Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this House, Miss Cooper and a number of students from the Stratford Centre nursing division of Conestoga College; they are situated in the east gallery, and I’m pleased that they are able to be with us today.

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to introduce, through you to the House, a class of students from Agnew H. Johnston school from the great city of Thunder Bay, with their vice-principal, Mrs. Sheila Shallot, and accompanied by two escorts.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

FEDERAL BUDGET

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I should like to make some brief comments on the federal budget introduced in Parliament yesterday by the federal Minister of Finance.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Good budget, eh? Great budget.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It is a terrible budget.

Hon. Mr. White: First, the federal budget is not anti-inflationary. It is much more expansionary that the Ontario budget.

Mr. Roy: It’s doing more than the Treasurer’s budget did.

Hon. Mr. White: Federal budgetary expenditures are forecast to increase by 22 per cent in 1974-1975, which is a 65 per cent greater increase in expenditure than Ontario’s --

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The election is on. The Legislature becomes the hustings.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Bob Stanfield is certainly going to appreciate this.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and our increase of 14.2 per cent included large transfers for the municipalities, unlike the federal budget.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer is using the Legislature for political purposes.

Hon. Mr. White: It is also a greater percentage increase than forecast for the economy as a whole.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Their deficit is smaller than the Treasurer’s.

Hon. Mr. White: Listen --

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): For good reason -- they are giving our money away.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker, is this the pot calling the kettle black?

Hon. Mr. White: Second, the province’s cash outflows are estimated at $708 million in 1974-1975 or $336 million less than our total cash inflows. This surplus of funds will be directed to the reduction of public debt and will contribute to stability in the capital market. By contrast, the federal cash requirements will increase from $1.7 billion to $2 billion, excluding foreign exchange requirements.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I wrote the speech.

Hon. Mr. White: This means that federal demands on the capital market will be increased considerably in a period of tightening credit conditions and rising interest rates.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All this will be changed by freezing wages and prices.

Hon. Mr. White: Third, unfortunately there is almost nothing in the federal budget to relieve the financial pressures of the provincial-municipal sector. In fact, the province would lose $40 million in revenues in this fiscal year if the proposed measures were enacted --

Mr. Lewis: They will be.

Hon. Mr. White: -- because Ontario would finance 23 per cent of the proposed reductions in the personal income tax base.

Fourth, the $50 tax cut announced by Mr. Turner, which does not affect Ontario revenues, is extremely modest in relation to the huge increase in federal income tax revenues.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There should be bigger tax cuts. Something like the tax cuts the Treasurer made. Why doesn’t he take the sales tax off clothing?

Hon. Mr. White: Indeed, federal personal income tax revenues will still go up by 20 per cent or $1.5 billion even after this tax cut and the changes in the tax base.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Is the Treasurer going to take the tax off clothing?

Hon. Mr. White: If the federal government had succeeded in controlling expenditures within the limits established by Ontario, a meaningful tax cut of at least $200 would have been possible, or alternatively their cash requirements would have been reduced by three-quarters.

The $50 federal tax cut does nothing for Canadians who are too poor to pay income taxes.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): The Treasurer can still take the sales tax off sweaters.

Hon. Mr. White: As Mr. Turner’s tables show, people with no taxable income get no benefits; that is, families having incomes below $4,000 and single persons with incomes below $2,000.

Mr. Roy: The Treasurer’s remarks are provocative, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: They’re not provocative at all. They are dead on.

Hon. Mr. White: By contrast, Ontario’s enriched tax credits provide the maximum tax relief to people at the very bottom of the income scale.

It is no wonder --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Bind my feet and watch me dance!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what they said in the NDP federal caucus meeting this morning.

Hon. Mr. White: It is no wonder the Liberal dum-dums are wandering around this province misinforming the populace.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, I can’t believe the Leader of the Opposition is lying; therefore he must be completely uninformed.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. If the hon. members of the Liberal Party object to being called dum-dums, I will ask the minister to withdraw.

An hon. member: Completely out of control.

Hon. Mr. White: The best is yet to come.

By contrast, Ontario’s enriched tax credits provide the maximum tax relief to people at the very bottom of the income scale. Low-income pensioners will receive from us up to $100 in increased tax credits, while poorer families will get up to $90 in additional tax relief. This brings Ontario’s total tax credits to $268 for low-income families and to $368 for needy pensioners.

On top of this, Ontario’s guaranteed annual income system, GAINS, constitutes a major action to decrease the effects of inflation on our poorer citizens. This Ontario initiative will supplement the income of single pensioners and disabled persons by up to $300 per year, and by $800 per year for pensioner couples. This directly assists 311,000 people in Ontario by raising their total income to a guaranteed minimum of $50 per week for single persons and $100 per week for married couples.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As a matter of fact, I think you are a dum-dum.

Hon. Mr. White: In summary then --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a cheap politician in the Treasurer’s chair.

Hon. Mr. White: In summary then, the Ontario plan is to deliver much higher benefits against inflation to low-income people, while at the same time keeping its total spending growth within responsible limits and reducing outstanding public debt.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This is a complete travesty of responsibility.

Hon. Mr. White: The new federal budget may or may not prove to be politically popular; in my view it is a financial failure in the fight against inflation.

Mr. Lewis: Turn it upside down; it reads much better.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Sargent: Call that a statement?

