lowered. About six months later he and the Premier (Mr. Davis) indicated that the solution to the high interest rates was to have a lower dollar and just simply lower the interest rates.

Then they indicated that the federal government had brought in a mortgage assistance program which was inadequate, and a couple of months later when their own budget came in they indicated that the federal program was indeed adequate. But just the other day they said the real solution to interest rates was simply to lower the interest rates. That was until the federal Finance minister indicated he was bringing in a new budget on Monday night.

Now the provincial Treasurer says there simply is no solution to the interest rate problem, that we cannot stop the outflow of capital in Canada unless interest rates are high in order to bring capital back in; therefore we have to live with high interest rates and the focus of the federal budget on Monday night should be on restoring the business community's confidence in the economy in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you and I would ask the minister, what about the ordinary people, the small businesses that are struggling to survive, the home owners who are struggling to keep their homes; what about their sense of confidence in our country and in our province? Is that not important to the restoration of economic health in this province? If the consumers, the small business people and the home owners of this province do not have confidence in the future of this province and in the future of the economy, I suggest that no amount of government programs, no amount of manipulation of the taxing policies of the federal government will change that. If consumers cannot afford to buy products there will not be the demand for the products and there will not be the jobs.

What I am saying is that the Treasurer, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) and the Premier should be saying to Mr. MacEachen that yes, confidence is important but the confidence in our economy starts with the middle-income and low-income people of this province and this country, that the small business sector is an integral part of that and that those are the areas in which we have to create the confidence.

That means lowering interest rates and that means recognizing the serious problems that exist because of Liberal interest rate policies, which have been followed for two and half years, and because of the Tory high interest rate policy under the previous Clark government.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on this bill because I think we should recognize --

Mr. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I took a count when I was speaking and I believe there is not a quorum in the House. I would like you to check.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

3:29 p.m.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, now that I have the undivided attention of a considerable number of members on the opposite side, I would like to say that the corporations tax bill --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think it only fair this Legislature note, as I think it was the night before last, that the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) who made the quorum call has once again absented himself and is not here at the resumption.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the corporations tax bill which comes to this Legislature almost every year indicates the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality of the Treasurer and other government members. When the corporations tax bill comes in, it is the Santa Claus personality we see, it gives the corporations some handouts every year; the rest of the budget shows the Scrooge personality of the government and hits the ordinary people.

There is a total of $300 million in taxes on family units in this budget. Taxes have been put on everything from hot dogs and pets to feminine hygiene products and cleaning supplies. That is where the government is hitting the ordinary people. But for the corporations there is $135 million of new tax expenditures in this budget. There are tax holidays, but they are only for the winners, those with corporate profits. There is no assistance for the small businesses and unincorporated businesses which are suffering from high interest rates and the general turndown in business resulting from the lack of job creation in this budget.

This government continues to undertax corporations and to overtax individuals. In the past three budgets, the revenue from corporation income taxes has declined by 29 per cent and the revenue from mining profits has declined by 75 per cent. In the same three budgets, personal income tax has gone up by 56 per cent, Ontario health insurance plan premiums have gone up by 32 per cent and the retail sales tax has gone up by a whopping 43.5 per cent.

This indicates the government's attitude towards taxpayers. When it brings in the corporations tax bill it takes off the mask and shows it is using power to favour its friends. It is not bringing in a fair tax system. In fact, the tax system is becoming more regressive all the time. The average family in Ontario is paying higher taxes than the average family in most other parts of Canada.

That is why we are voting against this bill and all the other new tax measures in this budget. It is the most anti-people budget this province has ever seen.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to Bill 114, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act. I was listening to the comments of the other members, and I would have to concur with some of them, but the bill itself is going to give further tax relief to the small business sector in Ontario. I suppose that during the difficult period many industries and small businesses find themselves in it would be an opportunity to give them some relief.

The Treasurer has said the budget is perhaps geared more for sound businesses than for those small businessmen who need help at this time to get them through the high interest rate period. What he has indicated is that the amendment we are discussing today is for the benefit of those who are in a healthy position and can make a profit. It gives little help to those who need some help in keeping their industries going, particularly those who have borrowed money in the past four or five years and now are encountering high interest rates.

My main concern is a section of the bill which I do not think any other member has discussed. That is section 3 of the bill. The explanatory note says: "This section makes several amendments to section 53 of the act relating to the calculation of paid-up capital for banks and loan and trust corporations. The new subsection 53(2) amends the terminology for banks to bring it in line with the new terminology in the Bank Act (Canada). There is no change in policy involved in this amendment."

It goes on to say: "Subsection 53(5) is enacted to make it clear that where a bank has included in its 'retained earnings' its share of the earnings of a subsidiary or controlled corporation, such amount will not be required to be included in its retained earnings for purposes of calculating its paid-up capital under section 53. This will avoid the double taxation of the amount excluded by the amendment since the subsidiary or controlled corporation may be required to include that amount in its paid-up capital."

I draw to the attention of the minister that this indicates that where there is profit in a subsidiary corporation, as I understand it, there would be no taxes paid because it is being funnelled through the one major corporation, that is, a bank.

I suppose the minister is aware of the huge bank profits that have been made in the past three or four years. They have certainly netted huge revenues, even the Bank of Canada, which I think in the past year generated $1.9 billion.

In this matter we are talking about the money traders in the banking system; they could be a subsidiary of any bank or, in particular, even some of the foreign banks that are coming into Canada. In a sense, they can sit back and manipulate the Canadian dollar to their advantage.

I suggest to the minister that is a profit to be made between the Bank of Canada and any commercial bank in Canada. I suggest the markup is in the range of four per cent to six per cent profit. It passes on down through the chain of the banking corporations.

That is an area where I think the minister should be looking. Banks, particularly banks in Ontario and Canada, have gone international. They are taking money out of this country, going offshore into Caribbean and other countries and opening up their markets there. I suppose they can use that either as a capital loss or profit. In a sense, to stay under the laws of Ontario, they could be exempt from further taxation or double taxation because they are considered as subsidiaries of those banks.

I am reminded of the time when some of the ship owners who had ships built here in the past years obtained government subsidies but had their ships registered in Bermuda or some other country so they could escape paying taxes.

I do not know what the minister is telling me here, and I hope I am correct in what I am trying to convey to him, that he is leaving a door open here. A subsidiary plant or a subsidiary corporation of a bank would not have to pay double taxation, and yet there could be a profit at both ends of the line, for the subsidiary and for the bank itself.

I draw to the minister's attention that I am concerned about the terminology and his explanation of the intent of the bill itself. I suggest to him that if he looks at the banks, he will see that they are involved in the trust companies, in estates, in almost everything that deals with the financial affairs of any corporation or any individual. This is an area where he could be making a profit, without any further taxation under the amendment he is proposing. I think he should look at it.

I do not think it is the intent of the legislation, but he is permitting further profit to be made without any additional taxation. I do not have to tell him about injustice. If he looks at the back of the budget report for 1982, he can see the injustice. The chart of government revenue sources for the budget dollar shows that personal income tax represents 27 cents. I am looking pretty hard here and when I look at corporation taxes, because I have to look very closely, I see it is seven cents on the dollar. That is all the government is collecting in taxes from corporations, including banks, trust companies and so on, which are making windfall profits under the high interest rates.

3:40 p.m.

If the government wants to bring some equity into the taxation system in Ontario, it will have to take a look at the personal income tax and the corporations tax. What this indicates to me is that the small wage earner, the individual family, is carrying the whole shot of paying taxes through personal income tax and the increase in sales tax that has taken place this year. There is an injustice in our taxation system. So the government is going to have to look at other measures besides personal income tax.

The government raised personal income tax by two per cent in 1981 and two per cent in 1982, which will generate an additional flow of capital to the Ministry of Revenue and the Treasury to offset the huge budget deficit. I suggest an injustice is being done to the people of Ontario through this regressive taxation which the minister is about to bring upon the people of Ontario.

If the minister looks at the budget, he will see that on page 21 the Treasurer says: "This budget has been crafted" -- l do not know whether the word should be "crafted" or "drafted," but the government got the right word in there -- "in some of the most difficult economic times facing Ontario and Canada. Nevertheless, the budget I place before you fashions economic and financial policies to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow."

When I look at the word "crafted," I think this government has gone again to the small person in Ontario to obtain additional revenue in almost every area one can think of. I take the word "crafted" to mean deceitful, tricky and cunning. That is the position I think the minister is in.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak against Bill 114, which I read very carefully. I want to speak against it because I think it is a further indication of the wrong approach taken by the government of this province vis-à-vis the economic crisis we are faced with.

