Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and to the members of the Legislature a group of grade 7 students from Cornwall Public School in Thunder Bay in the riding of Port Arthur. They are in the east gallery.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, I’m sure you and the members of this House will join me in welcoming a very fine group of grade 12 and grade 13 students in the east gallery from Vincent Massey Secondary School in the city of Windsor from the riding of Windsor West.

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, through you to the members of the Legislature, I would like to introduce 20 students of grade 12 from Barrie District North Collegiate, along with their principal, Mr. Wayne Kirk.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House a group of students from the riding of Halton East who attend the new Central School in the town of Oakville and who are touring Queen’s Park and visiting with us here today during Education Week.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

INDUSTRIAL MILK PRICES

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the Legislature of the representation made yesterday by the government of Ontario to the federal Minister of Agriculture concerning the recently announced federal dairy product price support and industrial milk subsidy increases. At that meeting, we suggested ways of placing the industry on a sounder economic base.

On July 1, 1973, our government responded to the need for increased industrial milk production by adopting the industrial milk production incentive programme. This programme encourages the expansion of industrial milk herds and the modernization of production facilities through a system of guaranteed bank loans. We had recommended loans totalling over $16 million to close to 1,300 farmers as of April 4, 1974, which should result in an increase of over 160 million lb of industrial milk over the next two years.

IMPIP encourages industrial milk expansion but the 1974 federal dairy policy does not go far enough in providing the incentive to maintain and increase industrial milk production. The Ontario government supports the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the national milk producer organization, in its continuing bid for an overall increase in returns to industrial milk and cream producers equivalent to at least $2 per 100 lb of milk over the 1973-1974 dairy support programme.

According to the federal policy more than half this amount has been provided. I might add we have received unanimous support for this needed price increase from the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Normand Toupin, who joined me in meeting the federal minister and the dairy farmers of our neighbouring Province of Quebec.

In our opinion, the needed price increases must come from both the marketplace and the federal government. In this regard, we urged the federal Minister of Agriculture to increase immediately the product price of butter by two cents a lb and the product price of skim milk powder by two cents a lb. This action would result in an increase to producers of 25 cents per cwt. The remaining price increase necessary to meet the Dairy Farmers of Canada’s request should come by additional federal subsidy.

This action, while not meeting every dairy farmer’s requirements, would provide greater assurance of a fair return on investment, labour and capital. We believe it is essential to assure Ontario consumers of an adequate supply of dairy products.

We are pleased with the federal government’s recent announcement to pay subsidies to group I producers, on all milk over and above an excess of six per cent over fluid sales. Previously the level was 115 per cent of fluid sales. This will encourage fluid milk producers to increase their output thereby making more milk available for industrial purposes. We welcome the decision to extend the industrial milk subsidy to all milk shipments covered by the market-sharing quota thereby bringing to a virtual end the subsidy eligibility quota which has previously been in effect.

I wish to emphasize that the suggested price increases would accrue to the producer; no processors should benefit from these higher levels since in fact their cost margins should remain stable at current levels.

On a more philosophical note, I have been asked why even bother saving this province’s dairy industry. If I may quote from the 1974 dairy policy statement of the Dairy Farmers of Canada:

“National policy in Canada is that the requirements of the Canadian consumer for milk and milk products should, with few exceptions, be met from Canadian production. That policy should and must be retained. If today’s evidence of the problems and uncertainties in world food production and in the world economy, teach anything, it is that it would be the worst kind of mistake to sacrifice a policy of regular and dependable supply from Canadian production for imagined, and to say the least highly uncertain, benefits of a policy of allowing the Canadian industry to decline and to increase reliance on imports. Not to utilize the great agricultural resource base of Canada to produce our dairy product needs would be a tragedy.”

Mr. Speaker, such a tragedy confronted this province a few years ago and now we are paying the consequences. There is no better illustration of the devastating effect on consumer prices as the result of a loss of a Canadian industry than the demise of the Ontario sugar beet industry. We lost that industry because there was no requirement that Canada must produce a certain percentage of her total sugar requirements. Most other countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom do have such a policy.

The result was that sugar processors could buy, at that time, raw liquid sugar, surplus to world market requirements, for less than they would pay Ontario farmers to grow sugar beets. The federal government either had to provide substantial subsidies to beet growers or establish a minimum requirement for domestic sugar production. Neither was done. The industry died. World sugar demands grew. World production has not kept pace. We have no sugar beet production in Ontario, and Canadian consumers are almost totally at the mercy of foreign-controlled sugar imports.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): At the time they were going under, where was this government?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Today’s sugar prices reflect the consequences of this situation.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The Minister of Agriculture and Food watched them go.

Mr. Deans: He waved goodbye.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The wholesale price of sugar has leaped over 450 per cent from 1965 to 1974. One industry died; another must not.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): No, this government killed it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): If the government had supported them, they would still be in business.

Mr. Lewis: The government provided the death blow.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: This, Mr. Speaker, is why the government of Ontario has taken such a firm stand on the necessary price increases for the industrial milk producer consistent with the request of Dairy Farmers of Canada.

VIOLENCE IN AMATEUR HOCKEY

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Legislature that upon the request and recommendation of the director of my sports and recreation bureau, I have instigated an investigation pursuant to section 7(a) of the Athletics Control Act.

I wish to assure the members that the Premier (Mr. Davis) and I share the concern of all the members of this House and of the public at large at what appears to be the increasing violence in hockey at the amateur level. It is essential, in the view of this government, that the young people of this province can participate in sporting activities without fear of injury, either from the opposing players on the field or from the fans in the stands.

The departure point for this investigation is the situation concerning the withdrawal of the Bramalea junior hockey team from the Ontario Hockey Association’s playoff series with Hamilton and the subsequent suspension of the team and their officials by the Ontario Hockey Association.

I have appointed Mr. William K. McMurtry, QC, counsel to the Toronto law firm of Blaney, Pasternak --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I surmise, Mr. Speaker, that I have the approval of the members of the loyal opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A well known sport.

Mr. Lewis: He is even a poor loser.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. McMurtry’s family is well known in the sports field.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): A real old sport.

Mr. Martel: He is known as the loser too.

Mr. Lewis: Come on, stop this.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: His father played for the Toronto Argonauts in the 1920s --

Mr. Lewis: Will the minister stop this?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: And both he and his brother have been involved in amateur sports all their lives.

Mr. Lewis: Who cares?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): He is not an amateur in politics.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: McMurtry himself participated in five intercollegiate sports, played hockey for the Royal Military College and Osgoode Hall and was, I believe, a Rhodes scholarship candidate.

He has coached hockey, Mr. Speaker, from tike to peewee, and the Trinity College football team at the University of Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: The minister has got to be kidding. I played for the Harbord Juniors.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: He has played for both Ontario and Canada in rugger.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Tell us what he did in St. George.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Over the last several years he has developed a specialized knowledge in sports litigation, from several perspectives.

Mr. Singer: He engaged in sport as a Tory candidate.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I have asked Mr. McMurtry to examine --

Mr. Deans: There aren’t many of those around.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What better sport can there be than that?

Mr. Lewis: What is his per diem for that?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I have asked Mr. McMurtry to examine the full circumstances and implications arising from this case and report at the earliest opportunity.

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Re- sources): Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to make some further comments on a subject raised in the House last Monday by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) .

At that time he referred to the work stoppage at the Consolidated Denison Mines in the Elliot Lake area and suggested that it was the result of worker dissatisfaction with the efforts of my ministry in the area of working and environmental conditions.

Mr. Martel: With “no” effort!

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In order to appreciate the whole situation, it is necessary to look at a larger piece of time than the past seven days. As the members know, the development of the uranium mines in the Elliot Lake area took place during the mid-1950s. It is fair to say that while certain technology was available with respect to hardrock mining, there was little in the way of experience in the mining and handling of uranium-bearing ores.

As part of our regular programme, the mines at Elliot Lake have been monitored regularly for dust and radiation levels. It was recognized quite early that a higher silica content in the Elliot Lake ores posed a greater hazard to miners. In 1958 Dr. Pater- son reported on the effect of the higher silica levels. This was in a report made following an investigation of silicosis in miners throughout Ontario. A more recent report by Dr. Paterson is currently being printed and will be available shortly.

Mr. Martel: It has been in print since 1970.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): It was six years in the making.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Last November representatives of the United Steelworkers of America met with myself and the Minister of Health. The purpose of the meeting was for the union to present their views that workers in the uranium mines in Elliot Lake were being subjected to abnormal hazards.

Following our meeting with the union, the Minister of Health and myself agreed that two things would happen. One, a complete medical study of the workers in the uranium mines would be carried out by the Ministry of Health; and two, a study of underground working and environmental conditions would be carried out by my staff.

Commencing in January of this year, the Minister of Health has to date x-rayed some 900 workers from the Elliot Lake camp. The results of these x-rays are currently being analysed by the staff of the Ministry of Health. My ministry requested the federal Department of National Health and Welfare to assist in the techniques and instrumentation associated with the measuring of the levels of radiation in the mines. Following this, mv staff prepared a proposal for the underground environmental survey and this was presented to representatives of the union at a meeting on April 16 of this year.

Mr. Martel: Hurray!

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In addition to the union representation at this meeting, there was staff from the Ministry of Health and my own ministry, as well as the hon. member for Windsor West. In a letter to me, the hon. member indicated his general support for the proposal put before the union members. I think it is fair to say that the union felt we were attempting to deal with the situation.

Mr. Lewis: They thought that of the Ministry of Health not of Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: On a slightly different subject, I am informed that on April 4 the Steelworkers union sent letters to both Denison Mines and Rio Algom Mines requesting two things: One, an improvement in health environmental conditions; and two, a cost of living subsidy.

On April 16 the Rio Algom Co. advised employees they would be receiving a special allowance for cost of living increases. I believe the lack of response or action on the part of Consolidated Denis on caused the employees to stop work on April 18. It appears that Denison subsequently indicated to the employees they would pay a similar subsidy but only after the plant had been working for 24 hours.

Mr. Martel: They said they would consider it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: An attempt on the part of the NDP to suggest that the walkout had only to do with working conditions ignores the wage issue completely.

Mr. Lewis: The work conditions are the issue.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The leader of the NDP is always taking things out of context and exaggerating. That’s all he does.

Mr. Lewis: The working conditions are the issue. Why are they still out? Why did they meet with the Premier?

Mr. Martel: That is a bare-faced lie. Why did the ministry meet 500 members? What was the issue?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s all he does. He goes to the north country and comes back with half the information.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Get down to the facts. Just listen to the facts.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have been meeting and keeping in touch with the union on working conditions.

Mr. Lewis: The devil they have!

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As I mentioned, on April 16 they had been fully informed of our plans and agreed with them 100 per cent, as the NDP’s own member did.

Mr. Lewis: Nonsense!

Mr. Martel: Nonsense!

Mr. Lewis: Why are they still out? The minister has a rotten department.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: My staff attended a meeting on April 22 in Elliot Lake with some 300 union members and others present.

Mr. Lewis: There were 500 union members.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Exaggeration again.

Mr. Martel: I was there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: A lengthy list of complaints was subsequently made available to our staff on April 23.

Mr. R. K. McNeil (Elgin): They can’t count. They always exaggerate.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It appears that many of the complaints have to do with the terms and conditions of employment rather than health or safety measures.

Mr. Martel: That*s a pile of nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: However, my staff are investigating each of their complaints, although some of the investigations must await the reopening of the mine. It is worth pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that there are normal channels for the handling of this type of grievance, and in our opinion they were not being followed.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Had they been, we would not have reached the point where 60 items have been accumulated to date.

Mr. Martel: The minister is a disgrace.

Mr. Lewis: There are men in the uranium mines. The ministry should look after those men.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In summary, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) and myself are very much concerned with the health and the safety of workers in the mines of Elliot Lake and in other mines in this province.

Mr. Lewis: He’s concerned!

Mr. Martel: He’s concerned! This ministry isn’t concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Evidence of this is shown in the programmes each of us are having carried out. However, it does appear there are those who have attempted to use the working conditions as a reason for the work stoppage, when in fact it appears to have more to do with the cost of living increase.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I understand that at the present time the union is refusing to let the workers go back to work until the company has made an unqualified commitment on the wage issue.

Mr. Lewis: The union is refusing to let them go back? They don’t want to go back.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: On the other hand, the company appears to be waiting for the men to go back to work.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): That is so much crap.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Meanwhile, we are continuing to do all we reasonably can in the area of health and environmental conditions.

Mr. Martel: The minister is doing nothing.

Mr. Lewis: He is an irresponsible, reckless minister. He doesn’t give a damn about the workers. What an awful statement that was. What an awful statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr. Lewis: That statement was written for the minister by the mining industry. What a ridiculous statement to make in the House. Seven hundred workers are out because of safety conditions.

Mr. Laughren: Go up to Elliot Lake.

Mr. Martel: Does the minister ever get off his knees in the corporate board rooms?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Martel: The minister is a disgrace to the ministry. He should get off his knees.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member doesn’t know what’s going on.

Mr. Martel: I was there with them.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps we could have order.

Mr. Martel: Well, tell him not to tell so many lies.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I don’t want to interfere with free speech.

AIR POLLUTION IN SUDBURY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Further to the decision by the Minister of the Environment to reduce the operation at the nickel smelter in Sudbury on Tuesday because of the high level of pollution, is he going to announce that Falconbridge in Sudbury is going to be required to clean up its general operation on a more rapid timetable; or is he going to stick with the two-year extension which was granted by his predecessor and which has allowed them to maintain their operation at the present level?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): As the hon. member knows, we shut them down completely yesterday. I will be in Sudbury tomorrow to look at the total situation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the Falconbridge corporation is reported to have had a net income last year of $55 million, about 10 times more than its profit in 1972, wouldn’t the minister now agree that Falconbridge can afford to install the anti-pollution equipment in a much shorter period of time and that the two-year extension granted by the minister’s predecessor should be reviewed?

Hon. W. Newman: As I said, I’m going to be in Sudbury tomorrow, and while I don’t know how soon the equipment can be available, I’m going to look at the whole matter in a meeting with my staff up there tomorrow.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The more time the minister gives them the longer they’ll delay in implementing environmental controls.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A further supplementary: Would the minister not agree that under the circumstances, the argument put forward by Falconbridge, that the financial impact of the requirement made by the minister’s predecessor was such that it could not live up to it, should be reviewed? Surely the minister could give us that concession.

Hon. W. Newman: I have just finished telling the hon. member that I’m going to review the matter and I’m going to be looking at the whole situation when I’m there tomorrow. Did he hear me?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Sudbury East has a supplementary.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has the minister asked Falconbridge and Inco to explain their economic position, which was the reason given by his predecessor for granting them a two-year extension?

Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West): Question.

Mr. Martel: Have they been forced to show why this economic picture, which was so bleak in 1972, was in fact 10 times brighter last year in terms of returns?

Mr. Lewis: Ten times higher? Profits went up 773 per cent in one year.

Hon. Mr. Newman: I believe I will give the hon. member the same answer I gave to the Leader of the Opposition, that I’m going to be in Sudbury tomorrow.

Mr. Martel: That’s a stall.

Mr. MacDonald: It is a stall.

Hon. Mr. Newman: It’s not a stall. I’ll be there tomorrow.

Mr. Lewis: Well, supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North has a supplementary.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Could the minister advise the House whether the stack sampling equipment, which his predecessor said last year would be in operation in four months, is now collecting data?

Hon. W. Newman: We are collecting data there daily. As the hon. member knows, there are cases before the court now involving one of the companies.

Mr. Good: I am talking about the stack sampling setup. Is it in operation now?

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

Mr. Lewis: Has the minister reviewed the ministerial order with a view to rescinding it immediately?

Hon. W. Newman: I am constantly reviewing ministerial orders on all the companies we are dealing with.

Mr. Lewis: I am asking the minister about Falconbridge.

Hon. W. Newman: I have reviewed it, yes, but I haven’t made any decision on it as yet.

Mr. Speaker: There have been five supplementaries, which is sufficient. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ALLEGED AIR POLLUTION FROM METAL COMPANIES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a second question of the same minister, really on an allied subject.

In light of the fact that a Ministry of the Environment official has stated that lead levels in the soil around the Canada Metal Co. plant are as high as 10,000 parts per million, is the ministry now prepared to at least consider the financing of the cost of replacing the soils around the Canada Metal and Toronto Refiners and Smelters Ltd. plant, as the Toronto city council requested during the last year?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: We are prepared to co-operate with the MOH and the city of Toronto on any programme they decide upon.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the minister said he is reviewing these ministerial orders on a regular basis, and since his predecessor indicated clearly that a special review of the lead poison situation in the south part of Toronto would be undertaken, can’t the minister say something more than he is prepared to give it further consideration? His predecessor gave the same undertaking. Surely the consideration must eventually result in a decision?

Hon. W. Newman: I said we were prepared to co-operate with the city of Toronto and the MQH. I am also not really in a position to give details of our new monitoring in the area since the new control devices have gone into operation. We have new control devices on Canada Metal Co. and from what I understand from our people they are working very well. They have had some start-up problems, but they are working fairly well at this point in time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that his supervisor of air quality is reported to have stated that the Canada Metal and Toronto Refiners and Smelters plants are major sources of lead pollution? And since it is undoubtedly the lead pollution that is harmful, and at least in some cases fatal, would the minister not now act to take some more substantial position than simply the continuing review that we have been treated to now for 15 months?

Hon. W. Newman: As the member knows, the Ministry of Health has set up an advisory committee to deal with the effects of lead on the human body.

Mr. Reid: Get the lead out!

Hon. W. Newman: They are studying it at this point in time. Can the member find the doctors who can agree? There has always been a certain amount of disagreement on what level of lead is really that serious, and this is what the committee was appointed for, to look into this matter.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: When are they going to give the minister a substantial report? It seems to me the committee was set up to get it off the back of the minister’s predecessor, and this minister has been able to shirk his responsibility through reference to the committee too.

Hon. W. Newman: That’s a lot of nonsense. The Minister of Health just appointed this committee, I think, some three weeks ago.

Mr. Good: The problem has been around for years.

Hon. W. Newman: So has the member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op- position.

EXTENSION OF QEW

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Can he give a report to the House on the government plans to expand the Queen Elizabeth Way from Hamilton or Burlington to Niagara Falls and Fort Erie? Is it a basic policy, already accepted, that there will be a 12-lane facility even over Burlington Bay in the future.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I can’t give the member a complete, detailed report at this time, but there certainly are studies going on as to expanding that section of the Queen Elizabeth Way; and there is a consulting firm now looking at increasing the carrying capacities over Burlington Bay or under it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Can the minister indicate what implication this will have for this year’s budget? And has there been an environmental impact review, particularly since the Niagara fruit belts will be affected by future development and have already been seriously affected by the expansion of that road?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair and accurate to say that anything that will be done in the area will be done with the usual ministry policy of going in and having complete discussions with all of the people in the area; and carrying out our --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Not if it is to be done as it was in the past. That’s not good enough.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- environmental impact studies. We have people in the ministry taking care of that. I’ll get whatever information I can for the hon. member and make it available to him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wish the minister would. I appreciate that.

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

INDUSTRIAL MILK PRICES

Mr. Lewis: Yes, a question first, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Agriculture and Food:

In his statement he says:

“I wish to emphasize the suggested price increases would accrue to the producer; no processors should benefit from these higher levels, since in fact their cost margin should remain stable at current levels.”

Why, then, did the government allow the processors and the giants of the dairy industry to take 1.6 cents a quart I think it was, on the recent price increase in milk?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, this decision was made in conjunction with the Milk Marketing Board of the Province of Ontario which agreed to that breakdown in the five cent increase to the consumer. It was substantiated in an appeal before the Milk Commission, when the processors wished to have a greater percentage of the five cents a quart.

The Ontario Milk Commission substantiated the Milk Marketing Board’s position that the breakdown, I believe it is 1.6 cents, was warranted insofar as the figures that were presented to the Dairy Processors’

Council to both the Milk Marketing Board and the commission could be substantiated.

Mr. Lewis: Well by way of supplementary, how is it that the minister has taken a government position in this case but not in the other, serving notice on everyone that he will not allow the processors to have more?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am quite careful about that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is very explicit about it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I simply say that in this case --

Mr. Lewis: “No processor should benefit from these higher levels,” is what the minister is saying.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Right -- ”should.” I said should; and that is a matter for the Milk Commission to determine if and when that increase is granted.

Mr. Lewis: I see.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I simply expressed an opinion here as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Lewis: Just an opinion. I see. Well, why did the minister express an opinion in this case and not in the other?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I will go further, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that we are talking about industrial milk prices here.

Mr. Lewis: I understand that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The other case was fluid milk --

Mr. Lewis: I understand that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- bottled milk. There is quite a difference.

Mr. Lewis: Well, further -- All right, go ahead.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I want to talk about the other section of the minister’s statement, if the member wants to continue with the milk business.

Mr. Lewis: Just one other question: Why did the minister take such a tough stand in this case but refuse to protect the consumers of Ontario in the fluid milk case?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, we were protecting the consumers of Ontario in the fluid milk case.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: By raising it five cents a quart.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Exactly. A five cents a quart increase at consumer level was an assurance that there is going to be milk available in the future.

If my hon. friend --

Mr. Lewis: Profit for the dairy industry is what the minister gave.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: If my hon. friend would read further in that statement --

Mr. Lewis: I have read the statement.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I suggest that if he would look at what happened to the sugar industry in this province --

Mr. Lewis: The minister did that!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: The minister put the nail in the coffin of the sugar industry.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We did no such thing, Mr. Speaker, at any time.

We said, and will repeat, and now the federal government’s position -- at least the position of the federal Minister of Agriculture -- is in accordance with what I said at that time, that unless there was a national sugar policy whereby there would be a certain percentage of the domestic sugar requirements of this country produced in Canada, there was no way that we could assure the continuance of the sugar industry.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary to the minister’s statement -- both as he read it originally and in answer to the last question: Does he not agree with those many people in the agricultural industry, and specifically the sugar industry, who felt at the time the industry was closed down that while a national policy was inadequate, still the government of this province had a prime responsibility to see that that industry was maintained and that it was a matter of contention in this Legislature, with a clear alternative that the --

Mr. Lewis: It sure was.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- minister had and he rejected it --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- and now he is saying it is a mistake, as we said at the time.

Mr. Lewis: He had a clear alternative.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I maintain the same position now as I did then, and my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition jumps on his political podium and says, “Let’s make political hay,” or words to that effect.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is quick to criticize people, but he cannot take criticism when he is responsible.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The real truth of the matter is that at that time the federal Minister of Agriculture and his cabinet colleagues with whom we met, in conjunction with the Sugar Beet Producers’ Marketing Board, clearly indicated they would not establish a national sugar policy --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister should have maintained it here. He could have done it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- and at that time there was no way that we could maintain an active industry here.

Mr. Lewis: The minister should have done it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He criticizes other people.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, we are not criticizing other people.

Mr. Lewis: And he has given a ripoff to the processors in the dairy industry.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That is why I support the federal minister in his campaign to establish a national sugar policy for Canada. And if the Leader of the Opposition would jump on the bandwagon with half as much enthusiasm with his friends in Ottawa as he does in this House regarding a national sugar policy for Canada --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): That won’t sweeten them up.

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Natural Resources, if I may.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Have the minister’s officials reported to him that the 500 workers who gathered in the hall at Elliot Lake last Monday night were not exercising their antagonism to the Ministry of Health, but one after the other were registering their antagonism toward and disappointment in the Ministry of Natural Resources for having betrayed them in terms of providing protections in the Denison Mines?

Has that yet been reported to him?

Mr. Laughren: They were right on.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have a report from the staff and a list of the --

Mr. Lewis: We have a transcript. The minister had best be careful.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- complaints which number 60 in all. As I said in my earlier statement, there is a proper procedure for the men to follow, by which they can go through the various supervisors and to the staff, and then my ministry employees become involved.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Laughren: We’ve heard a lot about --

Mr. Martel: Their names weren’t even posted.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have two inspectors in the Elliot Lake area.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are always there to co-operate.

Mr. Lewis: Remember this one?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But these problems were not brought to our attention.

Mr. Martel: Their names weren’t even posted.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Now they have been brought to our attention the member can rest assured we will look at every one of them individually.

Mr. Lewis: The minister didn’t know the problem existed?

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

Mr. Martel: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary? The hon. member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: In view of the report by the Ministry of Mines which in 1961 indicated there were problems with respect to ventilation and gas, how many tests has this ministry conducted with respect to gas and dust until November, 1973?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I would report to the hon. member from Sudbury -- I want to welcome him back to the Legislature; we’ve missed him in the House for some considerable time.

Mr. MacDonald: Deal with the question.

Mr. Lewis: Answer the question.

An hon. member: The minister hasn’t been around that much himself.

Mr. Martel: He wasn’t here on Tuesday. He shouldn’t shoot his mouth off.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There have been tests untold and I’ll get the exact number and report to the member. I want to say to the member that those particular mines in the Elliot Lake area have spent considerable sums in the last few years at the insistence of my ministry to improve their ventilation.

Mr. Ferrier: The men’s health has been destroyed.

Mr. Martel: Would the minister be surprised to learn that the only tests which have been taken have been by Denison; and this ministry has accepted those tests, which in fact have all been cooked?

Mr. Laughren: Same old story.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that particular statement, but I want to make it very clear that in our discussions with the union in the last few months we have indicated to them that they can accompany our staff. They can be right with us as will be the representatives, of the company; the union can be with them when those tests are taken through all parts of the mine.

Mr. Lewis: Sure, 12 years after the report.

Mr. Martel: By way of supplementary, have I made --

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, if I may?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West. The hon. member for Sudbury East has had two supplementaries.

Mr. Martel: That’s just too bad. It’s an important issue.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West. Are there any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary of this minister. Does the minister recognize that the 700 workers at Denison are still out until they get some kind of commitment from his ministry that after all these years he will begin to take seriously the disintegration of human health in the uranium industry? When is he going to give them that commitment so they can return to work?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the members of this House that we have always taken very seriously the health --

Mr. Laughren: Not true.

Mr. Lewis: Why did they walk out of the mine?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- conditions and environmental conditions at any mine, and we will continue along those lines.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If the ministry has taken it so seriously and if so much has been added in ventilation, can he tell me why there are 140 silicosis cases in the Elliot Lake area?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, if the member would refer to my earlier remarks, he’ll have the answers to that particular question.

Mr. Martel: I have referred to his earlier remarks, they were nonsense from start to finish.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

INQUIRY INTO HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES’ REMUNERATION

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. It’s now Thursday, April 25, according to my dates, and the hospital workers have threatened to strike on May 1. What does he have to report to the Legislature?

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I did undertake to make a statement in the middle of the week concerning the negotiations between the Toronto hospitals and CUPE. However, there are very intensive meetings going on at this very moment and we have imposed a blackout on both sides. There is a point in time when the minister has to keep silent. This is it. Members will have to bear with me.

Mr. Deans: That’s what he said the last time.

Mr. Lewis: He is silent from the beginning of the year to the end of the year, in most cases.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: The member will have to bear with me. The members will have to bear with me. A statement will come from the government as soon as it is feasible.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may: Is it not true that the offer that was made by the hospitals in the last 24 hours was an offer which continued to maintain the disparity between the average wage for the hospital worker and those in comparable areas in the public sector at more than $1 an hour, and is therefore completely unacceptable to the hospital workers? Unless the minister gives the hospitals the additional money he is inviting a strike next week. Does he not understand that?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the issues and I think it would be most inappropriate at this point in time to make any further comments on that issue.

Mr. Deans: When is it appropriate?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, may I ask, by way of supplementary if the minister has asked his committee or commission that he has charged with looking into the wages of hospital workers, for an interim report so that he can have something in his hands to deal with the situation? Or is the minister going to wait until the matter has been resolved or there is a strike and then get his report?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: There is no doubt in anybody’s mind, Mr. Speaker, that the commission of inquiry which I appointed some time ago, in no way could interfere with the present negotiations. I don’t know how it appeared in the paper that the commission will not report before May 6. In fact, I don’t think the commission can report before, let’s say, August at the soonest.

Mr. Lewis: Of course not. That is why the minister has to do something in the next five days.

Mr. Reid: So why did the minister set it up that way?

Mr. Martel: The minister wants the strike.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Well, because we want eventually to know exactly --

Mr. Lewis: The ministry is now studying the legal procedure of enjoining the workers before the courts.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: -- the comparison between similar jobs in the private and public sector. I am sure the commission will be of great value for both sides when it does report. I don’t know why the papers said that it should report before May 6.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): So the minister doesn’t think it will have any effect on this?

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Yes; is the Minister of Labour familiar with this report of the role study committee prepared by the Ontario Hospital Association which refers to the many duplications of services between the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Hospital Association? And if the minister is familiar with it, why does the government not move to eliminate these duplications and use all the money that would be saved to increase the hospital workers’ wages?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Really, Mr. Speaker, I just don’t think I received that report. If the hon. member wants to make it available to me I would be glad to look at it.

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

PARK NEAR KOMOKA

Mr. Lewis: Just one last question of the Minister of Natural Resources: Does the minister recall announcing, some time ago, the 1,800-acre park outside London, Ont., which was near Komoka? Am I right about that? And does he remember learning just after he announced the park that 22 days before his announcement an entire subdivision had been approved in the middle of the park by Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs? What has happened to this day?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of that elaborate urban type of provincial park which we are developing on the outskirts of the London

Mr. R. F. Nixon: With a city in the middle of it.

Mr. Lewis: It certainly is elaborate.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): He has a highway going through another one.

Mr. Bounsall: Called the great green belt.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That park is for people in the London area and is going to be a tremendous success.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: They look like houses to me.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, there was a subdivision which was approved.

Mr. Good: A camper in every backyard.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have contacted Government Services and they are moving in to make the purchase; and if it has to be expropriated, we will do so.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister know that up until this week and into this week, the owner of the subdivision area has been bulldozing through the centre of the proposed park -- through the 50 acres; that pictures have been taken and are available; that he intends to proceed with the construction of the subdivision and has had no notice of intent to expropriate or any other word from any of the government’s ministries? Now, how does the minister allow that to be done to a provincial park?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I think this is entirely incorrect. I have been in contact with my colleague, the Minister of Government Services, and he assures me there has been contact made with this contractor.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister might ask the members from the area too.

Mr. Lewis: I see. Well, may I say in self-defence that there has been contact. Has the minister served a notice of intent to expropriate?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member who asked the first question should be entitled to a supplementary.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: No further questions?

Mr. Singer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, the hon. member for Downsview may have a supplementary question.

Mr. Singer: Could the minister advise whether he has been in touch with his colleague, the Minister of the Environment to ascertain whether or not services are going to be provided in the middle of the provincial park -- water, sewers and so on? And is his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, working with him to maintain this as a park, or is it going ahead as a subdivision?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, Mr. Speaker, that contact --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is nodding even though he has never heard of it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- will be made in due course, as the hon member may know.

Mr. Singer: Oh, yes.

Mr. Foulds: He is going to start building next week.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A couple of dandies after that one.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We are establishing a committee --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Not another advisory committee.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- within the area, made up of very responsible people who will assist us in the --

An hon. member: They’re all responsible there.

Mr. Singer: Even though they look like houses it is really a park.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- planning for that area; and when their report is received we will be making contact with the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Big greenhouses.

Mr. Stokes: The minister will have to change his park classification.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West has no further questions?

The hon. Minister of Colleges and Universities has the answer to a question asked previously.

ADMISSION TESTS AT CAMBRIAN COLLEGE

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) asked if I was prepared to issue a directive to Cambrian College in Sudbury so that they would discontinue using the services of Dent Psychometrical Services from Dalton, Ohio, in order to determine admission tests of nursing students.

Well Mr. Speaker, as I stated in the House on April 23, it is our policy to permit different institutions to determine which students are selected for their nursing programmes. However, I share the hon. member’s concern regarding certain of these selection practices. There will be a meeting of chairmen of nursing education programmes on May 1 and one item on the agenda is this matter of psychometric testing.

In addition, the provincial advisory committee on nursing education, a body which reports to the Council of Regents, will be meeting in mid-May. I have requested that selection procedures be included on its agenda and I will be pleased to report to the House on the results of those meetings.

The hon. member also asked as a supplementary question: “Is the minister not aware that the community college at North Bay and the community college at Sault Ste. Marie are conducting their own admission tests into the nursing courses?”

In fact that is not quite correct. Canadore at North Bay is using the comparative guidance and placement test which is an American one, administered by the college but scored by Educational Testing Services of California. Work is being done at Canadore, however -- it’s going to be a long term process -- to adjust this test to make it a Canadian one.

At Sault College there are no psychological tests at the moment and they are looking at some tests for basic literacy and aptitude, especially for those who have been out of the profession for some time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Natural Resources also has the answer to a question asked previously.

BURNING OF WILDERNESS CABINS

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I would like to reply to a question that was asked by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds). It was directed to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr.

Grossman). It involved policy with regard to my ministry concerning the probe of developments on Crown land, particularly unauthorized developments.

I would just like to explain that in 1969 it was discovered that Mr. Denis Hobischuck had occupied Crown land with a frame cottage on Circle Lake west of Innes township without authority. This was in an area zoned for no development and Mr. Hobischuck was asked to make arrangements to have his building removed.

The time to effect removal was arranged but Mr. Hobischuck failed to vacate. Following notice to vacate Mr. Hobischuck agreed, but made every attempt to retain possession, including staking the area under the Mining Act. The building location was never authorized however, and notice and a warrant were eventually issued for removal, pursuant to the Public Lands Act.

Mr. Hobischuck was given ample notice that the building was to be removed and requested to remove his personal belongings. On March 13, 1974, ministry staff attended at the site, accompanied by an officer of the Ontario Provincial Police. All personal be- longings were removed from the building, itemized and placed under a plastic covering. The building was then dismantled and the remains were burned.

To summarize, Mr. Hobischuck occupied Crown land without authority in an area not open to disposition. His building was not a legitimate mining building and he did not stake the claim until notified to remove it. He attempted to secure the site in an area not open to others. He did not take advantage of the ample opportunity granted him to remove his interests and the building; and of course, the building was therefore removed as is provided under the Public Lands Act.

I would like to say that the unauthorized occupation of Crown land has become prevalent over the past years and my ministry is taking firm steps to bring it under control. Areas are being zoned for recreational use, in co-operation with representatives from the local interest groups, in the best interests of the public as a whole. To permit certain individuals to deliberately occupy lands without authority where occupancy is denied to law-abiding citizens would serve only to make mockery of the laws and would leave hollow the land use plan for the area.

With reference to Fallingsnow Lake, there are two cabins involved, owned by Jack Lankinen. One was originally authorized as a trapper’s cabin and the other in conjunction with a timber licence. The timber licence expired in 1970. Both cabins, originally authorized for resource harvesting, are now being used primarily as summer cottages. The shoreland of this lake was withdrawn from disposition because of lack of soil to support waste disposal. Others who have buildings on the shoreline have complied with the request to remove them.

The cabins claimed by Mr. Lankinen are on bedrock, less than 35 feet from the shoreline. Continued use of them as recreational accommodation will lead to pollution of one of the finest trout lakes in the vicinity. Mr. Lankinen was given ample opportunity to remove the building to a site well back from the lake where he would be granted a land use permit. He declined, and the sheriff was instructed to issue a formal notice, following which a warrant would issue for the removal.

I understand, however, that Mr. Lankinen has reconsidered and has asked the sheriff to delay issue of the notice to permit him to negotiate a new building location.

My ministry will lean over backwards to accommodate any legitimate use of Crown land. It cannot, however, condone continued abuses in the way of unauthorized occupation, contrary to the public interest, producing no revenue and often in defiance of the minimum health requirements, for a few bold individuals who are enjoying privileges denied the law-abiding citizens of this province.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that in our efforts to bring the widespread unauthorized use of Crown land under control, it is necessary in some instances to remove buildings, most of which have deteriorated beyond human habitation. These are usually dismantled, any usable materials salvaged and the refuse burned. We do not practise whole- sale destruction of buildings by burning them.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the answer was a lengthy answer and should more properly have been given as a ministerial statement. I will, therefore, add two minutes to the question period.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: It was just a little over four minutes in length.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Okay.

Mr. Speaker: I assume that two or two and a half minutes is reasonable. I therefore add two minutes to the question period.

The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain when Mr. Hobischuck received the notice to vacate? And what assurance does he have from the ministry officials that Mr. Hobischuck received that notice? Isn’t it in fact true that the last letter that Mr. Hobischuck received was to the intent that the ministry was not going to proceed with the dismantling of the cabin?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have those exact dates, but this matter goes back to 1969 and the notices are sent by registered mail. We just accept it as for granted that he has received them. In fact, in this particular case I believe there has been conversation with Mr. Hobischuck in this connection.