With this bill, the government is giving corporations a break in their taxes, supposedly intended to reward them because they are winners. But the bill does nothing to try to redress the very serious problems facing the economy of this province.

It is true that when this bill is passed, because the Tories have the majority in the House, the major corporations will be taxed much less than they were taxed last year. A number of small and medium-sized incorporated businesses will be exempted from paying corporate taxes for two years. Apart from that, the bill does not help to solve the very serious problems facing many small businesses in the province.

I had an example the day after the budget when someone from a small company operating in my riding called me and said: "This is very good for the corporations that are successful and are surviving the crisis, but what should we do? What do corporations and companies like ours do when we have a cash flow problem and cannot survive the high interest rates we are charged because of the policy of the federal government, which the government of Ontario has not been able to oppose successfully in the past?"

Actually, I suspect that in a very devious way the Treasurer perhaps likes the fact that there are high interest rates, because that way they have somebody to blame. Here in the House every day we hear the Treasurer blaming the federal government and telling us that the cause of all our problems and the people responsible for them are in Ottawa, not here in Ontario.

This bill, of course, is a very important feature of the budget. In the budget, despite his professed intention to reduce the deficit, the Treasurer substantially increased the deficit without allocating any substantial amount of money to solve the crucial problems that we in the New Democratic Party have been pointing out for quite some time now. We have pointed out the basic sectors of the economy that are in a crisis because of the lack of action of the government -- manufacturing, forestry, agriculture and the food industry -- and we have suggested that if the government has to take the route of increasing the deficit, at least the deficit should stimulate the economy.

Instead, with this bill the government is only giving a gift to people who do not need it, because successful companies can weather the crisis better than unsuccessful ones. In fact, we suggest that the government should perhaps take some steps to help those people and groups in our society who cannot weather the storm, the home owners who cannot renew their mortgages -- in fact, we know that 32,000 of them will be faced with a very serious situation and most of them will lose their houses -- and those small businesses that are creating jobs. Unfortunately, at this time we have a leadership that is totally blind.

In fact, we read in the newspapers today that they are recommending a freeze on wages and salaries as the solution to their problems. There is nobody in this country who can really defend such a thesis, because we all know that in the past six years the wage and salary settlements in this country, and therefore in Ontario, have been below the inflation level. Despite that, inflation is going up.

Inflation is going up for other reasons. One is the crisis in the energy sector; another is the importation of food, which was the main factor in yesterday's Statscan statistics for May. If we look at this seriously, we will see that we have a very serious crisis in the food processing industry because that industry has been disappearing in Ontario. We are forced to import our food because our local, indigenous industry has been slowly dismantled and destroyed as a result of lack of support by this provincial government.

Those are the causes of inflation, not the wage and salary spiral, which just does not exist but which perhaps will be prompted by the fact that inflation is not subsiding and is actually going up while at the same time, and despite the high rate of interest, it is subsiding in the United States. Those are the reasons we oppose this bill.

3:50 p.m.

We think the economic policy of the government is totally wrong; its approach is wrong. If the government had come to this House and told us it wanted to adopt the supply-side economic approach that Reagan adopted in the United States, perhaps we would have opposed it on the basis that it would have meant slashing social services that are extremely important and accepted as a way of life in our society at this time, but at least we would have understood that.

However, the government of Ontario is not doing that. It has adopted an Ontario version of Reaganomics that is not even recognizable. If the government had adopted the supply-side economic approach, it would have reduced taxes, including income taxes. But the government has not done that. In fact, it has increased income taxes, and it has increased Ontario health insurance plan premiums. We know that for an average family in Ontario the budget means an extra $300 a year in taxes.

Another factor I want to point out, which is really crucial in Metropolitan Toronto, is that property taxes will go up, not only because of the usual policies of this government with its transfer grants reducing year after year -- since 1975 we have seen a decreasing component of provincial grants in the financing of the municipalities and the school boards -- but also because the provincial government, in its incredible imagination, has found a way to tax boards of education and municipalities when they undertake any new project, which means in effect that local governments will be forced to transfer taxes to the taxpayers in the form of property taxes.

As we all read today, the Treasurer met yesterday with representatives of the boards of education of Ontario --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was a very good meeting.

Mr. Di Santo: The Minister of Education, with her dogmatic conviction, says it was a very good meeting. In fact, the chairman of the Ontario School Trustees Council said he went to the meeting concerned about the fact that the Treasurer had imposed taxes on construction materials for boards of education which in effect would mean they would be faced with a new cost they had not provided for. When he came out, he said: "The minister convinced us. But we asked him to postpone the implementation of the budget for a while so we can plan the increases in property taxes."

The Minister of Education said that was an excellent meeting. I want her to go to her constituents next year and ask them if they feel that was an excellent meeting.

The Deputy Speaker: I am having a problem.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: We are on Bill 114. Let's get on with the subject and get it finished.

The Deputy Speaker: That is exactly what I was about to bring to the member's attention. If he can tie this in to Bill 114, by golly he will have done something.

Mr. Di Santo: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. That brings us back to Bill 114 and explains why the minister is giving a tax holiday to his friends the winners at a time when revenues are shrinking because of the inability of the government to stimulate the economy. The government has to get money, and where does it go? It goes to the poor people: to home owners, to those on fixed incomes and to senior citizens, because they do not dare to tax their friends the winners.

The Minister of Education is so ashamed she is leaving the chamber, and she is right.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, no. I am not.

Mr. Di Santo: I want to conclude my remarks. I meant to be brief, but I want it to be on the record that I have something to tell the Minister of Revenue. I understand that he has no power in the cabinet; he is just a Simon of Cyrene, the guy who was forced to bear the cross without any responsibility. He is in a most unhappy situation. He has to defend decisions that have been made by the Treasurer, I suppose without even knowing what was in the budget. Apparently that is the way his cabinet operates. We saw that when they bought Suncor, and I think that is also what happened with the budget.

I want to tell the minister that if the government were serious it would adopt a different approach. I do not know whether the minister reads the newspapers, but if he does he might have read just this morning that Quebec's Minister of Finance, Mr. Parizeau, said that if the banks do not co-operate with the government in its program of propping up the construction industry, he will tax them. When this government comes to us with the same proposal, we will be willing to support the legislation; but until then --

Mr. Gordon: That's a New Democratic government in actual fact. It is a New Democratic government, and you know it.

The Deputy Speaker: Do not pay any attention to the member for Sudbury.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I do not pay any attention to the member for Sudbury, because he has his own problems. He has yet to decide which side he is on in the Inco strike. His interjection is most inappropriate at this time.

I was concluding my remarks by saying that when this government comes to us with a proposition that is fair and tells us, "We will do to the banks what the government of Quebec will do if they do not co-operate" -- they are not forcing them; they are just asking them to co-operate with their program to prop up the construction industry -- then we will support the bill; but as long as the government comes here with this kind of discriminatory legislation, which gives an advantage to the winners and punishes the rest of the population, we will be forced to vote against it.

4 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to put this piece of legislation into a little perspective and, I hope, try to tie it in to some of the rather repetitive points that were made by the numerous speakers. I guess there have been eight people who have spoken on the bill.

The most common thread that worked through the various parts of the debate related to the fact that in this piece of legislation the government is dealing with the winners and forgetting the losers; there is also probably a great difference of opinion as to how many businesses will potentially benefit from this program versus how many small businesses are out there, how much is involved and how many new jobs will be created. I will try to address a few of those points. I do not think it is any great revelation to suggest that history itself will prove which numbers are correct; but, as is true in any document of this nature, in any budget, of course, estimates are brought forward and some will prove to be more accurate than others.

It has been indicated on many occasions that this program is expected to recycle back into the small business community, either through forgoing the payment of tax or through refunding taxes in those cases where it has already been paid, something on the order of $250 million, followed by an estimated $115 million in the second year of the two-year tax holiday. We also expect that possibly as much as $75 million will be refunded to small businesses.

We estimate that approximately 60,000 businesses will benefit. We expect up to 30,000 that have already paid tax instalments will apply for refunds, and several thousand already have; in many other cases I would imagine that those businesses that have a fiscal year that ends anywhere around the middle of this calendar year will probably not apply for a refund per se but will wait until they file their corporate tax return and get a refund in due course.

Mr. T. P. Reid: How about retroactive to January 1, when most people have their tax year?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member from the river that is rainy asks, "Why do we not make it retroactive to the first of the year?" I would suggest to him that in most cases in this kind of legislation, retroactivity of that nature is probably not appropriate, and I do not see that it has any great relevance.