Mr. Foulds: Only after the verdict.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Elgin is next. The hon. member for Elgin.

Mr. Singer: Have we got one of those?

Mr. Reid: We forgot who he was.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. McNeil: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Reid: Stand up!

SUPPLY AND PRICE OF FERTILIZER

Mr. McNeil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Since some farmers are being limited in the amount of fertilizer they can obtain, can the Minister of Agriculture and Food --

Mr. Lewis: I was in St. Thomas last night.

Mr. McNeil: -- advise the House if sufficient fertilizer will be available this spring for spring planting?

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister without Portfolio): There’s lots of it over there.

Mr. MacDonald: Let’s have another national conference to find out the answer to that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member for York South is an expert on fertilizer. I’ll go along with that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, perhaps the best authorities on the availability of fertilizer are immediately across the floor.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s where it is.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister ought to know. He adds to it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend’s question, I cannot provide an answer that there will be sufficient supplies of fertilizer for everyone this spring. I think it is fair to advise the House, however, that I have been in constant touch with the Plant Food Council of Ontario --

Mr. Martel: Get some from the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- and with several of the fertilizer manufacturing companies. I was encouraged yesterday to learn from United Co- operatives of Ontario, UCO, that they have just received, at long last, a boatload of phosphate fertilisers from Florida. These phosphate materials amounting to 14,000 tons will be unloading beginning on Saturday of this week. That, blended with the other, materials, will likely result in a volume of about 35,000 tons. We are also pleased to know that the Port Maitland plant will continue in operation for some time and we will gain, I expect, about 16,000 tons of superphosphate there.

Mr. Haggerty: How much of that are they exporting?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: None of that will be ex- ported; that will all be for Ontario use.

Mr. Haggerty: Good.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We have been advised as well by United Co-operatives of Ontario that another boatload of phosphate fertilizer is on the way from Florida and will be available likely in time for corn planting.

There wall be a scarcity, I believe, of nitrogen fertilizers and we are concerned about this. We have been in touch, as recently as this morning, Mr. Speaker, with the plant food council again about available supplies of nitrogen fertilizers including anhydrous ammonia and urea. But I believe we should pay some tribute to United Co-operatives of Ontario.

I was interested to learn from the general manager that had they directed that boatload of fertilizer across the Atlantic to Europe rather than bringing it down the St. Lawrence --

Mr. Deans: What has that got to do with the answer to the question?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Certainly it has to do with the answer to the question.

Mr. Deans: It is another statement.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- that boatload of fertilizer --

Mr. Deans: The question was simple and the minister answered it.

Mr. Singer: What was the name of the ship it was coming on?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That boatload of fertilizer would have sold for $1 million more in Europe than it would sell for right here in the Province of Ontario. To my way of thinking that is good corporate responsibility shown to the Province of Ontario by UCO.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s the exception that proves the rule in their moral responsibility in this field.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s a lot of fertilizer.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry; the hon. member for Huron-Bruce wanted a supplementary.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: In view of the fact the industry has made a commitment to supply our needs first and in view of the fact there have been, at various periods during this spring, large exports to the United States, could the minister give a commitment to meet with the industry and assure the farmers in this province that the earlier commitment of the industry will be fulfilled?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the only commitment I know of is to meet what they gave the industry last year in the Province of Ontario. I know of no other commitment beyond that. When one recognizes the fact there are greatly increased demands for fertilizer materials this year in Ontario, it just looks as though it would be very difficult to assure that they will all be met. They are trying to do it.

For instance, one company manufacturing anhydrous ammonia is guaranteeing at least nine per cent more than it manufactured last year. But those companies are tied up with long-term contracts for exports as well.

As a matter of fact, if they hadn’t those export contracts they would never have located here in the first place because the demand for fertilizer within Canada in the last few years has been so insignificant that we simply wouldn’t have fertilizer plants located here. I think we have to be fair enough and take that into consideration. On the other hand, there are some companies -- I should say distributors -- which depended completely on sources of fertilizer outside Ontario to meet their demands. They now find themselves with those sources restricted to a great degree and they are trying to find additional sources right here. I think we have to recognize that if the total volume of fertilizer in this country were offered to the world market they would have it just like that. They could sell it anywhere. For instance, UCO --

Mr. Deans: If we were to set up a windmill, the minister could produce a lot of energy.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I will tell the House I wouldn’t be able to compete with my friend from Wentworth, that is for sure.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The NDP has just lost the fertilizer vote.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Martel: Is this a filibuster?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: UCO advise me that urea, which is a nitrogen fertilizer, was offered at $260 a ton at Rotterdam, Europe, loaded on ship; the price here to the farmers is $170. When I hear these people across the floor talking about the ripoff of the corporate people --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Shame.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- I have to think we have a lot to be thankful for right here.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): They are not interested in fertilizer over there.

Mr. Speaker: The two replies were quite lengthy and I am obliged to add some more time to the question period. There will be two more minutes.

The hon. member for Rainy River.

VIOLENCE IN AMATEUR HOCKEY

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Social and Community Services in regard to his statement today.

Is the minister aware that under section 7(a) someone in the sports field has to ask the minister to carry out an investigation and should the investigation not be carried out under section 7 subsection (b) of the Act?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would be very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to grant the request and to have the investigation under both 7(a) and 7{b).

Mr. Reid: Has anybody asked the minister?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): The member for Rainy River did.

An hon. member: Has the minister been asked?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No.

Mr. Reid: May I ask, by way of a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, what the terms of reference are of Mr. McMurtry? Is it going to cover all levels of hockey from peewee right up; and secondly, how much is he getting paid?

An hon. member: The NHL particularly.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I have asked Mr. McMurtry to report back as soon as possible; and he expects to be able to report back within a month. The total cost of the inquiry will be about $5,000; and that includes his fees plus secretaries and so forth. I sent the hon. member a copy of the statement and he has received it. As he can see by the statement, especially in the last paragraph, it says --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Roy is not very busy these days.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s not Roy.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: “ ... to examine the full circumstances and implications arising from this case ... ” Then subsequently we will be in a much better position to decide if a fuller and a more extensive study is required. I would be pleased to get the views of this hon. member as well as any other member in this House on this very important subject.

Mr. MacDonald: This is another Part I study.

Mr. Stokes: Is Eagleson too busy?

Mr. Reid: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the shortness of time, I think one supplementary is sufficient.

The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Stokes: The minister wouldn’t get Eagleson for that price.

Mr. Laughren: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Singer: Wasn’t Henderson available for that job?

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

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT

Mr. Laughren: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker: Is the Minister of Labour now prepared to introduce an amendment to the Employment Standards Act that would make it mandatory for employers to compensate employees who are sent home from work as the result of a stop order so that workers do not continue to pay the price of pollution control in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, the Employment Standards Act is being reviewed at the present time by our legislative committee. However, this aspect has not been considered.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury East, a supplementary.

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of Labour: In view of the fact that Falconbridge can simply add a few more charges per shift over the next week to recover what the losses were, and in view of the fact the salaried employees didn’t lose anything by the close-down, isn’t this government prepared to protect the rights of the hourly employees who lose all of their income in a shutdown. The only loser is the hourly employee.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: Which way does the member for Sudbury East want it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: This ministry, particularly, is always concerned about the employees.

Mr. Lewis: Always!

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce is up next.

NEW HOSPITAL AT OWEN SOUND

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, in view of the fact that yesterday the city of Owen Sound hospital board of governors have been notified that, regardless of the fact that their halls are full of beds at all times, we will not be getting a new hospital within the foreseeable future of one decade or so; and in view of the fact that the town of Midland has a new hospital with the ramifications that he knows about: and the fact that Hanover has a new $4 million hospital; will the Premier enlighten me, sir, on government policy on a large capital cost like a hospital? Is it the policy of the government to provide hospitals on the basis of need or political reasons? If need is the yardstick, I would appreciate it if he would give me and the people of Grey-Bruce, his word that he will investigate this scandalous situation and justify it to the people of our area.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I didn’t want to interrupt proceedings, but before I answer the question I’m sure the members will not object if I do take the opportunity to welcome to the Legislature grade 8 students from Huttonville public school, which happens to be geographically located in the riding of Peel North.

I would only say to the member for Grey-Bruce, yes, I can assure him that decisions of this nature are made on the basis of need.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: Will the Premier do me and my people the courtesy of investigating the need here and give me an answer on why we can’t get a hospital within the next decade, if he is still here?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: If?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the presumption, at least, on the part of the member for Grey-Bruce that I will be here; I share that presumption with him. I can only say I will be quite pleased to discuss it with the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lanark.

An hon. member: The Leader of the Opposition better have a talk with the member.

Mr. Sargent: If we get a report --

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary is sufficient. The hon. member for Lanark.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lanark. It has been agreed by the members to be courteous enough to restrict it to one supplementary in view of the shortness of time. I recognize the hon. member for Lanark.

ALLEGED STOCKPILING OF BALER TWINE

Mr. D. J. Wiseman (Lanark): I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Could the minister tell us if he is aware of wholesale suppliers of baler twine stockpiling the twine in hopes that they can drive the price even higher? Can his ministry do anything to stop this? I took the time today to phone four or five suppliers --

Mr. MacDonald: Question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member should not make a statement; he should ask his questions.

Mr. Wiseman: -- in my area and found it to be $20 to $30.

Mr. Singer: Question.

Mr. Wiseman: Does the minister feel that some of these people are taking advantage of our farmers?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker I didn’t catch all of my hon. friend’s question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let him repeat it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: What was the price he was quoted this morning? I didn’t catch it; my friends over there were talking.

Mr. Wiseman: The prices were anywhere from $20 to $30; and I wonder if the minister feels that at $30 they are taking advantage of our farmers?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Of what?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago I had the opportunity to meet with the executive officers of the UCO. We discussed this matter of twine because the UCO has had the reputation of supplying well over half of the total twine used in the Province of Ontario. At that time they assured us they would do everything they could to provide the usual sources of supply of baler twine but they were not sure at that time what the price might be.

I was assured as recently as yesterday that UCO have a boatload of twine now in Toronto harbour which will be unloaded forthwith. It will be shipped directly to their southwestern Ontario outlets and the price will be $19.95 per bale, cash and carry. To me that sets a price which is much less than my hon. friend quoted and which I have heard quoted in other places.

That shipment of twine represents 40 per cent of what they normally bring in. They have another 35 per cent on the way in another boatload which will be here a little later on. They feel they will be able to supply about 65 to 70 per cent of the total amount of twine necessary to meet requirements in the Province of Ontario. Again, I think that is a responsible position to take and should establish a decent price for twine in view of the very great scarcity of it throughout the world today.

Mr. Deans: I think the minister is stringing us a line.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We’re glad he asked that question.

Mr. Wiseman: A supplementary: Would it be fair to ask, who would bring this in at the $20 mark or under $20?

Mr. Deans: Which boat?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: United Co-operatives of Ontario.

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

MINAKI LODGE

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Since the ministry has already spent in excess of $550,000 on Minaki Lodge and since the Ontario Development Corp. has already committed itself to an expenditure of about $5 million in additional funds, what kind of assurance is he going to give to the taxpayers of the Province of Ontario that they are going to get value for money? What kind of assurance can he give that before it is turned back to private enterprise the Province of Ontario will recover all of the money it has in it?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, first of all let’s get the $5 million straightened out. The cabinet has authorized a maximum expenditure of $5 million for the upgrading and improvement of Minaki. There will not be expenditures made without the approval of this government.

At the moment we have approximately $1.3 million invested in Minaki. That includes the $550,000 loan we made to Minaki originally, as well as paying off the first mortgage which was held by the original mortgagee to the property. As far as the value goes, in the projections we have, both from a government point of view and from an industrial point of view, it is clearly indicated to us that this is a valuable asset to the province. The expansion of it will mean a productive position as far as tourism is concerned in northwestern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Run by Canadians.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is that why the government is acting to sell it now?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The assurance we give this House is that it is not the intention of this government to dispose of Minaki at a price lower than what our capital investment will be on the day, if it should come, when we will dispose of the asset.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They’ll have it for a long time.

An hon. member: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

An hon. member: What was the price?

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has now expired.

Mr. Lewis: So much for Maple Mountain.

Mr. Singer: The Minister of Agriculture and Food had two more questions ready for him, too.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which I would have liked to read while the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) was here, but since it is pressing I’ll read it now:

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario.

“Hon. Sir and members of the Legislature:

“We, the undersigned, James H. Robertson and Irvine D. Muir, do hereby present our humble petition to the assembly on behalf of the concerned citizens of the municipalities of Wainfleet, West Lincoln and Pelham for the redress by this House of our grievance, to wit:

“1. Niagara South Board of Education was petitioned following the advice of the hon. Minister of Education on Feb. 5, 1974, at Niagara Falls;

“2. The Niagara South Board of Education has declined to act concerning our grievances; and

“3. That the impasse between the Niagara South Board of Education and the 2,434 signatories can only be resolved if this House should choose to intervene.

“To this end we humbly request such action by the House as follows:

“1. That we be heard by the social development committee or any other appropriate committee regarding these grievances;

“2. That the House initiate a study of the educational needs of Niagara South Board of Education and Lincoln County Board of Education as requested here and as requested also by the governments of the town of Pelham and the township of West Lincoln;

“3. That the closing of Pelham Secondary School in June, 1974, be rescinded.”

And it is signed accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I have photostated the full petition with the 2,400 names, and when the Minister of Education returns to the House, we shall take some time to question him. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Mr. J. A. Taylor, from the standing private bills committee, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the Waterloo-Wellington Airport.

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the city of Chatham.

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting Savings and Investment Trust.

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting Lake of the Woods District Hospital.

Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the Presbyterian Church Building Corp.

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the city of Kitchener.

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the University of Western Ontario.

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the city of Windsor.

Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the city of London.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing and penalties, if any, be remitted on Bill Pr26, An Act respecting Lake of the Woods District Hospital, and Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the Presbyterian Church Building Corp.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES ACT

Mr. Singer moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ministry of Government Services Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for an expansion to the section of the Ministry of Government Services Act and to make sure that the government require tenders for all purchases of goods or of real estate exceeding $750; that there be no contracts let without tender except in cases of emergency, and that if there is such an emergency and the minister responsible feels he should let a contract without a tender he is compelled to immediately report to the House the circumstances of such an emergency.

FIRE PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Deans moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act relating to the Installation of Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems in Buildings.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, the bill provides that certain buildings or structures over three storeys in height, or 45 ft in height to the roof line above grade, be equipped with approved automatic fire extinguishing systems. The purpose of the bill, I suspect, is obvious to all members of the House. It is an attempt to bring about a safer environment in which to work and to live, and to eliminate much of the loss that has been occurring, by requiring that older buildings renovated for new purposes include fire extinguishing services.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT

Mr. Riddell moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): The bill, Mr. Speaker, provides more adequate legislation pertaining to the construction, safety features and operation of school buses. It outlines the necessary qualifications for a school bus operator and provides for the retesting of school bus operators when their chauffeur’s licences are due for renewal.

It requires operators of school buses to report to the ministry where they have refused to operate a school bus because they considered the vehicle to be unsafe, mechanically unfit or overloaded. It extends the duties of drivers to situations where a school bus may be travelling on that part of a highway where the speed limit is less than 35 miles an hour.

Lastly, the amendment provides for school bus safety standards and a school bus patrol programme. These standards, Mr. Speaker, incorporate the recommendations of the Ontario Public School Men Teachers’ Federation regarding school bus safety.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, before I introduce my bill, I would like to call to the attention of the members of the Legislature two groups from northwestern Ontario. One group is composed of public school students from Cochenour, Ont. I would say that this is one of the most northerly schools in the Province of Ontario. They have come down by CNR and the trip down here took them about 27 hours. I am pleased to say that they have participated in the Young Voyageur programme, which of course pays for about 90 per cent of the travelling costs of those groups of students from northern Ontario.

In addition, we have a group from the Keewatin Public School, led by Mr. Morrison, their teacher; and the Cochenour Public School group is led by Mr. Perchaluk. We would like to welcome them.

FOREST FIRES PREVENTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Bernier moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Forest Fires Prevention Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this is a housekeeping bill in nature; it brings the wording of sections into line with the reorganization of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, before we proceed, is it the House leader’s intention to proceed with the Energy estimates immediately after this bill has been completed?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think in fairness, this evening I will endeavour to give the House a full account of the legislative programme.

Mr. Breithaupt: Okay. Thank you very much.

LAND TRANSFER TAX ACT (CONCLUDED)

House in committee on Bill 26, the Land Transfer Tax Act, 1974.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 26, the Land Transfer Tax Act, 1974. We were discussing section 4 when we rose.

On section 4:

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Yes, Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned we were discussing section 4, and I believe the hon. member for Riverdale was speaking with respect to subsections (7) and (8). He may have some comments to offer on those at this moment.

Perhaps I would simply observe that in the interval my staff and I have had a chance to consider -- as I always try to do -- but I had an opportunity to consider in detail the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Riverdale. Frankly, I want to compliment him on his analysis of the subject as he expressed it to us.

We have concluded that there is some merit in what he has said about those subsections. In the past, and they are subsections taken from the old Act, they have never been contested in the courts. There is some question in our minds, too, as to their constitutional validity. We think that in the circumstances we could very well entertain a motion by the member for Riverdale to delete subsections (7) and (8) from the bill, on the understanding that my ministry would then require more than the three- year period presently provided under another subsection to enforce any lien which might arise and not come to our attention for some while.

So I would be moving, when we eventually reach section 7, subsection (3), to change the period as set out in that section from three years to read six years.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the minister. I have had an opportunity to consider the amendment which he proposes, to delete subsections (7) and (8) of section 4 of the bill. I would so move that deletion. Then I would like to have an opportunity to speak to it, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Renwick moves that subsections (7) and (8) of section 4 of the bill be deleted.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to the motion because while I appreciate the minister and his advisers believe it would be wise constitutionally to delete the clauses, I do not want anyone to have the impression that that necessarily cures the constitutional defect in the bill. I don’t intend to go on at any great length but I would like to look at the provision of subsection (7), which reads as follows:

“When the affidavit required by subsection (1) is made by the transferor or by a person acting as attorney, agent or solicitor for the transferor, the transferor is personally liable to the Crown jointly and severally with the transferee for the amount of the tax.”

Subsection 8:

“Where the transferor is compelled to pay the tax or a part thereof, he has the right to recover the amount so paid from the transferee in an action in any court of competent jurisdiction.”