We are talking about a bill that allows a corporation to choose the two tax years as long as they end after the date of the budget. I would suggest that this little bit of flexibility, if you will, is most beneficial to them. If they have started their fiscal year coincident with the calendar year, next January 1, which is not very far away, will probably be their first year of the two; and as I have already indicated, these same businesses can apply for a refund of any of the taxes they had paid on account of that fiscal year and get a refund accordingly.

I do not see how retroactivity to the fiscal year bears any relevance to the amount of money that will be recycled back to the small corporations to assist them in maintaining their viability, in expanding their businesses, in maintaining their employment and, I hope, expanding to new employment. Sure, it will be more attractive to some businesses than to others.

Frankly, neither the Treasurer nor I have any philosophical misgivings about this piece of legislation. We do not agree with the description used, particularly by the third party, that nobody out there is winning and we are only dealing with discriminatory legislation; that we are only giving holidays to our friends, the winners -- all of these things. In my view, the winners are where we are building up the development of tomorrow.

It is fair to say, and statistics will prove, that in the past few years the majority of new jobs have been created by small businesses. These jobs are being created by the winners. I see nothing wrong in this economy in assisting that sector further to do the job which in the last few years it has proven it can do reasonably well even in trying circumstances.

There are many other opportunities for small businesses to be assisted. The point was made that it does not help unincorporated businesses. That is very true, and it has been pointed out on more than one occasion. We have no control over the rules and regulations as they affect the personal income tax rate. We agree, by our collection agreement with the federal government, to abide by the rules and regulations it makes in that regard. It is one of the reasons we are investigating whether it might be appropriate in the future for Ontario to have its own personal income tax system. Obviously, that kind of flexibility is one of the reasons. At the moment we do not have that flexibility so we have to go by what the federal government deems appropriate.

We have great expectations that next Monday night the Minister of Finance in Ottawa will undo a lot of the wrong he did last November, as well as before then and since. We will be supportive of his efforts in that regard. Wherever possible, we will dovetail programs from this province to help those in need as well as to assist the winners in their job creation activities.

One idea which ran through the various numbers brought out was that the overall budget loses jobs. We do not buy that argument at all. That is not really relevant to this debate on Bill 114 but, overall, some of the numbers of jobs lost are inaccurate and will prove to be so over some period of time.

Although I did not quite understand most of what the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) was talking about, to be honest, generally his remarks related to the bank section. I would like to read the paragraph I read in my opening statement relative to that and expand upon it slightly:

"The second set of administrative amendments relates to the calculation of paid-up capital" -- those are the key words -- "of banks and loan and trust corporations. With respect to the banks, the bill introduces new terminologies in place of the old ones in order to bring them in line with the revised terminologies used in the Bank Act. The bill also provides that where a bank or trust corporation uses the equity basis of accounting for its investment in another corporation, the share of the earnings or losses of that other corporation will be excluded when computing the paid-up capital of the bank or the loan and trust company."

Most of the changes in here are to bring our terminologies in line with the new Bank Act in federal legislation. We are not talking about banks avoiding taxation. We are talking about avoiding double taxation. Most of us recognize that avoiding double taxation is not trying to get away from -- I will use his term because I wrote it down verbatim -- "profits at both ends of the line."

If corporations with subsidiaries, whether they be banks or otherwise, are making profits at both ends, I assure the member that both ends are taxable. But that does not suggest it is fair that both ends should pay twice because a subsidiary is taxable.

That is all this amendment clarifies in the context of the banks as it relates to their capital and the capital tax they pay accordingly. It just brings the treatment of banks and trust and loan companies to the same status other corporations have had right along. It is not giving them any further benefit in any way whatsoever.

4:10 p.m.

I have just one last point I want to make relative to the overall situation of the so-called "winners" who are the beneficiaries of this particular piece of legislation. It has been lauded by all of the small business associations and by the various business publications. I think the results over the next couple of years will prove it was a very exciting concept that was in the 1982 budget of the Treasurer of Ontario.

We have many other places where small businesses and many other businesses, whether incorporated or not, can benefit through programs of this government. I would like to touch upon a few.

There is not only this piece of legislation to which corporations can go to receive assistance. I will not go into them in detail. In the reference to banks, I did touch on the subject of capital tax, although banks do not fall into the category of small business.

In the matter of capital tax, this government and its fiscal policies have given preferential flat rates of capital taxation to small business for many years. Small businesses with paid-up capital under $1 million pay a flat rate of only $100; and if they are under $100,000 of paid-up capital, the flat capital tax is $50. Again, that is a benefit for small business.

We give special treatment under small business development bonds, which is permitted under Canadian income tax provisions. The small business development corporation has been very beneficial to small businesses.

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of order: The minister has been complaining for the last few days about people straying from the principle of the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Will the minister resume his seat? I am accepting a point of order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: There is nothing about SBDCs in the bill.

The Acting Speaker: To the honourable minister: We are talking about Bill 114 and I just presumed, in this litany, that you were referring to it.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Yes, I was, Mr. Speaker. The reason I was alluding to this -- and there are many other benefits and programs I could suggest to you; I have literally pages of them -- is that it was said by virtually every speaker on the other side that this particular piece of legislation was doing nothing for many small businesses. I just wanted to put it on the record that there are many other ways this government, through its programs, provides assistance to all sizes of business, including small incorporated businesses, sole proprietors, partnerships or whatever. This is just one very significant thing.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Now he is doing it again. It is a travesty of the rules.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, generally, the remarks which were made. I know when we take the vote on second reading of Bill 114 at about 10:15 p.m. tonight, there will be practically unanimous support for this excellent bill and what it will do for small businesses in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Was there agreement that the votes from second readings would be stacked until later on tonight? Was there unanimous agreement on that? No?

Mr. McClellan: Take the votes first, then we will stack them.

The Acting Speaker: Mr. Ashe has moved second reading of Bill 114.

Mr. Nikon: On a point of order: We always get into a small problem when we stack second readings. Is it not customary that the minister, if he has finished his remarks, simply adjourns and then we resume the debate, which is then completed whenever we want to have the vote? Why does he not just do that?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I have no problem with doing that. As a matter of fact I suggested that procedure yesterday and was advised that the respective House leaders had agreed to do it another way. I always like to accommodate the House leaders of the three parties. I was told the same thing today. I can do it whichever way suits the purpose.

The Acting Speaker: I think there is a way. It may be on the same subject. If the honourable minister would move adjournment of the debate and there is the unanimous understanding of the House, it could then be raised at 10:15 p.m. this evening.

Mr. Nixon: We agree to that.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order: It does not make any difference, but is it not possible to have the voice vote now and the formal standing vote --

Mr. Nixon: It is even possible to have a voice vote on the matter.

Mr. McClellan: I do not understand why this is so contentious. I understood the normal procedure is we have a voice vote. If five members stand and request a formal division, the vote is then stacked by agreement until 10:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: I find that an acceptable method. Is there unanimous agreement that we have a voice vote now, and if the motion does not carry and it should be required that we call in the members, the members will be called in at 10:15 p.m.?

I accept that as unanimous agreement; therefore we shall proceed.

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote stacked.

House in committee of the whole.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 112, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, I think you can just call all the sections of the bill.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 112 reported.

PROVINCIAL LAND TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Provincial Land Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated yesterday in my opening remarks on Bill 113, I will have three amendments, two in section 6 and one in section 19. I explained the reasons for them. I can go into more detail as each respective amendment is introduced. The first one relates to subsection 6(1).

The Deputy Chairman: In that case we will carry the sections up to that and will move through the bill.

Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 6:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that subsection 10(3) of the act, as set out in subsection 6(1) of the bill, be amended by adding at the end of that portion of the table of rates set out therein, headed Gas Transmission Pipeline, the following:

"42" ... Outside Diameter ... $29.50"

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The new size of pipe that is now being laid in northern Ontario was not utilized before.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: When so many of these sorts of details are put in the regulations, why does the minister feel that it has to be part of the statute? If they bring out a 44-inch pipe tomorrow, do we amend the bill?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, the only reason I can suggest is that they are already identified and it is unusual to have new sizes. There are many other sizes, it is just that this is a new, bigger size. The member can say it can be made bigger again, but they are included now in the legislation and it is for consistency.

Mr. Stokes: I have not seen a copy of the amendment but I know its implications. It gets me back to something I asked yesterday, to which I did not get a response. In this bill, which is an amendment to the Provincial Land Tax Act, the minister indicated the twinning and looping of TransCanada PipeLines' system through Ontario has taken place over the past several years. In some places it has even tripled, but the rate of taxation based on the diameter of the pipe is different for the main line than it is for the twinning and the looping.

It is obviously in TransCanada PipeLines' interest to increase their capacity to hold, contain and to transmit natural gas by this twinning and the looping. That is the purpose of the whole exercise. I wonder why the minister is taxing the looping and the twinning at a lesser rate than the main line itself? I think I have raised that. If I did not, I intended to do so yesterday.

He is talking about the additional sizes up to 42 inches when the previous pipe was 38 inches. Why is the minister taxing the same diameter pipe at a different rate simply because it is not the main line? It is the twinning and the looping, which they can cut in with their sophisticated technical devices at all of these compressor stations that are situated about every 30 miles along the gas line. Why would the minister give them a lesser rate for essentially performing the same function? It is the same diameter pipe and yet it is taxed at a much lower rate simply because they are twinning and looping to increase the capacity. I still have not received an answer. Why would it be a lesser rate for the twinning and the looping than it is for the main line itself?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Frankly I do not have the answer but I will take a stab at it. My officials are listening to indicate whether or not I am correct.

It is my understanding that in relation to the size of the pipe itself the actual rates are the same. Where there is a recognition of duplication in the same channel and tunnel, the rates are less. I think that is rather consistent with any form of assessment. That is really what this is. It is a form of property assessment, in this case the pipe being the real property. That is where the differential comes in. It was not my understanding that, in the transmission sense, if it is a transmission pipeline, it carries a different rate, except in the case of more than one transmission pipe in the same tunnel. I am told that is correct. That was a good guess.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there any other amendment to section 6?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment to subsection 6(2).

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Ashe moves that subsection 10(12) of the act, as set out in subsection 6(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"12. A pipeline installed before 1970 shall be assessed for taxation at the rates set forth in subsection 3 but shall be depreciated up to the year 1970 at the rate of five per cent of the assessed value of the pipeline every three years from the year of installation, with a maximum depreciation of 55 per cent, and no allowance of depreciation shall be made with respect to a pipeline that is installed during or after 1970.

"13. The rates set out in subsection 3 and the year up to which depreciation is allowed set out in subsection 12 shall be reviewed by the minister in 1986 and every third year thereafter and in any such year the Lieutenant Governor in Council may by regulation amend or re-enact the table of rates set out in subsection 3 or change the year up to which depreciation is allowed set out in subsection 12.

"14. Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, where two or more pipelines occupy the same right of way, by regulation, designate the second and subsequent pipelines and, by regulation, prescribe the percentage of the rates set out in subsection 3 at which the second and subsequent pipelines are assessable and taxable and the percentage of rates as so prescribed shall apply until such percentages of rates are altered."

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I will try to explain, if I may. First of all, we are recognizing that pipes through unorganized areas also depreciate, as they do in organized areas. That is the principal purpose. They depreciate at the rate of five per cent every three years of their life, with a maximum depreciation of 55 per cent. So it is presumed that, as long as they are there, they carry at least 45 per cent of their value.

It also recognizes that 1970 is the base year up to which depreciation can take place but not after that. The next section allows us, from time to time, to review whether 1970 should be advanced, and that would be looked at regularly every third year thereafter. For example, in 1986, the base year could be changed to 1980, and quite possibly it will be. That will change the basis of the assessment.

The third part is as I have described before in the case where there are multiple pipes.

Mr. Stokes: I have just one brief comment on this amendment, which has to do with the assessment.

I know this bill deals specifically with transmission lines in unorganized territory. Is the minister aware of any discussion or inclination, in the situation where a major compressor station pumping this gas through the system has the employees who work at that compressor station relying on a dormitory community for services, such as doctors' services, hospitals and other essential services, to make this facility taxable for municipal purposes so that the community can benefit from that industrial undertaking which is just outside it?

4:30 p.m.

I am speaking of the town of Geraldton, where the minister's colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) has been trying to convince the town that it should annex or take in some unorganized communities whose residents were once engaged in the gold mining industry, which is no longer the case. Those people are finding it extremely difficult to generate sufficient funds by their own means to put in water, sewage treatment facilities and everything else.

His colleague is asking the town of Geraldton to take on these areas, and there is no incentive for Geraldton to do that because they are a liability and would not carry themselves with regard to the amount of infrastructure money that would have to be provided. On the other hand, there is a compressor station just outside Geraldton and the town might be convinced to take on these liabilities down on the south end if it could have the advantage of taxing this compressor station that is just beyond its boundaries on the north end.

I know that it is not directly related to this bill except as it applies to pipelines, but is the minister aware of anything that is being done to put some onus on the industry to pay for municipal services upon which their employees rely and which they enjoy?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any discussions in a direct way. I think yesterday I indicated in a general way there is no doubt that we plough back into the unorganized areas much more money than we take out through the Land Transfer Tax Act. That applies virtually anywhere in the north.

I think the situation to which the member addresses himself could probably be taken care of in many ways. The first would be if the town of Geraldton, as such, were to expand its municipal boundaries to encompass some of what are now unorganized areas, including the substation. That would bring it into its taxing jurisdiction. That is possibly one way.

I think there are situations -- I cannot think of a specific case, to be honest, but I believe I have heard of them in the past -- where a particular company, whether it be a transmission company or whatever, recognizing the contribution that a nearby community makes, enters into an agreement with the municipality because of the services it is providing. I suppose that might be another way.

A third way would be to recognize the situation in the way of grants through Municipal Affairs and Housing. However, I do not know of any direct way that the unorganized areas can suddenly be channelled -- and these are relatively small amounts when one thinks of the magnitude of the north -- the few million dollars involved here, and we are only talking pipelines at the moment. Even in the overall land tax the revenue generated is relatively small.

I would suggest there are possibly ways to solve the problem, which I appreciate. I agree with the member that the case is a justifiable one, and I am sure it comes up in many circumstances across the north.

Motion agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 7 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 19:

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, if I may have the indulgence of the House for a minute to revert to the last question, I am sure the honourable member is aware of it, but the fact is that this local community does have the option of forming, outside its area, a local service board which could recompense it for services it might be providing to a facility that was out beyond.

I know the member is talking about two kinds of situations, that is to say firefighting, garbage collection and that kind of thing.

The Deputy Chairman: Was the minister going to place an amendment?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Yes.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ashe moves that clause 38(d) of the act as set out in subsection 19(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(d) For the purpose of subsection 10(13) amending the table of rates set out in subsection 10(3) and changing the year up to its depreciation shall be allowed set out in subsection 10(12);

"(d)(a) For the purposes of subsection 10(14) designating second and subsequent pipelines and prescribing the percentage of the rates set out in subsection 10(3) at which second and subsequent pipelines shall be assessed and taxed."

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, this allows regulations to be made on the sections that we have just dealt with.

Motion agreed to.

Section 19, as amended, agreed to.

On section 20:

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, just as a matter of irrelevant interest, why does this act go into effect in January 1983, given that most of the minister's other budget provisions begin as of the budget date or April 1?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, it is because we are talking about a form of land tax which is normally based on a calendar year for municipal purposes. In this case we are talking unorganized areas, but for municipal purposes we talk about the calendar year, so this is consistent with the way organized areas treat assessment questions.

Section 20 agreed to.

Section 21 agreed to.

Bill 113, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Ashe, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendments and one bill without amendment.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 46, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I think I was in mid-flight at the point of adjournment of this debate. I had expressed a number of views about this, and I do not intend to dwell on it at great length this afternoon by being repetitive, other than to say that I am encouraged by one area, because I had planned to introduce an amendment which would have deleted section 57 of Bill 46 which, as we know, is An Act to amend the Education Act.

The reason I wanted to move that amendment -- I am not speaking on the amendment -- was because of groups such as the Young Men's Christian Association and the Young Women's Christian Association in London, Ontario. We received a rather lengthy letter from these groups, who are concerned about the aspect of the bill that deals with the power of municipalities to exempt special-interest groups, charitable organizations we would call them, people such as those who would operate the YMCA or the YWCA in a municipality.

4:40 p.m.

I wanted to move the amendment because it is my belief that these organizations grow, thrive and exist only because they are given some kind of tax break and if municipalities no longer had the power to give that kind of tax break many of these groups, which have gone into rather large capital projects and are providing such an essential and vital service to a community, would find themselves in considerable financial trouble. I think they alleviate some of the burden for government because they provide some services which in other countries are provided by the government directly to the taxpayers.