The classic statement, of course, with respect to the imposition of taxes by a provincial Legislature, is the case of the Bank of Toronto and Lamb, which was on appeal to the Privy Council in 1887. I am referring to an excerpt from it as published in the Laskin’s Canadian Constitutional Law, fourth edition, which has just recently been issued.

“The question before the court in the Lamb case was whether a particular tax,” [and I don’t need to go into the question of the nature of the tax in that case] “was direct or indirect, and whether it was a tax levied within the province. The provision of the North America Act, subsection 2 of section 92 specifically grants authority, limited as it is by the words of that section, to ‘direct taxation within the province in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes.’”

The first question which came up was whether or not it was a direct tax or an indirect tax, and I quote further on in the case:

“After some consideration, Mr. Kerr, counsel for the appellant, chose the definition of John Stuart Mill as the one he would prefer to abide by. That definition is as follows: ‘Taxes are either direct or indirect. A direct tax is one which is demanded from the very persons who it is intended or desired should pay it. Indirect taxes are those which are demanded from one person in the expectation and intention that he shall indemnify himself at the expense of another.’

“The Privy Council went on to say: ‘Their lordships then take Mill’s definition, above quoted, as a fair basis for testing the character of the taxing question, not only because it is chosen by the appellants counsel, nor only because it is that of an eminent writer, nor with the intention that it should be considered a binding legal definition, but because it seems to them to embody with sufficient accuracy for this purpose an understanding of the most obvious indicia of direct and indirect taxation, which is a common understanding and is likely to have been present in the minds of those who passed the Federation Act.’

“Having decided the nature of the tax in that particular case, the next question which the Privy Council had to consider is whether the tax is taxation within the province. The answer to this argument is that class 2 of section 92 does not require that the persons to be taxed by Quebec are to be domiciled or even resident in Quebec. Any person found within the province may legally be taxed there if taxed directly.”

I am making the point that while, as I stated, I welcome the minister’s agreement with the point insofar as sections 7 and 8 are concerned, the mere deletion of those sections does not necessarily solve the problem. It is perfectly clear that the intention is to impose the tax on the non-resident, not the non- resident if he happens to be found within the jurisdiction, but it is intended that the basic tax be a tax imposed on the non-resident.

If I can drop the word “Quebec” from the quotation which I used and refer to Ontario regarding the question of whether the taxation is within the province, the answer to this argument is that class 2 of section 92 does not require that the persons to be taxed by Ontario are to be domiciled or even resident in Ontario. Any person found within the province may legally be taxed there if taxed directly.

Well, probably some day in the Supreme Court of Canada the case will have made its way up to that level, because we are imposing a tax which is of sufficient magnitude to make it worth somebody’s while, it would appear to me, to challenge the validity of the tax. And, one of these days -- I am not given often to prophecy -- I wouldn’t be at all surprised, or perhaps I could put it in a slightly less positive way, I am inclined to the view that somebody will test this tax in the Supreme Court of Ontario and ultimately it will find its way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the question which my friend, the Minister of Revenue -- when he was speaking with me about his intention to introduce the proposed amendment -- referred to as an esoteric one may possibly become one of immense practicality insofar as the intentions of the government are concerned with respect to this Act.

I felt it wise in the circumstances to make these comments because, even though I move the amendment and I appreciate the minister’s remarks about the point which I made on Friday, I personally believe that the bill remains flawed in respect of any endeavour to tax persons beyond this jurisdiction, who are the persons who are intended to bear the tax. If a non-resident or a corporation controlled by non-residents is the party involved, so that the person is within the jurisdiction, that’s a different matter, but it is intended to impose a tax under this Act on non-resident persons who do not happen to be within the jurisdiction, and it is that part of the taxing jurisdiction which I believe will ultimately show that the prime taxing section, subsection (2) of section 2, will be held to be beyond the powers of the province.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I think the hon. member is misinterpreting what I believe to be the ratio decidendi to be taken from the case of Bank of Toronto and Lamb, namely, that in interpretating section 9, subsection 2, the capacity is in the provinces to tax any person found within its boundaries. The hon. member says that himself. Now the tax is imposed at the time of registration of the instrument and is payable by the person who registers it. Therefore, although it may be a tax computed dependent upon the residency of the grantee as set out in the deed, it is our opinion that it is within the constitutional competence of the province to tax. We felt that these two sections, as indicated by the hon. member when we were deciding this on Tuesday last, not Friday were --

Mr. Renwick: I think we could leave it to the nine men in Ottawa to decide it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That may well be. It may well be that nine men in Ottawa may eventually make a decision on this. I would assume, and perfectly believe, that they will make it in our favour. Perhaps the hon. member would like to take the case on the opposite side and appeal it to the Supreme Court of Canada somewhat, because as he indicates, there may well be some cases where some righteously indignant non-resident may be prepared to pay his fee to carry that to the Supreme Court of Canada to contest the matter.

However, I don’t know why we are wasting time at this point. I gather we are all in agreement that subsections (7) and (8) should be deleted, although I notice the hon. member for Kitchener might care to say a word before we carry the section.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I am content with the logic of the member for Riverdale and his exposition of the point. I share with him the concern that there is the possibility of involving ourselves in a constitutional matter with respect to direct taxation. I presume that this matter may eventually go before the Supreme Court of Canada and, of course, the result will be something that will guide us in any future legislation that may be brought before this House. I am content, certainly, that the two subsections are being deleted by the minister and we are pleased to accept this move.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I just have a question or two, Mr. Chairman, about this, not in relation to the specifics, to which I bow to the constitutional wisdom of the minister and the member for Riverdale, but to the straight questions of enforcement which are then created and would exist anyway but are exacerbated by the deletion of these two sections.

When the two sections were in, then if the transferor was a resident of Ontario you had him within the jurisdiction of Ontario and you could find various means of enforcing collection of the tax upon the transferor if you couldn’t get hold of the tax from the transferee. That has now ended in the cases where the transferee makes the registration.

In cases where the transferor makes the registration, then under section 9 if false statements have been made on affidavit, you can conceivably get your money by means of penalty, according to the penalty clauses of the Act. You still can’t get your tax, though, because the transferor is no longer jointly liable for the tax. If the transferee is a non-resident who takes pains not to actually set foot in Ontario but who has title to the land, we then may have an exceptionally difficult time actually making collection.

It seems to me that what is needed in the bill, and what is lacking, is some means by which a lien can be put upon the property in cases of non-payment of tax where the non-payment was discovered after the original conveyance had been registered. This could arise because of a dispute between the solicitors for the transferee and the law as to whether or not he was liable, or in fact a deliberate attempt to find loopholes and to evade the tax.

Nevertheless, in a case of a non-resident transferee, if we don’t have a lien against the property, it may be that the transferee can proceed to sell the property back to some Canadian or some other non-resident and to get out of the deal and that there is an incentive for him to come in, avoid the tax with intent and then get back out of the deal if he’s found out.

Now, if there is a lien on the property or some kind of encumbrance that the minister can put on the property -- and possibly he has other means of doing that -- then obviously the lien will be either reflected in the future price or it will inhibit the sale to the point where the transferee who is a non-resident will be sure to pay the tax when we catch him.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, ordinarily the affidavit would be taken by the transferee. He’s the one with knowledge of whether he is resident or non-resident. I think it would be an unusual case, in any event, where the transferor swore the affidavit; it is not in his interest to swear it in as much as the tax is payable on behalf of the transferee, whoever he may be. It’s possible, of course, that a false affidavit could be sworn in some kind of collusive arrangement. Now, we have all kinds of provisions for penalties, but if we can’t get at the deponent in the affidavit, whether he’s out of the jurisdiction for any reason, then of course that part goes by the way.

We have provided for a lien only during the interim period from and including April 10 to the date of proclamation of the Act, simply because at this stage there is no Act and we don’t want to treat this retroactively in a sense.

Otherwise, the penalties for the swearing of a false affidavit are pretty substantial. First of all, the amount of the tax payable as tax is a penalty. Secondly, there is a fine of a minimum of $50 and a maximum of $1,000. And, thirdly, under the Criminal Code, section 112, I believe, there is provision for up to 14 years in prison for fraud or the swearing or a false affidavit. So there are very serious penalties that flow, both financially and punitively, for the swearing of a false affidavit related to this kind of thing.

What the hon. member for Ottawa Centre says is true, I suppose, in that if we can’t get at him, we may not be able to enforce such a penalty. But we think that in the long run there’s little chance of many people escaping. I just can’t imagine that there would be that number of people who would be pre- pared to perjure themselves in their own interest, to say nothing of in the interests of someone else.

In the interest, too, of avoiding the clouding of every title, I think counsel, solicitors and their clerks investigating titles have to be able to look at these documents and determine on their face whether they are proper or not.

Given the opportunity then of the ministry to investigate these for a period of six years. if any evidence comes to the attention of the ministry of false affidavits, for instance, and with the ministry then able to pursue the individual who swore that false affidavit, we would then have adequate means to enforce the affidavit and the collection of the tax without the requirement of the imposition of a lien. You can see it would put conveyancing and the law oi conveyancing in a virtually impossible position if this were to create a lien arising out of the transaction.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, as the minister says, most people working in good faith are not going to perjure themselves in an affidavit.

We discussed in the Legislature a couple of days ago various devices which might or might not be defined as foreign-controlled corporations which were buying and selling land in Ontario. Presumably those would be the kinds of devices that one would find in cases where the tax was not paid and where the ministry subsequently decided that the tax should have been paid. If the non-resident chooses to keep out of the country, the ministry can’t do much about getting him on the violation of the Criminal Code, or the sections about false affidavits. But the way the law stands right now, nor could it do very much about getting the tax from them; and it seems to me that it shouldn’t let both of those elude its grasp. Therefore, should there not be a provision by which the ministry can place a lien on the property where it is determined in the opinion of the ministry that the property was conveyed, or transferred, to the non-resident and it was done so without payment of tax and with the intention, let’s say, of evading the tax?

I agree that not every property transferred to a non-resident should have a lien placed upon it. It’s clearly, though, to come in as a means of enforcement; otherwise the ministry is left powerless. It’s left with somebody who can come waltzing into the province, pick up the property, do whatever they wish with it, and a year or three later sell it again without paying this tax that was designed to deter them, or discourage them, from getting involved in the real estate market in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think it should be borne in mind, Mr. Chairman, that this is with respect to the purchaser. Should it come to the attention of the ministry that no tax was paid, then there are provisions later on in the bill -- I believe it’s section 9, but I would ask counsel to just confirm this to me -- in which the minister may then take steps to recover the tax that was payable, together with interest at nine per cent on the outstanding amount.

So, if the property is still there and it’s still held by the non-resident, then there is adequate opportunity, at least, for the ministry to proceed to recovery of the outstanding amount. It’s hanging over the head of the non-resident purchaser for a period of six years, if it should ever come to the attention of this ministry.

Mr. Cassidy: If I read this correctly, the interest on the unpaid tax accrues at nine per cent a year but the charge does not accrue against the property. It accrues against the owner and the ministry can get to the property, but it may not be able to get to the owner.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I’m sorry but the member has just said both sides of the argument. It does, in fact, accrue against the owner and is recoverable against him in the Supreme Court under section 14, I think it is. In any event, by the subsequent sections in the bill, there is provision for recovery of the tax against the owner.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Renwick: On section 5 -- and I don’t want to belabour it at great length at this point -- but my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, raises the question of enforcement. Of course, clause 5 sets out the procedure which would be followed -- it has nothing to do with false affidavits, or collusive affidavits, speaking here.

This sets out in some minute detail the exact procedure to be followed by a person who is called upon to pay the tax and the method by which he will dispute the questions of law which may be involved, or the facts which may be involved.

It provides, then, for an application. After consideration by the minister, and if there are questions of law, or questions of law in fact which can be agreed on, the matter can be referred to the Supreme Court. If the minister doesn’t do it within a certain number of days, then the person disputing the payment of tax can do it.

I think it’s the reverse side of the question which was raised by my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre. I notice that there are provisions in the regulations to provide for the collection of tax and the appointment of persons other than collectors to collect the tax, and establishing a procedure for the collection of the tax. If this is a constitutional question of a non-resident person not within the jurisdiction being required to pay the tax, then I think it should be made perfectly clear on the record, as I’m sure the minister and his advisers know, that it is a trite proposition of international law that one juris- diction will not enforce the revenue laws of another jurisdiction.

So it is not as if in the collection of the tax that the minister would have the benefit of being able to call in force something in the nature of the procedures set out in the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgements Act of the Province of Ontario, where reciprocity is established between various jurisdictions for the enforcement of the judgements of the courts of Ontario in the courts of other jurisdictions and vice versa.

I simply wanted to make the point on the record that the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgements Act or some analogous procedure is not available to the Crown in the right of the Province of Ontario in endeavouring to enforce a judgement of the court against a non-resident person not within the jurisdiction, to collect a tax against such a person by having access to the courts of the jurisdiction in which the particular non-resident person is either domiciled or resides or of which he is a national.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on section 5? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I am not really certain that there is not some kind of arrangement for collection, but if there is not I think that’s an interesting point to pursue. Otherwise, I don’t think I have any question or any point as to section 5 itself.

Section 5, subsection (1) is a direct take from the old Act with one or two little housekeeping amendments in it to tailor it to this new Act. Subsection (2) is new, as the hon. member for Riverdale has indicated, to provide for appeals and the other process necessary.

Section 5 agreed to.

On Section 6:

Mr. Chairman: On section 6 the hon. minister has an amendment.

Hon. Mr. Meen moves that subsection (1) of section 6 of the bill be amended by striking out “or was registered against the land on or after that date” in the 11th line and by inserting thereof “as part of or subsequent to the transaction or series of transactions that resulted in the tender for registration of the conveyance evidencing or carrying into effect the transaction or series of transactions.”

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I think it would be wise for anyone looking at this debate, as people may, if the minister would repeat succinctly in his own laconic way the reason for the proposed amendment which he gave us some days ago when the bill first came on for second reading, so that when the amendment is considered in Hansard by those who are interested in these matters, the reasons would be available at the point where the amendment was put.

Mr. Cassidy: This is being done for the sake of history.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I would be pleased to, Mr. Chairman. The difficulty is that when this Act becomes law there will be a lien potentially for any unpaid tax resulting on any transaction dating back to April 9.

Any mortgage advances that may have been made on building loans and otherwise in the meantime to builders themselves, Ontario or Canadian residents, by institutional mortgage loan companies would, as the section stands without amendment, be in a secondary position to a lien which might arise at some subsequent date and before the Act is proclaimed with respect to the non-resident status of a purchaser from that builder. It therefore created the apparition in the mind -- and it was a very real one -- of the lending institutions not being able, in fact, to make these loans because their authority is to make them only where they are a first charge without any encumbrance and priority to them.

It is for that reason, of course, that as the mortgagee’s solicitors make the advances they double check as to corporation tax liens and other questions that have to be checked out on the title itself, mechanics’ liens and the like, before any advance under a mortgage is made. This is therefore intended to protect those advances.

It is not our intention to have any such lien in priority to bona fide mortgage advances made prior to any sale to a non-resident. The section as amended by the amendment just read by you, Mr. Chairman, would, I believe, adequately protect these mortgage advances as they come along, but will nevertheless protect the lien where a sale might be made by, let’s say, a builder or a vendor, to a non-resident, whereby as part of that transaction he took back a second mortgage. That second mortgage would not by the wording of this amendment be in priority to the hen. In fact, under those circumstances it is intended that the lien would have priority over the second mortgage or other charge which arose at the time of, and out of, the arrangements through which the eventual conveyance to the non-resident took place.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 6, as amended, stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the minister has power to waive the lien conferred in section 6 -- this is under subsection (7). Could the minister state under what circumstances he envisages waiving this particular lien, and why?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, it is hard to envisage this at this time. I must say to the hon. member that subsection (7) of section 6, I think would have done what my amendment to subsection (1) accomplishes in a direct fashion; the subsection (7) would have covered that kind of thing.

Now there may be others; we simply don’t know. As I indicated earlier in these debates, in sailing through these unchartered waters we may well encounter areas which we simply did not anticipate, areas in which we may have to give some kind of postponement or abandonment, but I don’t know.

In this case there might well be some. For example, perhaps they would want to post security. Now if they were prepared to give me security for the loan, then the minister might well be in a position to release the lien which might otherwise be a cloud on the title. So there are various ways and reasons which could come up in the future, which we can’t envisage by specifics at this time, for which authority might be necessary under subsection (7).

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I think the simple way to discharge a lien would be to pay the tax, is it not?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Not necessarily, Mr. Chairman, because the money might not be there to pay the tax, but if the ministry were prepared to accept adequate security, the lien for the tax could then be waived.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister then suggesting that the ministry will be prepared to accept security for a lien in a number of cases in order to permit an owner to resell his property and then presumably to pay the tax out of the proceeds of that sale? Because if that is the case, then it is a deliberate encouragement to passing on the 20 per cent tax and applying it against the next purchaser, rather than against the non-resident transferee.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, the lien only arises during this very short period of time. We simply cannot envisage at this point what these requirements might be. I can’t imagine very many instances in which it would be necessary to do this, because ordinarily we would simply require the payment of the tax.

But particularly at this time and with respect to foreign non-resident contracts, it may be that, if they are unable to satisfy the minister that the contract was executed before April 9 and thereby escaped the tax, they would not have the money but that they would have other means whereby they could put up security for the payment of that money at some deferred date. It isn’t intended to permit them to acquire title and roll it over again, but let me say this that, even if that were the case, it still is a 20 per cent disincentive to a non-resident, compared with a resident, in any of these real estate transactions.

Mr. Cassidy: I question a number of discretionary clauses that are put in with the bill, Mr. Chairman. I just wonder whether the minister, given the fact that he doesn’t really see a need for this and that he has covered the major areas he wanted to cover, would take this one out and couldn’t either reduce or eliminate the other areas of discretion. I don’t think the government intends to use these in any high, wide and handsome kind of way. In fact, the entire purpose of the Act could be vitiated. You could make the Act completely useless by means of discretion which is built into the Act here and elsewhere, and that’s an awfully broad discretionary power.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I agree that there is discretion, but I think the hon. members must realize, as I have said already, and I don’t like to repeat myself although some members opposite seem to be quite prepared to do that, that I simply do require some area of latitude in the exercise of discretion here. Although I cannot now picture as many instances in which one might have to exercise that sort of discretion under subsection (7) as I did before, nevertheless, there are these other areas where payment of the tax might not be possible and where payment of the security or delivery of security in place of the tax would be an appropriate way to be able to clear the title and to take the cloud off the title, otherwise created by the lien.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, the minister has stated his point of view. We are going into untrodden territory with the tax. I wonder whether the minister would be willing to do the following: At the end of each year or at some similar appropriate time, would he be willing to report to the Legislature, in whatever form is convenient, about his exercise of discretion under the various discretionary clauses in the Act? I am not suggesting a case-by-case kind of report, but some means by which the members of the Legislature and the public can understand how and whether discretion was used and also, at the same time, to report to the Legislature on the volume and types of transactions which were in order to fill that information vacuum which the minister himself acknowledged exists in the interchange with the member for Riverdale.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member wasn’t here the other day when I said that we will be monitoring all of these matters with great care over the next few months. It might even be possible, if we have assembled adequate information in a readable, presentable form, before we rise at the end of June or whenever we rise for the summer vacation, that I will have some information for hon. members. I am not sure that it would be practical to try to report on every last case in which waivers of this sort were given.

Mr. Cassidy: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Nevertheless, some sort of summary of the numbers and that kind of thing will doubtless appear in the reports of my ministry in one fashion or another in the months and years ahead, particularly as we watch very carefully the way in which this Act and the Land Speculation Tax Act are working.

Mr. Cassidy: Let me try to narrow that down. The reports of the minister, like a number of government reports, tend to arrive on our desks about 15 months after the end of the fiscal year to which they relate. Would the minister agree to report more promptly than that, and regularly on the operations of this Act and the Land Speculation Tax Act?

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, I don’t think I can, Mr. Chairman. I simply have no idea, and I don’t think any hon. member of this House has any idea either, of just how much work may be involved and how much detail involved, how much sorting, compilation, and all the other matters that would go into this sort of thing. I won’t give that undertaking at this time.

I can tell the hon. members that we are just as anxious as they are to be able to see the effects and the degree of effects of both these Acts -- this and the Land Speculation Tax Act. I will have statements available from time to time, I would hope, for the hon. members; but I am not going to undertake any specific period of time for entering the report.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: On section 7 the minister has an amendment to subsection (3), I believe.

Hon. Mr. Meen moves that subsection (3) of section 7 be amended by striking out “three” years in the second line and inserting “six”.

Mr. Breithaupt: With respect to the amendment, I have no particular comment on that, but what does interest me in this section, Mr. Chairman, is the penalty section in subsection (1). It appears to me that --

Mr. Chairman: Does that have any effect on this? If not we can get this out of the way and then we can discuss subsection (1).

Mr. Breithaupt: That is quite satisfactory, unless my friend has some comments to make in respect to the six-year matter.

Mr. Renwick: I did want to make one. Does it matter? I wanted to make one comment about it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kitchener may proceed.

Mr. Breithaupt: All right, Mr. Chairman. The point that I raise will not be a lengthy one, but it deals particularly with the matters of the amounts of penalties that are set out in subsection (1). It seems to me that the approach which is being taken, that is, to have a penalty provision ranging from $50 to $1,000, is hardly adequate.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Has the hon. member thought of all the other penalties that apply, too?

Mr. Breithaupt: No, I agree that there are other penalties. Indeed, the minister had commented earlier on those that deal with a matter of fraud and with respect to the possibility of incarceration as a result; and to those which deal, of course, with the necessity of payment of the tax that has been avoided.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Times two.

Mr. Breithaupt: Those are two substantial penalties, but it seems to me that we should have a further penalty and one that is a little more substantial than the approach that is set out here. It may, for some at least, equate this as almost a tax for avoiding the thing. I think that we should be much more concerned about a substantial penalty.

It doesn’t seem to me that, in addition to the tax which should have been paid, or the matter of a possibility of a personal incarceration, that we, indeed, are even coming anywhere close to recovering possibly some of the costs of investigation and the other matters to which the ministry is put. I think that if the penalty provision were increased, we could come to a little closer balance in the thing.

This is only my comment and I would like to hear the minister’s view as to why this ratio is deemed to be acceptable.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Look, Mr. Chairman, it goes something like this. Suppose the tax payable were a couple of thousand dollars, okay. In addition to having to pay the tax, he has a $2,000 fine. In addition to that, he has something ranging between $50 and $1,000. Now, I don’t know what kind of costs would be involved to my ministry in investigation and prosecution of the matter, but I would assume that it would be covered by the degree of the $50 to $1,000 fine -- somewhere in that region -- plus the added amount of tax.

Recognize, then, that if the tax was $2,000 -- and I am taking a minimal case, a very small little deal, $10,000 for the $2,000 tax. Maybe we should be more realistic and take a $50,000 deal, in which the tax would then be $10,000. The penalty would be another $10,000. And so the non-resident, properly having to pay $10,000, winds up having to pay twice. He has paid a 40 per cent surcharge for the benefit of filing that false affidavit and -- to use the colloquial -- trying to beat the government out of the properly payable fund.

We think that this is a suitable disincentive when it can multiply and roll up to 40 per cent, plus other penalty provisions -- and also don’t lose sight of the fact of the potential 14 years in jail for a fraudulent affidavit.

Mr. Breithaupt: Well, I don’t think the 14-year figure might likely be imposed for that particular matter, but I am concerned that the attempts to recover the costs of investigation as well as have a disincentive, should be realistic. I think that the minister feels that this is a reasonable balance and, of course, this other thing that can be reviewed in years to come.

As long as he is aware of our concern in the matter I am sure that this too will be something that we will have to learn to grow through to see if this kind of a penalty scale is going to resolve the problem that we all can see and recover the costs that we think are proper.

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

Mr. Cassidy: I am aware that in the phrasing here the fine can be far more than the minister has laid out. He gave an example of a deal of $50,000 where the unpaid tax would be $10,000. The actual fine could go as high as $50,000 or $100,000 because there is no -- I am sorry, it can only be $50,000, that’s right. I’m sorry. The fine can be no more than $1,000 more than the unpaid tax, is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Meen: The unpaid amount.

Mr. Cassidy: The amount of the unpaid tax, plus --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, he owes the unpaid tax and a fine; if he owes $50,000 for unpaid tax, then he could owe a maximum of $51,000, with no further fine.

Mr. Cassidy: I had thought that I had got some new meaning out of the Act, and hadn’t.

Mr. Chairman, the point I was about to raise then does seem to be valid and that is that the problems of enforcement which are enshrouded here need to be borne in mind.

If the ministry is capable of catching up with most of the people who try to slip around this tax, using various corporate shells and that kind of thing, then the level of fine is fairly adequate. If, on the other hand, experience indicates to people who are in the business of trying to evade taxes that in nine cases out of 10 they can get away and not pay this particular tax -- I am not suggesting that 90 per cent of the tax accruing to the ministry will then be evaded, but I am suggesting that in that certain part of the market there will be individuals who can see that when they try to evade it, nine times out of 10 they succeed. Then they are faced with a 40 per cent tax on the one hand, but a tax which they can evade nine chances out of 10, so that the effective rate of the tax is only four per cent.

I wonder whether that is adequate. I wonder, in other words, whether the upper limit of the fine should not be increased beyond the $1,000, rather than leaving it here right now. The minister must bear in mind that for some people, investing in land in Canada is an alternative to investing in other countries where the economic situations are much different, and therefore the return they are willing to accept is less. The risk of paying that 40 per cent is quite acceptable to them, but the risk of having to pay 80 or 100 per cent of the value of the property might not be.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I don’t know how one can really assess at this stage the efficacy of this section any more accurately than we are endeavouring to assess it now, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cassidy: This is because you have no information to work on.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The nature of this kind of fine was dealt with in McRuer and a number of our other taxing statutes -- as, for example, our Gasoline Tax Act and its penalties. The provisions in that Act for breach of those sections are essentially the same as these. We have not departed significantly from that type of penalty. Now you get a very significant fiscal penalty, like a doubling of the amount of the tax, and also you have the provisions under the Criminal Code for fraudulent false affidavits.

I think we’ve got to give this an opportunity to be tested to see how effective it is. If the ministry determines that, for one reason or another, we suspect there are people who are taking that risk -- it’s a risk I can tell members I wouldn’t take and I don’t think anybody in this House would ever consider taking that sort of a risk but perhaps there are people in this world who would -- if we find there are people who we suspect are taking that risk maybe we will have to take another look at this section.

Mr. Cassidy: There are those who seek careers even stranger than politics.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I sometimes wonder,

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I want to ask the minister a question on the change from the three years to the six years. I agree with that. Three years would be quite inadequate to monitor and investigate and find out whether or not a suspicious transfer was one where there had been a false affidavit. I approve of that change.

I’m curious about the accuracy -- or whether there is a better way of stating “of the time when the matter of the information arose.” It appears to me whenever there is one of these limitation periods we should be very accurate about the point in time at which that arises. I don’t claim to know exactly what the time is. I assume that what the minister is saying is that the time when the matter of the information arose would be the time when the conveyance accompanied by the affidavit was tendered for registration, and that that would cover most of the cases. But then there are, of course, the circumstances in which a person need not tender an affidavit but can satisfy the minister.

The minister can issue his certificate in lieu of the affidavit so presumably at that point in time you would be talking about an affidavit which was part of the evidence by which the minister was satisfied that he could receive payment of the tax directly and would issue a certificate so that the document tendered for registration would not be accompanied by the required affidavits. I’m speaking particularly about the affidavit with respect to the value of the consideration. The information would be in the minister’s office and not in the registry office.

As I say, I don’t claim to know but I do think that the wording “when the matter of information arose” is, shall I say, somewhat less than precise about what the point in time is.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The difficulty in drafting this kind of legislation is to try to catch all these various areas and the member for Riverdale has touched on two of them. The normal one would be the registration of the document with the affidavit. The other one is, as he has said, when suitable information is provided to the ministry to satisfy the minister and he acts on the basis of affidavit evidence or other material provided to confirm that, for example, the transaction had been commenced via returns of a contract executed before April 10. That might be in terms of, say, a copy of correspondence between solicitors acting for the parties; possibly a preliminary requisition on title, indicating and substantiating the contention that the transaction had been under way before the announcement on Tuesday, April 9. Hence the rather general nature of that clause.

Other than that, I don’t think we are going to have too much difficulty in determining when that six-year period will begin because there will be evidence in the minister’s office. Possibly the date upon which he issues the certificate or the date of registration of the deed, I would suppose, would be 999 out of 1,000 of the instances. I would hope there wouldn’t be all that number to come to the minister. In any event, those would be the triggering dates that I would expect for the commencement of the six-year period.

Mr. Renwick: I agree with what the minister says. The only reason I raise it is that perhaps, as you do follow this bill, it may be that when you are considering further amendments -- as you undoubtedly will for the next session of Parliament -- of some kind to deal with this Act you give consideration to spelling out precisely those two times. That is, the time when the conveyance ac- companied by the affidavit is tendered for registration as the one time and the second time being the point in time and the date on which the minister issues his certificate if the taxpayer chooses to follow that particular route.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I recognize the merit in the observation, Mr. Chairman.

Motion agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

On section 8:

Mr. Renwick: On section 8 --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Sorry, did the member for Grey-Bruce want to comment?

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): I would like to speak for a moment, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Somewhere along the line, Mr. Chairman, you will rule me out of order on this, too, but insofar as this whole Act is concerned, it is a version of the reciprocal land tax, which many jurisdictions in Europe have been using for years. I would like to ask the minister why the revenues from these assessments go to the province and not to the municipality concerned? After all, the municipality for years has been carrying this land on its rolls almost tax-free and now, in a boom time, when there is speculation involved, in walks the government and takes the cream off the deal when the money should be going to the municipality.

Does the minister see the logic of this? Why should the province take this money and not give it back to the municipality?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well, as the hon. member --

Mr. Sargent: Has the minister heard of the reciprocal land tax?

Hon. Mr. Meen: If the hon. member will resume his seat, I’ll rise.

Mr. Sargent: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Meen: One at a time around this place, you know.

No, I have not heard of a reciprocal land tax. Secondly, in the recovery under any taxing statute, the moneys do go into the general revenues. We have our grant structure to the municipalities. In fact, the Treasurer (Mr. White) indicated in his budget statement that moneys recovered from the speculation tax -- and it may also be that he indicated that some percentage of the moneys recovered under the Land Transfer Tax Act too -- would be returned to the municipalities in some proportion. I cannot say with assurance, however, that I believe him to have intended to refer the land transfer tax revenues as well. I think he was speaking only with respect to the land speculation tax when he indicated that a half of those additional revenues would go back to the municipalities in which they appeared to have arisen.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I don’t mind answering this question, but it is scarcely appropriate to section 8 of the Act.

Mr. Sargent: We are talking about the assessment, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to leave this point with the minister. All over Ontario, not only in Toronto, we are riding the crest of a wave in development, and along comes the province and takes the big revenue, $10 million or $15 million, that rightfully should go to the municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well, that is a matter of opinion. The whole point of this is to take the pressure off the investment dollars that are driving up the price of real estate at present. We’d be happy as the mischief if not one cent was realized from the non-resident tax.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps the chairman will allow me a minor moment of leeway in the bill.

There is the curious situation regarding the payment of tax under this Land Transfer Tax Act -- and I am speaking to section 8, because this is where the circumstances may arise -- where the minister may authorize the Treasurer to refund tax which has been found to have not been payable. There is a procedure for that refund and a number of other provisions with respect to this question of joint tenancy, but I am dealing now with section 8(1).

There is a curious provision in the Land Speculation Tax Act which imposes an identical tax in certain circumstances related to a winding-up or dissolution of a corporation, first with respect to the sale or transfer in any manner of the beneficial interest in land in a particular corporate situation, and the second one with respect to an amalgamation, merger, consolidation, and so on, where the effect of it is to make control over the use of the designated land by a different person or group of persons.

I take it there was some good reason why the minister felt he had to put those provisions in the Land Speculation Tax Act and not in this Act, and my question is whether or not there are provisions of the Land Transfer Tax Act which should be made applicable to the equivalent tax being levied in those special circumstances under subsection (2) of section 2 of the Land Speculation Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I regret to say that I have not followed the argument advanced by the member for Riverdale. He is directing his attention to section 8, subsection (1), which deals with a refund of tax that may have been paid under duress or in some other circumstances. It may have been paid voluntarily, thinking it was properly payable, and then if it is subsequently determined it wasn’t, therein lies the authority for me to request the Treasurer to repay that overpayment of taxes. Now what was the point he was raising?

Mr. Renwick: I take it that when you have imposed what is in substance a land transfer tax as well in certain limited circumstances under the Land Speculation Tax Act, is there -- I haven’t had a chance to study the Land Speculation Tax Act in detail -- an equivalent provision to this provision of subsection (1) of section 8 to permit a refund of that tax? Obviously the minister felt that you could not put the provisions of subsection (2) of section 2 of the Land Speculation Tax Act in the Land Transfer Tax Act. I want to make sure because it appears to be, regardless of the method used, the identical tax that is being imposed but in specifically different circumstances. Is there any necessity to incorporate provisions of this Act, such as subsection (1) of section 8, in the provisions of the Land Speculation Tax Act, so that persons who have to pay that additional tax, imposed by subsection (2) of section 2 of the Land Speculation Tax Act, will have the benefit, or be subject to the obligations imposed by the general sections of the Land Transfer Tax Act? I don’t know whether that has made it any clearer or not.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, it has, and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member for Riverdale. Yes, obviously -- and he understands the point -- we cannot provide for mergers and amalgamations and that kind of problem of non-resident Canadian corporations, let’s say, to avoid the land transfer tax otherwise payable in this Act. We have incorporated it into the Land Speculation Tax Act as he has indicated, and there are provisions in the Land Speculation Tax Act for redress in similar circumstances.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you. On subsection (2), I can understand the reason for subsection (2), and I can understand the methods used in items (a) and (b) for carrying it out. I am curious about the reservation:

“But no refund shall be made if the land is held in joint tenancy by the non-resident person and the persons who are not non-resident persons, or if the minister is of the opinion that the land conveyed to persons who are not non-resident persons cannot readily be distinguished from the land conveyed to non-resident persons.”

It seems to me that it would be quite unfair, where land is held in joint tenancy, to impose the full amount of the tax and not take into account the joint tenancy relationship even though, at some specific point in time in the future, if the Ontario resident dies, or the non non-resident person dies, or if it is a corporation it is dissolved or wound up, at that point in time the tax on the other half might become payable if it were vested in the non-resident joint tenant, and it seems to me to be quite unfair to impose such a heavy tax where only half the tax should be imposed.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, we have wrestled with this problem. One thing is that nothing is triggered in the registry office by the death of a joint tenant. In the case of an individual, all that would have to be done would be the filing of a certificate of death and the appropriate succession duty consent, if required. That would make the title marketable in the hands of the surviving joint tenant.

Furthermore, if one is going to try to apportion the interests, as one can do in the case of a tenancy in common, as between joint tenants who have inherently the right of survivorship, then one has to look at the actuarial tables to determine the life expectancy of the two joint tenants, if they both happen to be individuals, and which one is likely to survive the other. So, for the purposes of this taxing statute, we felt it preferable to not provide for any apportionment where they take title as joint tenants.

I might give the illustration, for example, of a conveyance to an elderly person here in Ontario in joint tenancy with, let us say, a younger daughter who is a non-resident. Under those circumstances, how are you going to determine the apportioned interests of those two, with the life expectancy of the mother being probably, and at least actuarily, a good deal shorter than the life expectancy of the non-resident daughter, who would take the title by the fact of survivorship and without any triggering effect of which we would have notice. I therefore have this exception in here.

It will be interesting, over the next few months, to probably deal with some actual cases along this line and to see if it’s going to be possible to work out some kind of rule that might be used to apportion the interests. But it seems like a difficult task to undertake at this point at any rate.

Mr. Renwick: I would like the help of my colleague, the member for Kitchener, because I don’t feel that I am particularly expert in this. As I understand it, two corporations can hold land as joint tenants and not as tenants in common, or they can hold it in tenancy in common; either one.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, no problem.

Mr. Renwick: No problem about it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I recognize that.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, you can have tenancy in common.

Mr. Renwick: Two corporations can do it as well as two persons. It just seems to me that what you are saying is that a resident person, who happens to be a joint tenant with a non-resident person, be he an individual or a corporate body of some form, or a partnership or joint venture of some kind, that you are going to penalize -- and I use the word advisedly -- the Ontario resident or the Canadian person. You are going to penalize him by requiring him to pay double the tax that he would otherwise have to pay. In other words, he is going to have to pay the 19.4 per cent of the tax simply because your ministry hasn’t been able to devise the methods by which to specify it, detail it or spell it out in order to establish those percentages.