The parliamentary assistant will correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding the government intends to withdraw that section of the bill. I would certainly be pleased with that and my amendment would not be necessary. It is one of the areas I expressed concern about and I am pleased the government has been prepared to move in that direction. Even though I recognize the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario would have been supportive of that amendment, I still think it is a wise decision of the government to comply with our request and to proceed by removing that section of the bill.

I indicated in my earlier remarks I was somewhat concerned about a general trend towards centralization of control in Ontario. We in this party have traditionally been a party of local autonomy. When we get to another bill later today, I will be talking about local autonomy again. In the legislation and some of the regulations, we see consistently forthcoming from the Ministry of Education a desire to centralize the control of education. I understand the government --

Hon. Mr. Norton: Who talked to you about local autonomy, Pierre Trudeau?

Mr. Bradley: I have absolutely nothing to do with federal politics. The minister will understand I have been elected to the Ontario Legislature, therefore I will concentrate all my efforts at the provincial level and allow others to deal with the federal level. I know the Speaker will be pleased to hear I intend to do so. Where was I? The minister interrupted me when I was in full flight. It was on the importance of local autonomy.

I see a slow erosion even in parts of this bill, and we will see a more rapid erosion in Bill 127. They may appear to be minor housekeeping items, but they tend to show this drift towards centralization of control. I know the ministry provides a good deal of the money for the operation of education, even though the amount on a percentage basis per year has diminished rather significantly in the last few years in terms of the grants to the boards of education.

Nevertheless, I see this movement which I do not consider to be healthy for our province, which has existed well through strong local autonomy. I know I would strike a responsive chord with the parliamentary assistant who was a mayor of the municipality of Stoney Creek. He was also very much involved in the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and would understand the importance of maintaining a strong local component in the decision-making process, whether it be in education or municipal affairs.

I note the government is giving the trustees a chance finally to set their own pay. I suppose to a certain extent this is a double-edged sword. We can say, on the one hand, that we are treating them the same as municipal officials and that it is fair to treat them the same as municipal officials who have the opportunity to raise or cut their pay whenever they want. The restriction is put into this legislation that this can occur only previous to a municipal election; at least it has to be set for the next group that is elected.

I noted in a publication entitled OSTC Education Reports, an item in the June 14-18, 1982, issue, "Trustees Considering New Salary Rates."

It says: "With Ontario school boards having the right to set trustees' salaries effective with next November's province-wide elections, the subject is becoming more widely discussed. 'In Metro Toronto, all boards should agree to pay the same trustee remuneration,' according to Scarborough trustee Barbara Farba.

"She said: 'Some Toronto trustees are proposing to pay themselves the same salaries as that of the city aldermen, $27,000 per year. This compares with the present trustee maximum of $7,200 per year. A lot of Toronto trustees consider themselves full-time. A lot of trustees in the suburbs are also full-time but I do not think they should necessarily be paid the same as their municipal counterparts,' Mrs. Fabra said."

This is one of the concerns in the minds of the taxpayers. One of the reasons the government has been reluctant to give this power to boards of education is because they are afraid we will have an assault on the pockets of the taxpayers, similar to the assault the provincial Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) just perpetrated upon the tax-paying public of Ontario. I must say it does concern me to see those proposed salary levels.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Again, who talked to you about local autonomy, Pierre Trudeau?

Mr. Bradley: I said it concerns me to see that. I support local autonomy and I support that provision, but I certainly caution those at the local level in boards of education that they will incur the wrath of the electorate and perhaps of the provincial government if they take this responsibility upon themselves and then line their pockets. I think the overwhelming majority of trustees in the province have no desire to do so and are simply looking for compensation commensurate with the amount of effort and time they put into their jobs.

We have to be careful when we see substantial increases like that. Some trustees will find something to do, even if they do not have to justify that $27,000 or whatever it might be. However, we support that provision in the bill and, as I have indicated, the term of office must be the same as municipal councils. I do not see any sense in not having that.

The Association of Large School Boards in Ontario has communicated with the Minister of Education expressing their concerns about a couple of areas. I would like to share with the House some of those concerns they have expressed to the minister. In a letter dated May 7, 1982, addressed to the minister, the association, through D. S. Lawless, the executive director, has stated some concerns about this bill.

"This association has reviewed the proposed amendments to the Education Act as contained in Bill 46, An Act to amend the Education Act, now before the Ontario Legislature. Our concerns related to the majority of the amendments forwarded to you on November 26, 1981, in response to Bill 164" -- that was the predecessor to this bill -- "tabled in the Legislature in the fall session of 1981.

"The new bill contains two additional amendments about which I must register the concern of the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario. They pertain to section 3 and section 49 of Bill 46.

"Section 3, subsection 5 provides that subsection 8(1) of the Education Act is amended by adding thereto the following clause:

"(z) In respect of schools under the jurisdiction of a board, issue guidelines respecting the closing of schools.

"This association stated very emphatically its position on this matter in our response to Issues and Directions. Our position is reiterated below:

"The majority of the member boards of the association support the concept of each school board developing its own school closure policy. Indeed, most school boards would welcome guidelines from the ministry which would facilitate the development of relatively common policies that can be adapted successfully to local needs. The association cannot support, however, the concept of provincial criteria which are established by the government and imposed on school boards. Individual school boards are in the best position to determine what criteria should be included in a school closure policy and local autonomy and accountability in this regard should not be eroded."

To comment very briefly on that, once again we reach a dilemma. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) interjected before, and rightly so, recognizing the dilemma of not only government but members of the opposition who find themselves either supporting or not supporting this provision.

I could use the example of Sarnia, where I feel that if the regulations had been followed in Sarnia perhaps the decision would not have been made to close Sarnia Collegiate; it is difficult to say. The minister is satisfied they met the requirements of the ministry officials and the ministry guidelines.

On the other hand, one could say perhaps the ministry will look more favourably upon keeping schools open than the local boards of education. In the hands of certain boards of education, the power to close schools, exclusive of any provincial criteria, would frighten me considerably. In the hands of other boards of education I would have no such reluctance to see that power put in place; so it is a difficult question.

4:50 p.m.

I would have to come down on the side of some fairly careful ministry guidelines on the closing of schools and, therefore, I am in support of this. I think we must have input from various groups such as parents, teachers' associations, home and school associations, teachers' federations, members of boards of education, several people looking at the specific criteria to be applied to the school-closing guidelines put forward by the ministry. I think it is important we have that input. I do not deny the ministry should set forth those guidelines, but I think the guidelines would have to vary.

The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) is here, and he recognizes the problem he encountered with the Schreiber secondary school and the fact that it is difficult to apply certain guidelines that would affect large municipalities, for instance, in southern Ontario, or areas that may be rural but not as remote as those in northern Ontario. They do not have the kind of decline in enrolment we see in some elementary and secondary schools in remote areas of northern Ontario.

The problems are different around this province and we have to have some kind of flexibility in those guidelines, or perhaps a different set of guidelines for schools that find themselves in different circumstances. I am confident the report of Rodger Allen, who is doing a study of those circumstances at the present time, will provide a reasonable basis upon which to set out guidelines that would affect particular areas of the province.

A second area the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario is concerned about is section 49 of Bill 46, which reads as follows:

"(1) Subsections 173(1) and (2) of the said act are repealed and the following substituted there- for:

"(1) Where a board acquires a school site under subsection 171(1), (2), (3) or (4) for the purpose of conducting thereon a natural science program and other out-of-classroom programs, the board shall obtain the approval of the minister before it erects, adds to or alters buildings on or makes other improvements to the school site for such purpose.

"(1a) Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to a school site acquired by a separate school board under section 171(1) or by a county or district combined separate school board under subsection 171(3) where the cost of the erection of, the addition to or the alteration of the buildings on the school site or of making other improvements to the school site is provided entirely by the separate school board."

The association states as follows to the minister: "This association requests an explanation as to why the proposed amendments treat boards of education in a manner which is different than for county or district combined separate school boards. ALSBO supports the principle of the approval of the Minister of Education being required when the cost of the alteration of buildings on the school site or other improvements to the school site are shared by the board and the province of Ontario. However, all school boards, not only county or district combined separate school boards, should be free to make such alterations and improvements when the cost is provided entirely by the board.

"The Association of Large School Boards in Ontario respectfully requests that subsection 3(5) of Bill 46 be removed and section 49 of Bill 46 be amended to make the provisions of 49(1a) applicable to all school boards."

Those are a couple of areas where the association has expressed some concern. I could look at some other areas I am sure the minister addressed when she read this correspondence herself. This is looking back at Bill 164, unfortunately, and I think there have been some changes made. The minister is aware of this, so I will not go through it in detail. The association expresses concern about the acquisition of land for natural science programs. I do not think it likes the further restrictions that have been placed on that. I would like the minister to address that. It looks for the clarification that would be required on the approval process being established for this provision.

It supports the amendment on the fees for pupils, "but hopes it refers only to students who are in Canada on a student visa for the purpose of obtaining an education in Ontario. We would hope this provision would not penalize Ontario residents who are here on work permits and who have school-age children." The government has probably addressed that in the new bill.

As they said, "Since the parents would be classified as bona fide residents in Canada, it does not seem fair or reasonable to charge fees for their children to attend public school."

They also wanted to make it clear "that elected members of French-language advisory committees are subject to the same qualifications and disqualifications as members of the board, especially if the elected committee members are acting in an advisory capacity to establish and operate French first-language units at the elementary level."

They had some other problems, such as competition with the private sector. The member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande), the critic for the New Democratic Party, raised this particular concern during the estimates. When he talked about the competition with the private sector, the minister did provide some clarification but we were concerned that this might be overly restrictive.

Their comment was: "It would appear that school boards require much more flexibility than this amendment would allow if they are to meet the special needs of students. The ministry should be more open in its attitude and approach to activities that can benefit students despite the fact that they are not 'traditional' educational activities. If the ministry is concerned that school boards will compete with the private sector, it should develop criteria or guidelines on what 'nominally related' activities or programs are acceptable. These criteria would give school boards the opportunity to submit policy proposals or procedures to the ministry for negotiation and/or approval. An amendment to the act on this matter is not required," according to the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario.

There are other areas, such as the school attendance requirements. They wanted clarification on "who is responsible for the fees and expenses of a student who must attend another secondary school in order to obtain a credit which is a prerequisite for a program offered by a college of applied arts and technology."

Mr. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Will you check and see whether there is a quorum, please?

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

5:01 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present.

Mr. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I thought it would be inappropriate to proceed with this bill without the parliamentary assistant or the minister. But I see the parliamentary assistant has just walked in. We have the second string; so I guess we can proceed.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see such a large audience has gathered for the remainder of my remarks, which will be relatively brief.

There are two areas that are of great concern to those of us in the opposition and certainly to the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario and others in the educational community. The first may sound innocuous, and my friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) might touch on it later as a former director of education. As a courtesy he used to send a copy of his annual report to the Ministry of Education. That is now mandated by this legislation, and there are some who see this as a further erosion of local autonomy and are concerned about this as an intrusion into local affairs.

The other one, which has drawn some real questions, has been access to books and records. ALSBO, for instance, objects strenuously to this amendment on the grounds that "the ministry already has access to school books and records through the school board. If a board refuses to provide the desired information, there are sanctions already available to the minister."

We are seeing them creep more and more into the everyday activities of the local school boards, and that is where they are starting to raise the hackles of not only the board members and the board administration but also the teachers in the system and the parents, who ultimately are interested in the products of the system.

I have outlined a number of areas of concern. I am going to allow my friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot to discuss a couple of areas of concern to him. I have looked at areas where we see some real problems with this bill. Even though it is characterized as a housekeeping bill we still see it as an effort to centralize; we still see it as a growing tendency to have ministry officials bypass the administration of boards of education by dealing directly with the local school and therefore undermining the authority of the boards, particularly in the provision I was talking about in terms of access to the books and records of an individual school.

Generally speaking, we probably would find many sections of this bill to be acceptable and indeed of a housekeeping nature, but we have expressed our concerns about the others. I have commended the ministry on withdrawing, at the insistence of the Liberal Party in the Legislature, the one section that would have had a devastating effect on the Young Men's Christian Association, the Young Women's Christian Association and other charitable organizations in this province.

I will be speaking on any amendments that might come forward from the ministry at the appropriate time.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill 46, An Act to amend the Education Act, and to say basically, as the minister pointed out on the introduction of this bill, it is primarily an omnibus bill that deals mainly with housekeeping measures. In taking a close look at the bill, there are a lot of housekeeping measures in it. There are some changes being brought in by the Minister of Education which the New Democratic Party welcomes.

However, I must point out to the House that at least three or four years ago the Minister of Education made a commitment to bring a new Education Act into the House. What we are seeing is the piecemeal approach that this government is noted for, changing things a bit at a time so too many people do not get excited at one time.

I also want to say that three or four years ago in the debate on Bill 19 -- perhaps some members may remember that -- we were saying the government ought to institute a select committee on education for the simple reason that the many briefs we had before the committee indicated the people of this province were deeply concerned about educational matters. Of course, the Minister of Education said: "Absolutely not, we will not have a select committee on education."

I want to point out and put on the record that the New Democratic Party feels education is one of the issues this government has to deal with, because the people of this province demand that the government deal with the educational issues of today. Therefore, the New Democratic Party at its last convention passed a resolution to strike a task force on education. Within the next year or so we will be going around the province, to as many places as possible, and we will get input from as many people as possible on many different and diverse educational issues. We will certainly have many things to say either in this House or outside it about education in this province.

Briefly, I want to mention the things the New Democratic Party feels it can support in this bill. We certainly agree that the issue of trustee remuneration has come of age. If we are really serious about getting people to stand for election, we have to be serious and make sure those people are fairly paid, therefore we have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting that recommendation.

We have no hesitation either in supporting increase of the term of office for trustees, to three years. As with the aldermanic positions, it has been a matter of debate for some time in Ontario, basically with a rural-urban split on the issue; however, the government decided to bring in the bill and we are in support of that section.

We are basically in support of another section which changes the openness with which boards of education across this province do their business. The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) presented, and we debated, a private member's bill on this subject in this Legislature.

According to the Education Act, certain boards of education in this province have only to deem by a simple majority that a meeting be closed, regardless of what they are debating. We are talking about public expenditures and about public education, and the public, be they parents or not, ought to be involved in a real way in the educational process of children, so for a board of education to decide to hold closed meetings whenever it suits its purposes really does not wash.

Basically, we support the fact there are only five areas in which a board of education in this province can say, "Because we are dealing with one of those areas we can have a closed meeting;" otherwise, this bill restricts boards of education from holding closed meetings and, as I said before, we will support that.

We definitely support the agreements relating to Indian bands in the province. I am sure members are aware that the federal government, after a long time, has seen fit to permit some Indian bands in Ontario to manage their own affairs. Of course, education is an essential function of any community and, basically, this bill permits Indian bands to manage their educational system. As far as I am aware, and I can be challenged on this, no member other than the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) has spoken in favour of giving the first citizens of this province the responsibility that is theirs, or the dignity and the respect that is theirs, in terms of managing their own affairs. We applaud that particular amendment to this act.

However, this party has some very serious concerns about this legislation. The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) mentioned some of those concerns. The emphasis that he puts on those concerns is different from mine in that I consider those particular areas to be essential.

The Minister of Education wants us to believe that this is just a housekeeping bill. None the less, disguised in this bill are some very powerful, ominous powers that the Minister of Education asks this Legislature to give to the government. I am referring to the power to close schools. I am also referring to the power to control schools by prohibiting schools in the public education system from providing programs that are or may be in competition with programs in the private sector.

Those are two very basic and fundamental principles. In effect, this government is saying -- either through this bill or through the bill we will be debating later on this evening -- "We just want to talk about local autonomy when it suits our purposes. We just want to use that so we will not be blamed for things that take place in this province; but when it does not suit our purpose, well, local autonomy be damned." Basically, that is what this bill implies.

I am not the only one who uses those words. The Ontario School Trustees' Council uses exactly those same words. I am not going to quote the document, but they are saying basically: "We are very concerned about the trend that is taking place in Ontario. We are very concerned that the local autonomy principle, the principle on which the province and the education system have been based for the past 200 years, is being eroded almost daily."

Let me talk about the first aspect of the concerns we have as a party, and that is the closure of schools. This is for the benefit of the members who are in the Legislature. Mr. Speaker; of course, it is not for your benefit since you are very aware of what I am talking about.

Back in 1979 the government decided it was going to rule by memorandum in this province, and in December 1979 it issued a memorandum to the school boards entitled School Closure Policy which said, "You must follow certain steps." At that time, in 1979, Ted Bounsall, then a member of this Legislature and the education critic for this party, introduced a private member's bill in the House that basically spelled out certain procedures that needed to be followed for a school to be closed.