Mr. Breithaupt: I can see the point, Mr. Chairman, which the member for Riverdale is bringing forward. It also seems to me that there is the possibility of a certain strain arising where an Ontario corporation and a foreign corporation hold lands in joint tenancy, because the corporations obviously have the right of perpetuity, and if the Ontario corporation has all Ontario citizens as directors, it of course fits in quite nicely to the plan of ownership of Ontario property by Ontario corporations. It would only be in the event of the dissolution of the Ontario corporation that this whole matter would fall in, and that the tax situation would become a particular thorny one. I am wondering what the minister can tell us about the blocking of that possible loophole of joint corporate tenancy, as it were.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well, we have obviously plugged it by ruling it out. That’s exactly the point. Obviously there is no life expectancy table one can look to when he is talking about a couple of corporations holding title in joint tenancy. They will survive until they are put into bankruptcy, one or other of them, or unless they are voluntarily wound up and their assets distributed. With the windup of one corporation then in a joint tenancy, the asset would flow to the other. On the final dissolution and surrender of the charter of the first company, the surviving company would take all. Consequently, it’s perfectly clear that we cannot allow a joint tenancy arrangement.

If you set up a tenancy in common, then of course the interests are defined and can be ascertained. The Ontario resident who takes a portion of a title, together with -- let’s use that term -- a non-resident can protect himself or herself by simply spelling out the interest and thereupon only paying tax on that interest at the lesser rate of three-tenths of one per cent or six-tenths as the case may be.

Mr. Breithaupt: Then with regard to the tax, if there was the situation of, let’s say, a 60-40 tenancy in common and this was particularly spelled out, the burden would obviously then shift to the foreign corporation to sort out its own problem in its own proportionate requirement.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 8 then stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Renwick: All I want to say is I recognize the problems. I just hope that the ministry will immediately direct their minds toward solving that problem. It is fundamentally unfair in a circumstance such as this to tax a Canadian person owning land in the Province of Ontario at the rate of 20 per cent, instead of at the rate of one-third of one per cent or one-sixth of one per cent, simply because the ministry can’t spell out the methods by which to cover the question.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I don’t think it is a matter of not being able to spell them out. It’s a matter of plugging loopholes that would otherwise be obvious. The member for Kitchener pointed out himself that that is a loophole which we’ve plugged. Otherwise it would be just a delightful device in order to enable a non-resident corporation to acquire land here in Ontario without having to pay the non-resident tax. It would be a very cheap way to do it.

Mr. Renwick: I really think that you can find a method to spell it out without penalizing the Ontario resident because I think that the minister and his colleagues have said that they don’t want to impede the flow of capital. It may very well be if the validity of the argument put by this party and by the Liberal Party is correct, that in fact this will not be a disincentive but will become a cost of doing business. It may very well be that a foreign person, individual, corporation, or partnership will enter into joint tenancy with somebody in the Province of Ontario simply on the basis of carrying out a legitimate project and then find themselves stuck with the full amount of the tax. You can posit an open and above- board 50 per cent partnership joint venture arrangement and you are penalizing him.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I can’t imagine two corporations setting out together in joint tenancy on that kind of basis. They might very well go into it in partnership but they would be tenants in common on that basis, not joint tenants.

Mr. Renwick: They can make provision for being joint tenants if they so want to.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Maybe, and thereby penalize themselves.

Mr. Renwick: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. Meen: They will pay the full tax in that case.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right. But I’m also pointing out to you again, and the member for Kitchener may be much more well versed in it than I am, that I really don’t understand why you singled out the joint tenancy and didn’t include the tenancy in common in the same kind of an arrangement. It’s equally difficult.

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, it is not equally difficult. In the case of the tenancy in common you can identify the respective interests of the parties. In the case of the joint tenants, winner takes all, survivor takes all. So, consequently, you cannot identify the respective interests of the parties who take in joint tenancy. I think lawyers, if they were to advise two corporate clients to get together on a joint tenancy basis would be out of their respective minds, because they wouldn’t do it that way. They would have a joint venture, but that does not mean joint tenancy, or they would have a partnership agreement of some sort. What the member for Riverdale is raising, I suggest with all respect, is a vacuous argument.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Never.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In fact, this is a loophole we are plugging, not something that we are creating. This is just one of those avenues which we’ve envisaged, and I believe we’ve satisfactorily closed it.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I just --

Hon. Mr. Meen: But the reason we refer to joint tenancy is because you cannot identify the respective interests.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that with the help of the member for Kitchener, I think in the ecumenical spirit of the debate we could characterize my argument as vacuous. I very seldom use that term in reference to my arguments, or would agree to it, but I think in this case it was an accurate statement.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I might say, Mr. Chairman, I very infrequently refer to arguments of the hon. member for Riverdale as vacuous.

Mr. Breithaupt: I’m sure, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will agree that the approach of the possibility of two corporations holding in joint tenancy would have been a great idea, if it hadn’t been otherwise stopped.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Thank you very much.

Section 8 agreed to.

On section 9:

Mr. Chairman: On section 9 the minister has an amendment to subsection (1).

Hon. Mr. Meen moves that clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 9 of the bill be amended by striking out “may be required” in the fifth line.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this motion carry?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just speak to the section, not necessarily to that amendment. Would it not be wise for the minister to consider, at some point, rather than have this blanket authority to enter upon people’s premises and take their business records, and carry away property and so on, to make a provision in here that the minister or the person authorized by him to make the entry and to do the things listed in all of these clauses should be required to get a warrant from a county or district court judge before exercising this very drastic right of entry and search and seizure?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know -- and I don’t suppose anybody else does at this moment -- just what kind of procedure it might be necessary for our auditors and investigators to follow. Checking this, it might not be practical at all times to get an order before seizing the necessary documents in order to enforce this legislation.

I might observe that it’s the same as in our other taxing statutes --

Mr. Renwick: I realize that.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- and I think if we did this -- and I’ll take a look at it all -- it would be in the overall picture of a review of the procedures in all my revenue statutes.

Mr. Renwick: And that’s precisely why I raised it in the general way that I did. I really think that the revenue can be very well protected, and the investigations carried out, by a provision which requires a reference either to a county court judge, a Supreme Court judge or to a provincial court judge, for a warrant to enter. Then you could perhaps spell out an emergency situation where you could move in and deal, and the person whose premises were entered, whose records were searched, whose documents were seized, might have 48 hours to go and dispute the validity of the seizure -- some such procedure. But I know if my colleague the hon. member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) were here, he would certainly share with me that concern about this kind of arbitrary entry, seizure and search provision in these taxing statutes.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Subsection (5) -- I presume we’re on the section as a whole, as well as the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: If it has nothing to do with this, we could carry this and then go to subsection 5.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Now, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: On subsection (5), Mr. Chairman. The penalty for obstruction is $25 for each day in which the obstruction continues, or a total of about $9,000 a year. Now, I presume that there are probably powers elsewhere that would permit the minister to seek an injunction against any person who continued to obstruct inspection of records. Does this come from other taxing statutes or --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: It does, eh?

Hon. Mr. Meen: The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman, it does.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the ministry then use an injunction in the case of a large apparent evasion of tax in which obstruction was occurring? Because the penalty itself is not sufficient.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I don’t think the remedy of injunction would be appropriate in this instance, Mr. Chairman, but I am sure there are other provisions available to the ministry for the obtaining of necessary documentation.

Section 9 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments, questions, or amendments on any section up to and including section 14? Nothing up to section 14, inclusive.

Sections 10 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 15:

Mr. Chairman: The minister has an amendment to section 15.

Hon. Mr. Meen moves that subsection (1) of section 15 of the bill be amended by adding at the end thereof “but no interest is payable for any period of time prior to the day upon which this Act receives royal assent.”

Mr. Chairman: Shall this motion carry?

Mr. Cassidy: I have one problem on this.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: The subsequent section 16 provides for deferral of remission and the minister has also made reference to the possibility of the non-resident posting security in order to clear a lien under the short-term provisions of the Act. There is reference elsewhere to posting a security once the Act’s given full force. Does the interest on unpaid tax apply where the tax is deferred or remitted and then subsequently becomes due, or where security has been posted?

Hon. Mr. Meen: The terms of section 16 are broad enough to permit me to defer the tax without interest or with interest or on what other terms the ministry may see fit, Mr. Chairman. But we’re not on section 16 yet. I think we should direct our interest to section 15.

Mr. Breithaupt: The only question I was going to ask with reference to that particular point, following the comments of the member for Ottawa Centre, is that any security which you might require could be double the amount of a possible tax liability anyway. This wouldn’t necessarily have to be of particular concern to you, as I would understand it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, I would agree with that.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale has a further comment on section 15.

Mr. Renwick: I just have this minor comment. Perhaps the minister’s advisers would look at it and see whether it makes sense. It provides for a variation of the nine per cent rate by regulation. In looking at the regulatory power in section 18 there is no provision specifically related to varying such a rate and I rather object to seeing the variation of a penalty rate such as that being left to the general clause respecting “Any manner necessary or advisable to carry out effectively the intent and purpose of the Act.”

I suggest that between now and the time we get to 18, perhaps the minister’s advisers would look to see whether or not we shouldn’t add another subsection in section 18, subsection (2), to provide for the variation of that nine per cent rate.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, one of the difficulties we face is that whenever you are introducing new legislation it comes into effect at the moment of proclamation. Then you have to have an interest rate everybody knows about. We think nine per cent is a practical figure right now.

Mr. Renwick: I’m not worried about the rate. I’m simply worried about the provision which says that at some point in time you may change the rate and there is no provision in the regulatory provisions specifically authorizing the regulation to be made.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think we might take a look at section 18 when we get to it. I had a notion that it was broad enough to authorize the Lieutenant Governor. If it says “At such other rate as may be prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council” by regulation, I think the provisions of 18 would be broad enough to cover it.

Mr. Renwick: It may well be. I simply ask for advice and say that maybe we should have a specific heading.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In any event, we can take a look at that. As a matter of fact, perhaps we could put together an amendment that would cover a variation on this. As I look at this now, I don’t like for example, to have to look at subsection (g) of 18(2).

Mr. Renwick: That is precisely my point.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That’s not really intended to cover an increase in interest rates. Perhaps my legal counsel, in conjunction with the legislative counsel can put together an amendment that would be suitable.

Mr. Chairman: Will that be to section 15?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think it would be a subclause in 18, Mr. Chairman.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

On section 16:

Mr. Chairman: The minister has an amendment to section 16, subsection (2).

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes. Although I earlier indicated that I thought subsection (1) of section 16 was not broad enough to accomplish what we anticipated might be necessary for, for example, liens and postponement of liens and the like, it would now appear it is broad enough to cover that. I have a subsection (4) which I would propose to be added to section 16. I will read my motion, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Renwick: Is this an amendment?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, it does entail a minor amendment to subsection (2) as well.

Hon. Mr. Meen moves that subsection (2) of section 16 be amended by inserting after subsection (1) in the first line “or a rebate under subsection (4)” and that the said section 16 be further amended by adding thereto the following subsection (4):

“Where tax is paid under subsection (2) of section 2 as the result of a tender for registration of a final order of foreclosure under a mortgage or charge affecting land and where the mortgagee or chargee who acquires the beneficial interest in the land by virtue of the final order of foreclosure sells within three years after the date on which the final order of foreclosure was given, all or any part of the land so acquired, to a person who is not a non-resident person, the minister may, subject to subsection (2), rebate to the mortgagee or chargee the tax that was paid on the tender for registration of the final order of foreclosure and that is, in the opinion of the minister, referable to the value of the consideration for the final order of foreclosure attributable to the portion of the land sold. In addition to the amount of the rebate, the minister may authorize payment to the mortgagee or chargee to whom the rebate is made of interest on the amount rebated at the rate of 4 per cent per annum or such other rate as may be prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council by regulation.

“Motion agreed to.”

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to raise some very serious questions about the section as a whole, Mr. Chairman. The government has stated that it wishes to deter speculative capital coming into the Ontario real estate market from abroad. We have commented at some length and had a discussion about loopholes and various means by which that capital could still come in. It seems clear that the position of the minister and presumably of his government is that foreign real estate capital can come in under certain forms but not under others.

In the absence of any clear understanding of the market or any clear facts about the market, we have had no indication as to how much money is coming and what form it is coming in. The ministry is flying in the dark. But the ministry’s position seems to be that it doesn’t really want to deter this money coming in. It is only the form by which it has been coming in that bothers the government. I don’t understand that position but I am trying to sum up the position that you, Mr. Minister have taken.

This section permits the foreign capital to come into the real estate market and not to pay the penalty at all under certain conditions. Could the minister explain in some detail the kinds of conditions that he might lay down in order to permit evasion or deferral or omission of the tax under this section.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Of course, Mr. Chairman, I have already mentioned that we are not about to try to close off, freeze out or however you want to describe it, mortgage financing in our construction industry here in Ontario. Were we to have a section that precluded a non-resident mortgagee from fore- closing on security on a loan made for the bona fide purposes of, let’s say, the construction of a dwelling, we do not want to inhibit them from making that loan if they have to speculate on having, at some stage or other on a foreclosure -- statistically, maybe, one in 1,000 or something -- to pay the 20 per cent land transfer tax, with respect to that foreclosure. So the principle is we are quite happy to see money come in --

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- for security loans.

Mr. Cassidy: Section 16(4) has been passed. We accepted that and I understand that point being made by the minister about foreign mortgage money. It is section 16(1), which permits remission or deferral of the tax to foreigners when they are buying land for development that we are concerned about.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I am sorry. My apologies. Let’s say we wanted to see a certain kind of industry locate in a depressed area of Ontario and that a certain non-resident corporation came to us and said, “It is a balance of economics whether we acquire the land here in Ontario or there is some other jurisdiction. If we locate here, we will bring X number of jobs and millions of dollars of assessment to the economy.”

It would then be possible for the ministry to weigh these and to determine whether it was in, the best interests of the people of Ontario to forgo the non-resident tax in that circumstance in order to have that business located in Ontario. I would suggest we have already made it quite clear that we do not want to discourage industry from locating here in preference to some other part of North America if it can be shown to our satisfaction that it is in the interests of the people of Ontario to do so. We would be very unwise indeed to settle for a paltry 20 per cent if it were a matter of a new industry in the right place at the right time creating more jobs for our people.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, Mr. Chairman. What about an industry which wishes to settle in the “golden horseshoe” or in Oakville or in the Toronto area? Would the tax be remitted in that particular case if the industry was non-resident or was foreign-controlled? Secondly, what about a foreign development firm which wished to acquire land in Ontario for commercial development or for residential development?

Hon. Mr. Meen: One cannot answer the first question in specifics. It might be that we wouldn’t want a particular industry in the “golden horseshoe.” It might be that on the other hand we would quite happily accept some other industry if the nature of its operations, the jobs it provided and all the rest were in keeping with the goals and objectives of the government and of the province. So one would have to look at every one of these on its merits and determine whether we would or would not welcome them on that basis.

The other one was with respect to building corporations, and, of course, the provision is, if the non-resident corporation purchases the land, develops it or resells to residents then there again would be a waiver of the tax. If they were prepared to come in and say, “Look, we are going to develop this 1,000 acres and put 5,000 homes in here. We don’t want to have the carrying cost of the 20 per cent even if you tell us you will give it back to us later on,” then as I said in the House this is one of the circumstances under which we would say, “Okay, we will take a lien for your unpaid tax, but if you build and resell and in the course of the construction, for that matter, if mortgage loans are advanced, we will postpone our lien in favour of the bona fide mortgage loans made by companies to builders who are constructing homes.”

If, in due course, the property is sold to non non-residents, to quote the hon. member for Riverdale, then the tax would be waived and the lien would be cleared from the title once and for all. That is the kind of discretion that lies under section 16(1). As I mentioned earlier, I had some doubts as to whether the words in the middle of that paragraph were broad enough, but my counsel advised me that they are.

Mr. Cassidy: This is the extraordinary kind of thing, the minister gives a number of examples but effectively at the end he says that a foreign firm will be able to operate in the development industry in Ontario on the same terms and conditions as a domestic firm.

Hon. Mr. Mean: Why not? Would you cut off the construction industry and deny our people hundreds of thousands of homes simply because it was a foreign corporation that was building those homes for our people?

Mr. Cassidy: I just wonder whether this thing can’t be handled domestically. The labour is domestic; the mortgage money is domestic; the building materials are basically domestic. Now, what exactly is it that is contributed from abroad, and how much is it that is contributed from abroad by foreign entrepreneurs coming in, and how do you balance that against the fact that they are in Canada, in Ontario, hotting up the market for land and the minister is going to allow them to hot it up?

Hon. Mr. Meen: They are only hotting up the market for land because there is a demand for housing. They are going out and they are acquiring land into inventory. They are developing it. They are putting it on the market as serviced lots. In some cases they are building homes on it. In any case, they are providing our people with the housing accommodation they need, and this element of the building construction market is not inconsequential. That is, when I say this element I mean the non-resident as defined by our Act. The non-resident building corporations and land development corporations operating in Ontario are a significant segment of the community.

Mr. Cassidy: There is incredible faith in the power of the corporation, then, Mr. Chairman. It is Canadian workers who are providing the housing. It is Canadian loggers and people producing building material that are providing the materials. In large measure it is Canadian savers who are providing the mortgage funds with which these properties are being built. It is not foreigners. The foreigners come in and simply put it all together. I would like to ask how many years of inventory does the minister consider that he will permit in residential and commercial development, how many years of land inventory will be permit before applying the tax?

Hon. Mr. Meen: It would be necessary to assess this picture as we get a little further into it, Mr. Chairman. But I would venture to say that a 10-year inventory would not be an unrealistically long period of time. I understand that some companies, with their progression through the various stages, actually wind up with inventories over longer periods of time. I am told that to bring raw land to finished dwellings, up to now has been more than five years, for example. So if you are progressing through that stage you might have an inventory ranging between five and 10 years, and a fairly realistic turn-around of land from raw farmland to finished occupiable dwellings.

Mr. Cassidy: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there has certainly been pressure -- which I gather the minister is going to respond to on the other tax, the land speculation tax -- to permit large developers to spin off a certain amount of their land to smaller housebuilders and developers who don’t carry a substantial land inventory. If that right is given to domestic or Canadian development firms, like Cadillac and Meridian, then it would seem to me that there will be equal pressure and justifiable pressure, according to the lights of the government, to give the same permission where there is a foreign development firm which has got a land inventory of nine or 10 years’ worth of land.