The Ministry of Education had conducted a survey back in 1979; it found that 352 elementary schools and 37 secondary schools would be closed in this province between 1979 and 1985. The information I have is that 159 elementary and nine secondary schools were closed up to the end of 1981; this information is for the period from 1977 to 1981. But if we look at the 1980-81 year, we find that 83 elementary and six secondary schools were closed. This means basically that if the same rate of closure continues for the year 1982, we still have a tremendous number of schools which, according to the Ministry of Education, have to be closed in this province.

Therefore, I ask why the Minister of Education and the Ministry of Education need to have this new power to issue guidelines and tell school boards what they should be doing in closing schools. The answer is very simple. The Ministry of Education and this government are frustrated by a slow process, and what they want to do is say to a school board: "This school and that school must be closed within a certain period of time. Make sure those schools are closed, otherwise you will be penalized through our grant structure."

5:20 p.m.

If there has been one educational issue in the province that has literally torn the guts out of communities, divided and polarized communities into two camps but not necessarily 50-50, it has been the issue of school closures. Basically, I am not comfortable and the New Democratic Party is not comfortable about giving the Minister of Education that awesome power to close schools in this province.

If they made mistakes in the 1960s when they gave school boards the authority to spend the money to build schools, if they want to get the power from the school boards the ministry needs to direct education in this province, and if they are saying, "We made a mistake at that time and we mismanaged the education dollars at that time," I am not going to be the one to bail those people out.

The communities and children of this province should not be suffering the penalty of their mismanagement. Basically, what we are saying is, "If you want the power to close schools, the New Democratic Party is not going to be a party that is going to give you that power."

I hope I do not need to take out press clippings for the past couple of years. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is in the Legislature. He can tell members the struggle that went on in the community when Copper Cliff closed down. Other members of this Legislature can tell the minister of the struggles that went on in their areas when people decided their schools should not be closed. The boards of education had not done the proper groundwork to come to a determination to close schools.

If the Ministry of Education wants this power to close schools in the province and wants to accept the direct responsibility for the closure of schools, we are certainly not going to help the ministry in that endeavour.

During consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Education, I asked the Minister of Education the basic question: "What kind of work and studies have you done that indicate which schools need to be closed, which schools do you think need to be closed? What studies have you done to isolate the factors that are important to a community about its school?"

If the school is going to be the hub of community activity, it does not take a genius to realize that as soon as that school closes down, the community begins to deteriorate. Parents who have children in the school system will move out of that area. The negative snowball effect will continue and the deterioration of that community will take place. If the government wants to close schools, let it be on its head and on its head alone.

Back in November 1980, the Bureau of Municipal Research did a study called School Closures -- Are They the Solution? I want to read certain sections of it: "Regardless of the process used, however, most boards have accepted closure as a fact of life. By this acceptance, many have also accepted that closures are beyond their control. Closures, in fact, do not necessarily have to be either inevitable or uncontrollable." The next section says, "Closures can create more problems than they solve. What is really needed is to have boards in Ontario widen their perspective and deal with closures in a comprehensive and organized manner."

The study mentions a survey done on some regions of the United States basically has nine or 10 different points stressing that closures are not inevitable, and it talks about what closures do to a community. It says: "Based on the findings of the study, it is apparent that school districts faced with declining enrolments have chosen one solution: closure of elementary schools. The closure of elementary schools is, however, an exceedingly complex issue, having extensive and pervasive ramifications in virtually all aspects of urban life. Once an elementary school is closed, the environmental forces of outmigration, population decline and neighbourhood deterioration are set in motion. It is difficult, if not impossible, to reverse these forces."

I am not going to prolong this issue. However, I want to emphasize once again what the New Democratic Party has been saying in the past about school closures. First, there should be a thorough process at the community level, with parental involvement and with the community basically involved in making that decision.

Second, once the board makes a decision to close a school for some reason or other, there has to be a mechanism by which the public has redress for that process. Up to this time, we have said the Ontario Municipal Board should be that body. I am not sure whether that is the right body, but certainly a body has to be found to which the public has redress on the question of school closure.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what it is like in some of the rural communities across Ontario, when the local school closes down and kids have to be transported from one school to the next? In some instances they are great distances away. Do you realize that the cost of busing is more than one would save by the closure of the school?

When I present an amendment to this particular section, I hope the Liberal Party and some rural members, who really should be concerned about this issue and who really should be concerned about the power the Minister of Education wants to have in this area, will stand up and support the amendment.

As I was saying, the other section which really offends is subsection 4(4) of the bill, which I want to read and place on the record. It says:

"Notwithstanding paragraph 26 of subsection 150(1), prohibiting or regulating and controlling any program or activity of a board that is or may be in competition with any business or occupation in the private sector and providing that such regulations have general application or application to a particular board."

5:30 p.m.

I am sure the members realize the kind of power this places in the hands of government. Certainly in the past little while we have heard the Minister of Education and the Premier (Mr. Davis) saying, "Yes, maybe the independent and alternative school system ought to be supported publicly by public funds."

Do the members realize that once that section is in this bill that effectively has been done? Basically, the minister can then turn around and say to a school board, "You want to establish that program but you cannot do it because the private sector is already involved in that."

A couple of years ago in this Legislature we passed Bill 82. As members know, that bill dealt with establishing programs for exceptional children and mandated the public educational system to set up programs to deal with the special needs of these kids.

In the whole of the province, there are about 61 schools in the private sector that offer special educational services, that offer special educational programs. Of course, these programs are of very high cost to the people and parents of this province.

Basically, I am suggesting that if the Minister of Education gets this power, then through regulations she can say to a school board: "No, you do not have to set up that program to look after the special needs of your kids because the private school five minutes down the street offers exactly that program. Since you are in competition with the private sector you will not be able to establish that program."

One of the cries from the school boards across this province about Bill 82 was that this would cost a tremendous amount of money, and the local board or local taxpayers would have to pick up that tab.

If the Minister of Education has the power she seeks in this legislation, this is a way of perhaps saying to the school boards: "You do not have to put out the programs, the private sector has them."

That particular section makes me very nervous. Basically, we have passed Bill 82 in this Legislature, and then in Bill 46 the minister, through regulation, bypasses Bill 82. That is completely unacceptable to me.

The members know the declining enrolments in this province are taking effect. Many schools, in both rural and urban areas, have a lot of empty space. Maybe the community decides it can use the empty space in those classrooms to set up day care facilities for our kids.

With that particular section I suggest the Minister of Education can say to those schools, "Absolutely not, because you will be in competition with the private sector that provides the day care services." Mr. Speaker, you can name any function the board may want to have, if that particular section passes this House the Minister of Education will effectively have the power to regulate and control the public education system.

The New Democratic Party is not about to give the minister that power. As a matter of fact, in view of the parts of this bill we like and those we think are going to be disastrous to public education in this province, on balance, this party has decided to oppose this bill. We have decided to vote against it on second reading, and I have three amendments that I will put forward at the right time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind attention.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt not to cover the ground covered by the previous speakers. All I want to do is to point out a couple of issues from my experience in my previous incarnation and also to ask a couple of questions; therefore, I am sure the parliamentary assistant will have time to deal with them.

First, I want to compliment the ministry for including the part of section 3 that deals with the provision for the Workmen's Compensation Board. As some members are aware, I just completed a three-month tour around the province looking at youth unemployment and seeking how we can create better opportunities for young people to be employed.

One practice at present being carried out by a number of our schools and school boards across the province that has proven to be most beneficial is the co-operative education and work experience for young people while they are still in secondary school. However, one of the difficulties this program has faced from time to time is the question of coverage under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It seems to me that through this section this program will be enhanced and the difficulties that some secondary schools and school boards have had will be reduced considerably. If that interpretation is correct I would appreciate it if the parliamentary assistant would verify it.

Moving on in section 3; frankly, I am a little surprised and perplexed at what I think is a contradiction in the argument just presented by the NDP critic. If I heard him correctly, he said he is objecting to the part of section 3 that gives the minister the power to set guidelines with respect to closing schools. Surely he and his colleagues are well aware that most of the problems we have across the province right now are due to the fact there are no guidelines, that school boards are closing schools down helter-skelter without any guidelines at all.

Need I draw to the member's attention the fact that his own colleague spoke so eloquently in this House about the problem in Schreiber? The local board was doing what it wanted to do, and it was only because of his application to the minister that this at least has been stalled. My colleague our education critic has spoken of a situation in Sarnia where the local board wants to close the central technical school. I could give a whole list of them.