After all, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) who sits next to this minister has got an interest in getting that land to market and in trying to get more lots on to the market and therefore he will be seeking to get some of it out of the inventory of firms, whether they are domestic or foreign-controlled, and into production.

Under this particular clause the foreign firm would thereby be unable to sell off its land to other development firms -- if the changes that I’m suggesting will come do come -- and evade the 20 per cent tax, and at that point it is effectively benefiting from speculative gains in land prices and it’s doing what the bill originally set out to avoid.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 16, as amended, then stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I’ve got a couple of comments.

I think that the point which my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, has raised is a fundamental point going to the whole difference between the attitude of this party and the government’s attitude. This is an area where I don’t think there are any complete answers at the present time. There is a great deal of validity in what my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, has said.

I wanted to deal with one matter which comes up under subsection 1 of section 16. Concerning these conditions which are to be or can be imposed by the minister, as conditions with respect to the deferment or remittance of the tax if the taxes happen to be paid. Are these the conditions that are going to be spelled out in regulations having regard to section 18(c), which says the power of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations “providing for the refund of tax in whole or in part owing to special circumstances, and prescribing the terms and conditions under which such refund may be made ... ”?

So my question specifically is, is it the intention for the minister to make conditions within the terminology of subsection (1) of 16 that will not be known to the public? Or is it his intention to make and impose those conditions, either in specific terms for particular transactions or in general terms if general terms are available, so that the conditions which have been imposed by the minister will be publicly known?

I’m inclined to think that, because this is an immense power given to the minister, there should be some clear publication of what the conditions are that are imposed with respect to any particular transaction if you go forward to carry this out. In reading the regulatory power it seems to me that maybe that was where it was intended, but it can’t have been clearly intended because it does not provide for a deferral of the tax. It simply deals with the refund.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, my own personal proclivity is to make this sort of thing public. I would not want this kind of arrangement to be some secret kind of little deal -- some sweetheart arrangement, as might be alleged by hon. members opposite. And in my opinion, although under 16(1) the orders in council would not be done by regulation, and therefore would not, in that legal sense of publication in the Gazette, be public, it would be my expectation that whenever these arrangements were made that they could be publicized so that people would know the exercise of discretion that was accorded to the minister.

I agree with the hon. member for Riverdale that, at this stage, where so much of this is not yet capable of precise definition, it’s necessary to give what appears to be pretty extensive power to the minister and to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I think it would therefore be appropriate if the exercise of it were publicly known.

Mr. Renwick: That is the kind of language I would like to see in this section, because I am inclined to think that it doesn’t lend itself to spelling out in regulations as set out in section 18. It seems to me that you are probably going to deal with particular situations and you are going to make up your minds at that time.

It seems to me, therefore, that the language should read, “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may on the recommendation of the minister, by order in council, defer the payment of the tax or remit the tax paid on such conditions as the use and development of the land or otherwise as are considered advisable and sufficient to ensure the development of the land as proposed and its conveyance to persons who are not non-residents and as set forth in the order in council.”

I am not talking about the elegance of the language at the moment. I am talking about the intention that it be done by order in council, that the order in council contain the terms and conditions on the basis of which the deferment or the remittance of the tax has been imposed. I think I may have an opportunity in a minute to sit down and write out my version of that change so that the order in council is then, as I understand it, published in the office of the clerk of the council. It’s available for perusal by the public, not necessarily widely distributed, but at least it is posted up and available.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could interject that my counsel advises me that the wording of 16(1) accomplishes just what the hon. member for Riverdale is seeking to accomplish. The orders in council are public documents so that this sort of thing accommodating those -- and I can assure him that the reasons for the order would be set out in it -- would therefore be a public document.

Mr. Renwick: Well, I am content, I am content.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It turns out that we have limitations that we don’t presently see, and I would entertain an amendment at a later time. But I think I would like to get on with this one at the moment.

Mr. Renwick: I recognize that, but I take it then that what the minister is saying to the House is a commitment on his part that any such approval for remittance or refund or deferment of the tax will be done by order in council and that that order in council will contain the terms and conditions on which that deferment or remission or refund of tax is made.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Let me respond simply by saying that in my limited experience in this I can say, as I understand an order in council of this nature, we would set out the terms and conditions which applied and therefore the reasons for and the conditions and the terms imposed upon the non-residents at the time when the order in council was made.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have one further question. The minister can correct me -- I may be dreaming, and I don’t have a copy of the Treasurer’s budget statement -- but wasn’t there a five-year period with respect to time within which these conveyances to persons who are not non-residents with which it was to take place?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I believe the Treasurer did mention that in his budget statement. Whether five years is going to be adequate for all purposes, I don’t think I can say. As I mentioned in reply a few minutes ago to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, the deferral period may or may not be realistic at five years. Some people tell us that that is an unrealistically short period of time. But I think that it was in that context that the hon. Treasurer did mention the five years in his budget statement.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the section now, because there is a clear difference between the government party and our party about this particular section.

The minister states that any company which wants to say that it’s going into residential or commercial development would be able to benefit from the exemptions that are put forward in this section. I would gather that this would apply, not only to a company actively engaged in development now, but also to a company that came along and said: “Look, we would like to become engaged in development and therefore we are currently acquiring land to have a seven- or eight-year inventory. The land we are acquiring today is land which is fairly close to being developable and we hope to actually get into the business in two or three years’ time.”

That can amount to a very sizeable acreage that a foreign-controlled company could acquire without having put a shovel in the ground. Yet, the ministry would feel compelled, I would suggest, to grant the exemption with the liens while this land inventory was acquired.

Subsequently, in three or four years time, if the company then came to the ministry and said: “Look, we’re sorry. We made a mistake;” or “our board has decided we’re going to go into Australia, or some other country instead of Canada;” they would sell out and they would be liable to 20 per cent tax, but it would be a deferred tax and they would have got a free ride for three or four years in a market which recently has been very inflationary.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Not necessarily. It might be that not only would the tax be payable but interest at nine or 10 per cent, or whatever per cent was agreed on or was set out in the order in council as appropriate, would then be payable.

Furthermore, if he sold it at any markup over his initial cost he would be paying the 50 per cent land speculation tax on top. Thus under those undesirable circumstances where he in effect has defaulted on his undertakings he gets taxed under both the statutes.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister can’t have it both ways. I mean on the one hand they say that the various taxes will put up a substantial deterrent, and on the other hand the estimates, which are admittedly guesstimates, indicate that at least $300 million worth of property will be bought and will be liable to this particular tax.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 16(1) of Bill 26, be deleted and all succeeding sections be renumbered accordingly.

Mr. Cassidy: I don’t propose to put up an alternative at this particular point. I think this clause as it stands is wrong, that it simply permits development companies and foreigners to continue to engage in real estate transactions in Ontario and that therefore it will have no real effect. This is the clear dividing line, because this party says, and I believe the opposition party as well have said, that the recommendations of the select committee should have been followed. The ministry chose otherwise and it will, I suggest, be ineffective.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy has moved that section 16 -- is that all of section 16?

Mr. Cassidy: Section 16(1), Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Oh yes, I’m sorry. That section 16(1) of Bill 26 be deleted and all succeeding subsections be renumbered accordingly.

Shall this motion carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Cassidy ‘s motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the motion lost and the section carried.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

On section 17:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale, on which section?

Mr. Renwick: We just got caught but on a procedural motion.

Mr. Cassidy: It adds zest to the government when it’s me, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The member for Riverdale on which section?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I’m going to speak on section 17 now, but actually there may be a brief reference to section 16 because I got caught out on that procedural motion that was just passed.

I want to make two points. One is that I think the record has got to be very clear and the minister should make a statement very soon, publicly, that the five-year period that the Treasurer referred to in his budget has now disappeared and that the government is not fixing any time limit. If they had to fix one, they would probably fix it at 10 years.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s open season for them.

Mr. Renwick: He ought to make some kind of a statement about it because most people were of the impression that there was a specific time limit.

The second point I want to make, speaking as I am on section 17 but referring to section 16, is that section 16 very clearly is the dangerous section with respect to who is to bear the tax, who it is intended will bear the tax; and a very strong argument on the constitutional question which we discussed some time ago with respect to sections 2 of the bill and sections 4 of the bill and now with section 16, can be buttressed. There it is perfectly clear that it is the non-resident person who is intended to bear the tax and that that’s the purpose. Therefore it is an endeavour to levy either an indirect tax outside the province or a direct tax outside the province. I simply say it is unconstitutional.

Will the minister, under section 17, comment about the way in which he is going to avoid collusive predating of documents? By that I don’t mean collusive as between the minister and those who might be tempted to predate documents, but how does he intend to make certain to his satisfaction they don’t monkey around?

I would think there may have been a lot of activity in a lot of places on the night the budget was introduced for anybody who happened to know about this. There is a certain leeway with respect to the predating of documents and the filing of them with the minister and so on.

I’ve just had a note from our research director, who as the minister knows is knowledgeable in tax matters and who has obviously been in touch with persons who have indicated their concern to her about it. She is told that the ministry may allow very tentative commitments made prior to May 16, such as options, to be exempt from the 20 per cent tax. Perhaps that should be clarified. It would be easy for parties to reduce such tentative agreements to writing with predated letters perhaps.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I suppose there are always going to be people who will risk their professional status or otherwise to recognize a short windfall gain of their own by something like this. We recognize that with the budget being announced between 4 and 4:30 p.m. on April 9, from there until midnight there might be a little scurrying around to get some agreements signed, to get some options executed on that day. We also recognize there may well be some in the days that followed -- after they picked up their morning paper they realized that the time had passed and perhaps they hadn’t gotten around to formalizing the documentation. There may have been those who would back-date something in order to fall within the dates as provided for in the Treasurer’s announcements.

But to get down more specifically to the questions raised by the hon. member for Riverdale; if an agreement of purchase and sale is tendered, with affidavit evidence by the witness that it was executed on or before April 9, that, subject to scrutiny, would be acceptable to my ministry and to me. I’m sure the lawyers in the House will recognize that often the case is that there is no affidavit of execution attached to an agreement of purchase and sale, although the form is there. I would say that in circumstances like that where there is correspondence between the solicitors for the parties, and it could be produced to me, that on its face was bona fide, showing that solicitors for the parties had exchanged letters with the purchaser -- let’s say the purchaser’s solicitor requesting a draft deed from the vendor’s solicitor -- and advising him as to the way in which the grantee should be described in the deed, perhaps even submitting a preliminary set of requisitions on title; possibly it could be an exchange of documents where there is an original of a letter from the solicitor for the vendor sending a draft deed and possibly some other documentation at that time -- a copy of a survey and so on -- all of these on their face having occurred before April 9, this kind of evidence would also, in my opinion, satisfy the ministry that these were bona fide transactions entered into before the announcement in the budget.

Mr. Chairman, an option, even if not exercised, but executed itself as an option, has in my opinion some validity which I think we would seriously look at. Certainly we would look at it under the Land Speculation Tax Act. I think one might look at it too with respect to the Land Transfer Tax Act.

It is this sort of thing that we will have to consider as the weeks move along. I would emphasize here again, as I have been saying on every occasion to these people who do not anticipate closing their deals before May 15, that I suspect the Act will provide for filing of the documents with me before that time. Anyway, I trust that answers the questions by the hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, if I may say something on a matter, which again is not strictly on section 17, my colleague the member for Windsor West (Mr. Bounsall) has just raised what may be, if it is, and it appears to me to be, correct, a very serious problem with respect to the definition of non-resident. It may be that the advisers of the minister would give consideration to the point in case at the end of the bill, and before it is finally passed we might revert if the point is an important one.

Hon. Mr. Mean: Sorry, I missed that. What was the point again?

Mr. Renwick: I have not made the point yet. It is a point that my colleague, the member for Windsor West, has made with respect to the definition of a non-resident person.

A non-resident person means a person who, if ordinarily resident in Canada -- and we provided a lengthy definition of ordinarily resident -- is neither a Canadian citizen nor an individual who has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence in Canada. My colleague points out that there are a large number of British subjects in the Province of Ontario who never got around to taking out landed immigrant papers even though technically they may be required to do so and who are not, therefore, Canadian citizens but who have lived here for many years. We wouldn’t want, inadvertently I am certain, if the clause reads as it appears to me to read, to be saying that those persons are not residents of Ontario and are caught by being non-residents.

I simply ask the ministry, if the logic of my colleague’s comment is correct, that they consider making an amendment to the bill, if the committee would revert at the appropriate time to that section.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, the definition is very complex and we wrestled, I can assure the members, with that for hours. Hours and hours of time were spent on coming up with what we felt was an appropriate way to tackle the whole of all of those definition sections. I would be reluctant to try to tinker with that now.

I am inclined to agree with the sentiment expressed by the member for Riverdale as to such individuals, provided they are lawfully here. I would think that we could probably cover by regulation, by our sub-clause (g) of section 18, to which we may have cause to refer later. I would think there may well be authority to look at that.

If the British citizen, though, is residing here in Canada, surely he must have come here legally. Therefore, I would think he would fall under the definition. If there is any difficulty about that we can probably include regulations to clarify it for that purpose.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am just talking because --

Hon. Mr. Meen: We did not use the landed immigrant status --

Mr. Renwick: -- there are people in my riding who have been in Canada for a long, long time. They are not Canadian citizens because they have not made applications to become Canadian citizens; they are British subjects. They have not got around to going through the formality of taking out Canadian citizenship. They have not gone through the formality; and they were not required, as I understand it, to be landed as such at one particular point in time. It would be a shame if inadvertently we found that such persons, if they were to buy a home, would suddenly find themselves subjected to this particular 20 per cent tax.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Would they be resident here for five years?

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 17 stand as part of the bill?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, there’s just one other observation I made earlier that I might clarify. I was in fact referring the Land Transfer Tax Act in the filing of those agreements with the ministry by May 15.

Mr. Renwick: I understand.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I used the reference to the Speculation Tax Act, I think, incorrectly.

Section 17 agreed to.

On section 18.

Mr. Chairman: On section 18, the hon. minister has a couple of amendments.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I have two amendments, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Meen moves that clause (f) of subsection (2) of section 18 be amended by striking out “or to refund” in the third line and by inserting after section 2 in the fourth line “or to refund such tax or any part thereof to.”

Hon. Mr. Meen: That simply is a clarification of subclause (f) which was kind of hard to understand in its original wording.

Mr. Renwick: That’s agreeable.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well is that agreed?

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I have another amendment to section 18, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps I would ask one of the attendants to take copies of these to the member for Riverdale and the member for Kitchener, please. This is with respect to subclause (g) and the question of interest.

Hon. Mr. Meen moves that subsection (2) of section 18 of the bill be amended by relettering clause (g) as clause (h) and by inserting the following clause (g): “Providing for the payment of interest on a refund or rebate of tax authorized by this Act or the regulations and prescribing the rate of interest and the method by which it is to be calculated”

Hon. Mr. Meen: In this regard, I would thank the hon. member for Riverdale.

Motion agreed to.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments on a later section of the bill? If not, shall the bill as amended be reported?

Mr. Renwick: No Mr. Chairman. Just before the bill is reported, will the minister ask his advisers to look carefully at that question to make certain that inadvertently we haven’t picked up in the taxing net a large number of British subjects who have been resident in this country for a long time but at the time of their arrival were never required to go through a procedure of being lawfully admitted to Canada for the purpose of that definition, in the normal sense of becoming something called a “landed immigrant in Canada”. If necessary would he then bring in an amendment or get a regulation published as quickly as possible under his power so that there will be no confusion about the matter?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, we haven’t used the term “landed immigrant status” in the definition, as the hon. member will be aware, having instead taken the opposite approach to define a non-resident rather than a resident.

However, yes, we will take a look at it and if necessary have an appropriate regulation or amendment to the Act.

Bill 26, as amended, reported.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House reports one bill with certain amendments and asks leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Clerk of the House: The 17th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF ENERGY

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Chairman, in presenting these estimates, I would point out that there are three votes -- ministry administration, energy policy and the Ontario Energy Board. I think it’s a little difficult to separate administration from policy, and I would suggest, sir, that you might take votes 1801 and 1802 together. I would further suggest that everything is probably fair game under votes 1801 and 1802 -- gas, oil, uranium, electricity, coal, conservation and relations or lack of relations with other governments. Perhaps some matters of substance that may be before the board could also be discussed under those votes but if we can confine the third vote to what has been before the board and the operation of the board, I think that might make sense.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member wish to speak before we go on to votes 1801 and 1802?

The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity of making a few general comments on the estimates of the Ministry of Energy. My comments will be general of necessity because we are dealing with a new ministry. While we do have predicted expenditures for 1974-1975, we really have nothing to compare these expenditures to.

Mr. Chairman, not quite a year has elapsed since the Ministry of Energy was established by the government, and despite the fact that most members of the opposition felt there existed at that time an unwieldy and unnecessary number of ministries and secretariats, most concurred that there should be a separate ministry to deal with energy matters.

Approval was given -- almost unanimously, I would say -- for the formation of a Ministry of Energy. Circumstances at the time awakened us to the fact that energy could no longer be taken for granted. It became apparent that petroleum sources of energy could not last to infinity, and it became obvious that energy was no longer a cheap ingredient of man’s way of life. And so it was necessary to establish policy and exert some control over the use of energy and its source if Canadians, and more particularly Ontarians, were to be assured a continued supply for industrial, private business, pleasure and home purposes. Thus the Ministry of Energy came into being.

As I recall the debates of the energy bill and related bills, it was generally surmised and concurred in by many that the member to be appointed to shoulder the responsibilities of this most important ministry would be the hon. member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. McKeough). I believe such concurrence was apparent, because the hon. member for Chatham-Kent had gained some experience in the cabinet before he allowed himself to get involved in a conflict of interest.

He was looked upon as a fairly knowledgeable person and, furthermore, he was deemed to be a powerful man in the Conservative caucus. When I was appointed critic of the Energy ministry, I was prepared to accept the alleged qualifications of the minister, but my own personal observations and experiences have led me to nothing more than disillusionment.

I have seen very little action on the part of the minister to take a stand in the current developments within the oil industry. He is not prepared to formulate policy. He does not appear to have the courage of his convictions. And he is not prepared to stand on his own two feet.

How many questions have been asked of him in the Legislature dealing with energy matters? And how many responsible answers has the minister given to such questions?

If the minister didn’t have the federal government to lean on he would fall flat on his face, and in this prostrate position the oil companies would continue to tread right over top of him.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Oh, that’s right!