When I was the education critic for our party I was getting calls almost every day, and I am sure the NDP critic was too, about situations in which the local board was taking it upon itself to close down schools. It would seem to me that in every one of those cases what I was being asked for, what the member for Lake Nipigon was asking for is --

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do not want the member for Kitchener-Wilmot to have a wrong impression. Clearly, what I am saying is the Minister of Education was able to do that without the power in the act. The member must recall most of the studies have stated that when there are 200 pupils or less the minister has said to the board, "You should think in terms of closing down schools." That is what I am referring to.

The Acting Speaker Mr. Cousens): Thank you. I think you have made that clear.

Mr. Sweeney: I would simply point out that every single time a committee of parents has contacted me, it has contacted me and my colleague to say: "Will the ministry or the government intervene? Will they not make some intervention to this board that is trampling on our rights?" Therefore, I think we have to be careful about not having some kind of provincial guidelines.

I would certainly agree with the NDP critic that we do not want guidelines that say, "You must close schools under certain circumstances." I would be surprised if that would come out and I think we will deal with that when and if it happens. I think it would do more harm than good to leave the situation the way it is right now. I would be prepared to take a look at some of the guidelines. I have seen the ones the ministry has sent out in the form of a memorandum. In most cases, I think the intent of the ministry was good.

I am a little curious as to the inclusion of section 39. As I read section 39, it says the school board has to do what the ministry tells it to do. If I understand correctly, section 2 of the act says clearly the ministry has that power. I am curious as to why this is needed. It seems strange indeed that we now have to add a section to the Education Act which says the school board has to do what the ministry says.

Maybe there are some particular problems that have arisen recently where school boards have defied the ministry or the minister. I am not aware of them and I would like to hear about them, but this section would seem to me to be redundant and I would like to know why it is proposed.

Under section 54, I am curious why there is the change in reference from "the third year of the intermediate division" to the reference to "grade 9." The ministry has long made it known that it sees education as being a continuous progress type of process and in recent years it has been refraining from using grade designations. I am rather curious as to the reason for that reference at this time. It does not bother me, I could not care less one way or the other, quite frankly, but I would like the parliamentary assistant to address himself to why it seems they are reverting to that kind of nomenclature. Is it some kind of signal I did not catch earlier?

Finally, I want to draw attention to section 61 in which it says a provincial supervisory officer will have power to inspect a school or to investigate the record. Once again, I have checked with a couple of school boards across the province and it is their understanding and mine that the minister already has that power.

As the parliamentary assistant would know, having been a former director of education, at no time did I ever have the impression that if a ministry supervisory officer came to one of my schools I could tell him he could not come in. The minister is responsible for education and, while the minister and the ministry delegate some of the responsibility to the local boards, to my understanding the minister had never given up authority over the schools of this province and therefore always has had, and continues to have, the power to send one of her -- or his, as the case may be at some future date -- provincial inspectors of schools to inspect schools.

They do that on a regular basis at the secondary school level. They do not do it, usually, as a regular practice in elementary schools, but I am not aware of any reason this cannot be done. Once again, I would ask the parliamentary assistant if he would indicate why they believe this particular section would appear to be necessary.

Finally, if I can backtrack for a minute to section 45 where it speaks of adult education relationships with the local community colleges: I am a little bit unsure as to just what the intent of that section is. I have read it over three or four times and I can impose two quite different interpretations on it. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would clarify exactly what the government has in mind with respect to basic literacy and numeracy skills and the relationship between school boards and community colleges.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine.

[Applause]

Mr. Bradley: Hold out, Marion, hold out.

Mr. Sweeney: Don't let them squeeze you out.

Ms. Bryden: Two ovations in one day; it is overwhelming.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 46 appears to be a housekeeping bill. It is 18 pages long and includes innumerable amendments, plus 14 pages of explanation which indicate the technical nature of a lot of the amendments. It is the kind of housekeeping bill this side of the House has been watching very carefully because this government tends to bring in so-called housekeeping bills with a lot of significant changes "snuck" into the text among the amendments. Those significant changes are what we should be looking at, because I think they will change educational policy very substantially if they are adopted.

I will say that some of the amendments of significance are good, but some are not so good. Among the good ones is the change in the method of remunerating trustees. It is long overdue. This government has kept school trustees in cities and larger towns at a maximum of $7,200 a year since 1974. This is a disgraceful way of rewarding those dedicated citizens who take on the onerous job of trustee in a large school system. For the government to have denied these dedicated citizens even normal cost-of-living increases over those years was an example of meanness and lack of recognition of what citizens contribute when they participate in public life. While it was treating trustees in this despicable manner, salary increases were going through for cabinet ministers, deputy ministers and even members of the Legislature; but for school trustees, there was nothing.

The remuneration set up in the present act has precluded any trustee from taking on the job as a full-time occupation unless he was rich or had an independent income. Yet in larger cities and towns, the job of school trustees was really full-time if they were to serve their constituents adequately. It was full-time if they were to meet with parents and to deal with problems of children who needed special education or were having difficulties in the school system. It was also full-time if the trustees were to learn about all the intricacies of the job, from letting contracts to purchasing property and developing curricula.

5:50 p.m.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the new bill will give the boards full autonomy to set the rate of remuneration for trustees, but there is a useful check on this power. The board can only do it for the incoming board, so that the electorate has a chance to register its views on any salary increases before they become effective. One wonders whether the Legislature should adopt a similar provision, although, in my opinion, it would be better to have an independent body determine the remuneration of all elected representatives so that they do not set their own salaries.

That is one of the good sections of the bill. Another good section is retention of what might be called "the sunshine law" part of the present act. The new clause about making all board meetings, including all committee meetings, open to the public parallels my Municipal Sunshine Act, which I introduced as a private member's bill last year and which actually passed second reading, a somewhat rare thing for a private member's bill. Unfortunately, the government did not call my bill for third reading before the House prorogued last year, so it died on the Order Paper.

While my bill applied to school boards as well as to municipal councils and all other local boards, it was not needed as badly for school boards as for municipal councils, because the existing Education Act does require all school boards and committee meetings of the boards to be open to the public. The Municipal Act, on the other hand, is silent on the subject of openness for committee meetings. However, the weakness in the present Education Act on openness of meetings is the clause giving a school board the power to close any meeting it determines should be closed. This, in effect, made a nullity of the openness requirement.

Bill 46 removes this huge loophole and firmly declares that all board meetings and all committee meetings, including meetings of the committee of the whole, shall be open. However, it does provide five specific exceptions from this rule. They are similar to the exceptions I included in my sunshine act.

Under my bill, meetings could be closed if they were dealing with three matters: (1) contract negotiations with employees; (2) purchase and sale of property; (3) litigation affecting the municipality or board. Bill 46 adds two further exceptions: (1) the security of the property of the board; and (2) discussions that would result in the disclosure of intimate personal or financial information regarding board members, board employees, prospective employees or a pupil or his parent or guardian.

I would go along with these additions to the exceptions from open meetings, although I have some fears that the phrase "the security of the property of the board" may be interpreted too broadly and may be used by some school boards to close a substantial number of meetings. We will have to monitor this closely.

Assuming this clause is interpreted reasonably, I would commend the minister for bringing in this improvement in the open meeting section of the act. The minister has shown a better appreciation of the value of open meetings in the democratic process than her colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett). Last August, he made a speech to the municipal association in which he said, "Openness must be the rule," but when it came to the crunch of voting in favour of my sunshine act last fall, he was not there.

I have found at least two good things in the bill, but there are some other things which lead me and my colleagues to vote against it.

While we are on the subject of committees, there is a rather interesting change that I think I would put in the "good" column, and it is something that should be noted in passing. Regarding committees, under the present act a school board is authorized, "To appoint such committees as it considers expedient." There is no restriction on the makeup of any committee that the board appoints. The committee can be composed of board members or nonboard members.

Under the new bill, a distinction is made on the personnel of committees. Those dealing with education, finance, personnel and property matters must be made up of board members only. Those dealing with other matters may have nonboard members on them. On balance, this is a useful change because the major committees that are itemized make most of the crucial decisions for the operation of the school system in the area and they should be made by elected people.

Mr. Piché: Is that a quorum call?

Mr. Cooke: Not at one minute to six. You probably would not be able to get enough here to satisfy the quorum.

Ms. Bryden: For committees which may be considering possible curriculum changes or possible means of involving parents in school activities, it is valuable to include nonboard members, particularly parents and teachers and even students. In those areas, school boards should have the opportunity to choose whomever they like for committees, which would then report to the board so that the final decisions on the committee reports would be made by the elected members. This is another good part of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is just about six o'clock. I will go on to give my criticisms of the bill after the supper recess.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

23 juin 1982