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Right. He goes to bed with the federal Liberals on the price issue every day.

Mr. Riddell: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if the minister requires guidance, then he might be advised to look to the Nova Scotia government as an example of one which comprehends the meaning of initiative, courage and responsibility.

A question by my leader to the minister last Tuesday and the reply by the minister are ample evidence of the fact that this government is reluctant to make the oil companies accountable for their pricing mechanisms. To show how the minister treats this matter so lightly and inconsiderately and irresponsibly, I would like to repeat the exchange of questions and answers pertaining to this critical matter of inflationary prices, as recorded in Hansard from Tuesday’s session.

The leader of the official Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) asked the Minister of Energy if he was prepared to recommend to his colleagues, in view of the announced profits of Imperial Oil in the first quarter of 1974 of $92.7 million, twice last year’s profits, that the powers of the Energy Board be expanded as was suggested by the members of the opposition when the energy board was established with new powers a year ago, to extend their controls over prices to domestic use of fuel.

The first reply of the minister was: “I don’t specifically recall the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition”. He went on to say, Mr. Speaker:

“It occurs to me that great gathering in a tele- phone booth in Sudbury this weekend might re- commend that to their federal party and they will do a little better job.”

Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, when are you going to stop using the federal government as a crutch? When are you going to get serious and realize that higher fuel prices to industry can only result in higher food and other commodity prices to the consumer, which simply enlarges the vicious inflationary circle?

Would the minister not agree that the profit shown by Imperial Oil in the first quarter of this year is totally unacceptable? Would the minister not be inclined to think that the indication by Shell Oil that it will forego a 2 1/2 cent additional increase in the price of oil is an admission of guilt in itself, and that certainly it would appear in the light of this consideration that the people of Ontario are facing a ripoff that has probably never been so evident in the history of time.

Mr. MacDonald: They are stealing our language as well as our policies these days.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to continue the exchange of questions and answers pertaining to this matter of oil pricing as I simply cannot comprehend the attitude of insincerity and the complete lack of interest on the part of the minister.

Mr. Laughren: He would make a good Liberal.

Mr. Riddell: The Leader of the Opposition asked a supplementary question:

“Since the minister supervises the energy board of the Province of Ontario which does have price control or price recommendation powers, why would he not assume that the same powers can be used at the provincial level the way they are, for example, in the government in the province of Nova Scotia?”

The minister’s answer, Mr. Chairman, was as follows:

“Mr. Speaker, my reading of the Act does not indicate to me that those powers presently exist in the Energy Board Act.”

Mr. Nixon went on to say: “Surely the minister would agree that an amendment would give those powers?” And the Minister of Energy’s reply, Mr. Chairman: “I agree completely with the opposition that an amendment would give those powers.”

Mr. MacDonald: Boy, that was brilliant. Very subtle.

Mr. Riddell: Then Mr. Lewis asked a supplementary:

“Is the minister in fact reviewing, as has been reported, the possibility of imposing a price level in the Province of Ontario for costs for gasoline and home fuel oil charged by the major oil companies?”

The Minister of Energy’s reply:

“I have been preoccupied lately and the ministry has been preoccupied, with the problems associated with wind energy. But when we get ourselves off that subject, we will turn to the subject which has been suggested by the leader of the New Democratic Party.”

Mr. Lewis went on to say: “I am not going to be diverted too easily -- ”

Mr. J.E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Have you been to Sherbrooke, Quebec? Have you been out to Sherbrooke yet?

Mr. Riddell: I continue:

“Are all of the minister’s speeches, while he trumpets around the countryside clobbering the oil companies, dealing in the direction of introducing legislation in the House which will give his ministry the right to set or roll back prices in the area of gasoline and home fuel oil as has been suggested in other jurisdictions; and which he has indicated publicly he is now interested in?”

The Minister of Energy’s reply: “These are matters which are under consideration.”

And then another supplementary question was asked, Mr. Chairman:

“Now that Shell Oil has indicated their willingness to forego the 2 1/2 cent unnecessary increase for non-existent costs, can the minister indicate whether that is likely to be a pattern subscribed to by the other oil companies? Is he going to take any initiative to see that it is the pattern accepted?”

The reply:

“The matter of the Shell Oil increase or non- increase or the industry increase or non-increase is being dealt with, as the member is well aware, by the government of Canada through the ministry of the department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and through the National Energy Board; and that is a matter for their consideration. I congratulate Shell Oil for the position which they have taken that this increase is perhaps not necessary, in their view, at this moment in time. But whether the rest of the industry will follow suit, or whether the government of Canada will determine that an increase is necessary or not, is something for the government of Canada to decide at this moment. I would suggest that the member get on that pipeline, through his leader to the federal leader, and sort that little matter away.”

The member for York South asked a further supplementary:

“Mr. MacDonald: If perchance the federal government in Ottawa isn’t persuaded to accept its responsibilities, will the minister accept his, in his constitutional jurisdiction, of control of retail prices in the Province of Ontario through the Ontario Energy Board to make certain that that unnecessary increase doesn’t take place here?”

The Minister of Energy’s reply was:

“My leader and this government have made it clear for over a year that when the government of Canada is prepared to come to grips with the problem of wage and price controls, then this government will co-operate to the fullest.”

Mr. Minister, all I can say is: When are you going to take your responsibilities seriously? It is obvious by this exchange of questions and answers that you are making a joke out of this whole energy situation, which in my way of thinking is approaching that of being critical.

Is there any reason in your better judgement that the Energy Board shouldn’t be given powers to review and recommend prices for oil to the Legislature, similar to the situation for hydro and natural gas? Is there any reason that the oil companies should not be accountable to the consumers through the Energy Board and the government for their pricing activities? It only stands to reason that Ontario should have some say in the matter, for of the Canadian consumption of oil produced in Western Canada, Ontario accounts for about one-half.

Mr. Chairman, I read with interest the speeches that the Minister of Energy makes throughout Canada and I can only come to one conclusion. The minister’s theory seems to be that when you are in Rome you do as the Romans do. When you are in Alberta you say what the Albertans like to hear. When you are in Ontario you say what the Ontarians like to hear. To escape alienation you either sit on the fence and do nothing or pass the buck in the hope that someone will bail you out. I guess this is what politics is all about if the Ontario government, and more particularly the Minister of Energy, is any example.

It’s one thing to talk about a problem and to reprimand the oil companies for “charging whatever the market will bear;” but it is another thing to take action against these companies and legislate against such profiteering and rape of the public purse.

Nova Scotia took such action and rolled back prices. Where is Ontario’s defence of its citizens? Where is this Minister of Energy who is so knowledgeable, so powerful, so responsible and so mindful of the needs of the people of Ontario? I submit we can no longer accept the procrastination of the Minister of Energy, particularly as it applies to the pricing of oil and other sources of energy. We on this side of the House feel that Ontario can and must take an active stand in assuring the people of Ontario a continued supply of energy at a reasonable price and free of environmental hazards.

The recent national oil price agreement, which saw a price rise of Western Canadian crude from $4 to $6.50 a barrel brought to light an important question in the energy policy field. This question concerns the role of Ontario in setting the price of oil and natural gas. Canada still has nothing like a comprehensive national energy policy that would provide for rational, complementary development of all fuel sources, that would design the most efficient pattern of consumption and that would assure a fair return to producers.

An hon. member: Does the member blame that on the Minister of Energy too?

Mr. Riddell: Overall the problem ought not to be, as has been the case, of Ontario simply accommodating itself to price decisions in Alberta or any other province. Rather I would argue strongly that Ontario has an important part to play in any price-setting scheme. Regarding the oil price agreement, our Premier (Mr. Davis) has said that he was “not unhappy” with the results, even though the new oil price will add $400 million to Ontario’s energy bill.

Moreover, no explanation has been given by the government why a 62.5 per cent increase over the previous level was necessary or justified. Therefore, in such matters Ontario should act with the federal government, demanding the justification of any price increases.

Ontario must also take the responsibility to protect the consumer from oil company price increases. The present Ontario policy is inexcusable. But what, the government asks, can we do? The oil companies are national and multinational corporations. The Premier has said that prices established by national oil companies are matters to be dealt with by the federal government, and he flatly rejected the possibility of Ontario acting unilaterally.

I would argue, however, that Ontario ought to be able to police petroleum prices. One way in which this can be carried out is for the power of the Energy Board to be expanded to extend their controls over prices of fuel for domestic uses. On these matters there is no reason why Ontario should not follow the example set by the government of Nova Scotia.

Last December, the Nova Scotia government expanded the duties of its public utilities board to include the power to police wholesale prices of gasoline and fuel oil, to force the companies to justify increases, to hold public hearings and to roll back in- creases which, in the board’s view, the companies had failed to justify.

Mr. Chairman, I am equally concerned about the nuclear expansion programme announced by Ontario Hydro. Moreover, I am concerned about the reluctance of Ontario Hydro to reveal to the public the potential dangers of nuclear power. Ontario Hydro has stated that Ontario will have to commit 20 million kw of nuclear generating capacity in the next 10 years to meet the expected demand for electrical energy. However, many uncertainties are associated with this form of energy.

According to the Canadian government’s recent publication, “An Energy Policy for Canada,” it assumed, ill-advisedly, that Canada will opt almost entirely for nuclear fission to supplement and replace hydro and fossil fuels, since they are fully developed. It relegates unconventional energy sources, particularly solar energy, to a place of insignificance in government thinking. And while the decision has already been made to forge ahead with a huge programme of CANDU reactor construction, it has also made clear that a research programme for the long-term safe disposal of these wastes has only just begun.

The two major byproducts of a nuclear reactor are vast quantities of heat and large amounts of man-made radioactive materials. About 100 tons of various types of radioactive isotopes are manufactured each year within each reactor. While most of this waste is put into permanent storage, hopefully to be contained indefinitely therein -- since some of the spent fuels take about a million years to decay to the relatively low radioactive levels of natural uranium -- small but none the less significant quantities of radioactive products are released into the environment continuously during the operation of the reactor. As well, each reactor must dispose of over 100 cu yds of radioactive garbage each year, which is buried in disposal areas set aside for this purpose. But since the half-life of these fuels is so long, no satisfactory means of disposal has yet been found.

Therefore, I argue that much more needs to be known about the potential hazards of this source of energy and more research needs to be done on alternate sources of energy before the nuclear programme is accelerated.

There are possible several safer alternatives to nuclear energy for producing electricity, but ecologists and many scientists say they have been ignored. Some of these alternatives are solar power, tidal power, fusion, geothermal power.

It is my feeling that these alternatives are within our technological ingenuity and that any one of them could have been developed if roughly the equivalent resources that were brought to bear on developing nuclear energy had been applied.

Solar radiation is potentially the most abundant form of energy available to man, and it seems probable that practical schemes will eventually be devised to harness it in useful quantities in regions with sustained sunshine. Technology is already available for using solar energy to heat and cool residential and low-rise commercial buildings. Such systems approach economic feasibility. Heating water by solar energy is both economically and technically feasible. Additional research and development of systems and components, along with better insulation and construction methods, will make it possible to use this method as an alternative to a large portion of Canada’s current and future total energy requirements.

Wind power should be considered for isolated small communities, since most already use some form of energy storage method and wind is available in practically all places in Canada.

Also there have been radically new concepts for wind-generating systems from Canadian scientists and it is hoped that this approach will be brought into operation in the Canadian north.

Through the discussions of these alternatives I would like to point to the fact that other forms of energy rather than nuclear fusion are within the limits of man’s present technical knowledge. However, both federal and provincial governments in Canada currently appear to be particularly unresponsive to consideration of unconventional energy sources. All that is required is the decision of government agencies to provide the much-needed funds.

Besides the new alternatives which must be explored in the energy question, we must end our reckless waste of energy and stop the soaring growth in national consumption. The energy question is not just a matter of supply. The demand growth must slow down as well. Even if the country was not facing immediate fuel shortages, the case for slower energy growth would still be compelling.

Fortunately, much can be done to curb the country’s appetite for energy by eliminating the large inefficiencies in energy use. Poorly insulated homes, for example, waste half their heat. Many office buildings are overlighted. Some air conditioners consume twice as much electricity as models with the same cooling capacity, and a ton of freight shipped by truck takes nearly six times the energy as one shipped by rail.

If we are to establish a long-term energy policy which will be consistent with a finite world, we must strive to regulate our demands on our resources rather than developing them wastefully at the fastest possible rate. There is no reason why Ontario’s energy growth rate must accelerate by 4.6 per cent a year from 1970 to 1990. The government must recognize and appreciate the errors in our consumption pattern and must devise programmes which will encourage the conservation of energy and its more efficient use. The government must assume a more responsible role and take steps to encourage energy conservation.

I am also greatly concerned with the use of prime agricultural lands for the establishment of Hydro plants, power corridors and pipelines. When one considers the rate at which Ontario’s limited farming land is disappearing from agricultural use, the risk of any further losses brought about by Hydro lines being routed through areas specifically designated for future farming is a serious one. The province is losing 26 acres of prime agricultural land per hour to development.

Since there is a limited supply of class 1 and class 2 agricultural land in this province, and with demands being placed on these areas for non-agricultural uses such as residential and industrial development, recreational areas, etc. any intrusions on these lands for Hydro power lines and corridors should be minimal. Rather they should be located through low grade agricultural productive lands. Ontario Hydro, however, does not seem to take these ideas into consideration in energy construction projects. I would urge, therefore, that Ontario Hydro refrain from using prime farmland acreages when alternate classes of land are available and would serve the same purpose.

Mr. Chairman, to give you some idea of the concern of the people in my area regarding the proposed nuclear plant somewhere south of Goderich, I would like to read a short article that was sent by one of my constituents to the editor of one of the weekly papers. It reads:

“Dear Editor:

“April 8, 1974, the Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board met in room 162, Queen’s Park, Toronto, with representatives of government and Ontario Hydro. The purpose was to discuss the proposed power development in Huron county.

“I stated in an earlier letter the reasons that the Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board is opposing this development.

“Present at this meeting, along with the OBPMB directors, was Agriculture and Food Minister Stewart, his assistant, Mr. Eaton, the Minister of the Environment and his deputy, along with two representatives of Ontario Hydro and including the Deputy Minister of Energy. This meeting was set up in a very short time at the direct insistence of the Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board.

“We are very concerned that the entire future of the white bean industry in Ontario is at stake. Air pollution of any type is detrimental to the growth of white beans. Power plants breed more industry which means more pollution.

“The white and yellow eye bean crop is worth about in excess of $50 million to the farmers and industry in Ontario. About $23 million of that money is coming into Huron county. Yes, the white bean industry is a very large one.

“I will point out some of the facts that were the result of yesterday’s meeting.

“The county official plan does not mean much. If Ontario Hydro wishes to build in Huron, they will, plan or no plan. The plant proposed for Huron will come on stream in 1984 or 1985. That is how close we are to seeing the development. Land acquisition will start in 1974 or 1975.

“The area in which the plant will be built is about six to seven miles south of Bayfield.

“Public opinion meetings will start immediately. We must prepare to fight against this development.

“Ontario Hydro indicated that they have nine other sites on which to build, but they are not alternates to the Huron site. The long range plan calls for a complete range of power plants to be built around the perimeter of Ontario using the Great Lakes system for cooling. The Huron plant may be nuclear or fossil-fuelled.

“Ontario Hydro indicated that the use of electric power is increasing at the rate of 7 per cent per year. They are prepared to take good agricultural land out of production, yet they are not concerned and do not even know the rate at which food consumption is increasing.

“Just what is more important to the people of Ontario -- adequate food at a reasonable price or excess electrical power?

“Ontario Hydro indicated that if the Huron plant did not go, we still would have adequate power. I submit we must fight like hell to stop this complete disruption of agricultural land.”

And, Mr. Chairman, I am still quoting from this article.

“Furthermore, I wish to see the bean industry carry on in Huron. Each farm commodity group in Huron county has opposed this development and has indicated its feelings to the Huron county development committee. The warden has publicly stated that he is opposed to any such development.

“So come on Huron county; let us fight this development and be prepared to fight like hell.”

That’s the end of the article.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Send the plant up our way.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Minister, it can be seen just what the feelings of the people in my area are regarding this nuclear expansion.

Since they will license the land back to the farmer --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Riddell: I will repeat that.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Just with one little interjection, and the member for Algoma got a whole power plant.

Mr. Riddell: In addition, the manner in which Hydro deals with the farmers must be greatly improved.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): The member for Algoma has destroyed his maple syrup industry.

Mr. Riddell: In methods of negotiation, Hydro merely offers the farmer a sum of money. If this is turned down, they are threatened with expropriation. Moreover, if a farmer is not happy with an expropriation plan or offer, the onus is on him for initiation of the defence action.

Often a farmer’s land is adversely divided by some Hydro project. This division in turn has very serious effects on his operation. Hydro says there is no problem, since it will license the land back to the farmer for a nominal fee so that he can work between the towers. However, this is not the case since work will be greatly hampered by the presence of the Hydro poles.

Moreover, with such a lease by Hydro they would have access to the property at their pleasure without obligation for any crop damages which may be incurred. The farmer is also responsible for any damage done to Hydro towers as a result of his routine work with his tractor equipment. All these problems which the farmer must face point to the fact that Ontario Hydro lacks sufficient knowledge of agriculture matters.

In closing, my general comments Mr. Chairman, I would just like to state that on Feb. 14, 1974, the Premier announced the restructuring of public utilities in Ontario. The formation of a 12-member Ontario Hydro board means that the government is taking over the assets of a system which it does not own. Since the board includes only two representatives of the Ontario Municipal Electrical Association, it would indicate there is not a fair representation of municipalities.

The government’s proposal for Hydro centralization should only be for the purpose of making a municipality stronger and more meaningful, and to transfer responsibility to the municipality. This fact, however, is questionable, since many local public utilities commissions fear restructuring. Most are now self-sufficient and not in need of contracting work to Ontario Hydro. Moreover, I am concerned that this centralization could lead to a less efficient dispersal of duties.

The Minister of Energy has indicated he feels the province’s 350 existing municipal utilities commissions could well be reduced to 100 or even 50. His argument is that amalgamated units could maintain the system with less equipment and fewer staff members.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron --

Mr. Riddell: I’m just finishing up, sir.

Mr. Chairman: Well it is 6 o’clock.

Mr. Riddell: However, when studies regarding restructuring take place the question of readily available service during times of adverse weather conditions must be of prime consideration. When a public utility commission is phased out or relocated, the fact that quick and efficient service to this area may be delayed for long periods of time must be kept in mind.

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