Mr. Lewis: That was better than most ministerial statements.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That statement was written with a blunt banana.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

FUNDS FOR HOUSING

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing if he can tell the members of the House how hard he tried to persuade his cabinet colleagues, particularly the Treasurer, to maintain that $95 million that was voted the year before in support of Ontario Housing for the purchase of land, which is not necessarily needed for that purpose this year but which is surely needed to service land and to make the so-called action housing programme have some action.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I didn’t try to persuade the Treasurer or the Chairman of Management Board at all. The money was in last year for the purchase of north Pickering lands; the purchases having been completed, there is no need to buy them twice.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Wouldn’t the minister agree that his so-called action housing programme, being funded with $19 million, is seen to be thoroughly inadequate presently, and without additional funding will be seen to be inadequate for the future as well?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, our forecast indicates that it is in fact completely adequate for the purposes we have in mind. The housing action programme does not encompass the entire Province of Ontario but certain discreet areas which have been designated.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary if I may: Of the $4.3 million which is budgeted for the housing action programme as housing incentive grants, what percentage does that constitute in relation to federal moneys which the ministry would have under the same plan? How many houses does the minister expect to see built for a provincial component of $4.3 million?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we are getting into a discussion of the estimates.

Mr. Lewis: No we are not.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The proper place for discussion of the estimates is in the examination of the estimates. I don’t understand the hon. member’s question as it relates to the federal participation.

Mr. Lewis: Is there no federal support of the programme?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They are not involved in the housing action programme, that’s a completely provincial programme.

Mr. Lewis: Would the minister answer the second part of the question, please? How many homes does he expect to build for $4.3 million by way of an incentive grant?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, neither I nor my ministry expects to build any houses. The houses are going to be built by the private sector. The money in the fund is for municipal incentive grants to offset any tax increases.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: I would like to ask the minister to state to the House that he is thoroughly satisfied with the funding of all the programmes that come under his jurisdiction, and that additional funding could not in his view have speeded up the provision of serviced land and additional housing in this province.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I suppose no minister is ever completely satisfied with the amount of money --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister could have had another $100 million.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- that is in his budget. However, I do believe that the amount of money in the budget is sufficient for us to carry out the programmes which we contemplate this year.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I am not getting an answer to the question. I would like one. The Treasurer put the $4.3 million in the budget as an incentive to the building of houses. Now what does the minister expect by way of the number of houses for this $4.3 million?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, that’s an examination of the estimates. We feel that in the housing action facilitating fund, there is sufficient funding to promote the building of houses in the housing action area.

Mr. Lewis: How many?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We don’t know until the municipalities come along.

Mr. Lewis: Then why this figure?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): How can the minister come up with a programme when he doesn’t know that?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, if the hon. NDP member would let him take part.

Interjection by an hon. member.

ALCOHOLISM

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you. I wonder if the minister is as concerned as many citizens are with recent reports indicating the tremendous increase in the use of alcoholic beverages in the province and particularly the increase in the incidence of alcoholism? And is he undertaking any policy initiatives which would involve this province and the surrounding provincial and state jurisdictions in an attempt at least to reduce, if not abolish, advertising for liquor and beer?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Firstly, Mr. Speaker, yes, I am concerned about it. Both liquor boards are concerned about it. Various groups have made representations to me. One would have to be completely blind to the problems that have been described if one said he was not concerned about it.

One matter that does cause me some area of concern is the statistics themselves, in that we don’t know how many more youngsters are driving -- and I say youngsters in terms of young people between 18 and 21 -- compared to the previous periods against which fatal statistics are compared. In any event, I think the leader of the Liberal Party would agree that any traffic death involving alcohol is one too many.

Insofar as to whether there is any programme devised, we have had discussions with the advertising industry on an informal basis, and I have been the recipient of many letters from individual people and groups requesting government legislation that liquor advertising be completely banned. This, I suggest, is unreasonable in that the figures that have been produced to me would indicate, particularly in border areas -- and I will use my own area and right around through Hamilton and Toronto as an example -- that people’s TV viewing habits would appear to be such that they watch US stations as much as about 56 to 58 per cent of the time, as I recollect the statistics. If we put a ban on liquor advertising within the province, I am sure a good deal of it would flow back to us through those US outlets and also in publications.

It would appear that the matter can only be resolved by educational programmes, which is a big undertaking for any group to commence; but it would seem that it has to be educational programmes that can draw to the attention of that particular group, namely, the younger group, the seriousness of drinking and driving, and the seriousness of overconsumption of alcohol regardless of your activity.

I should point out that I have received a number of letters from people who have complained about distilleries advertising on television. The distillery industry in this province a number of years ago agreed voluntarily to withhold that type of advertising and one does not view distillery advertising on Canadian television stations in Ontario. It’s an area of concern and I certainly don’t treat it lightly.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Wouldn’t the minister agree that the same problems presented themselves when many people felt that tobacco advertising should be banned? For that reason would he not see some validity in the suggestion that he, as the responsible minister in this jurisdiction, convene some sort of a conference involving these surrounding jurisdictions so that at least an approach to control and, I would hope, outright banning of advertising would go across these boundaries which the minister has very properly said would make it impossible for a single jurisdiction to accomplish a ban? Wouldn’t the minister further accept the fact that if there is validity in banning tobacco advertising, there is just as much, if not more, validity in banning advertising leading to an increase in the consumption of liquor and beer?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could come to that conclusion because we might be able to resolve a number of issues. It has, unfortunately, been the experience in those jurisdictions where tobacco has been banned by law that the consumption of tobacco has not decreased but, in fact, has increased. Whether that increase has anything to do with the ban or just the natural aging of various groups and their having the economic wherewithal to purchase tobacco, I don’t know.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Population increase.

Hon. Mr. Clement: If banning it showed a marked decrease I would think that would have to be considered, but unfortunately the experience has been just the reverse.

Mr. Shulman: Would the minister consider diverting a fixed percentage of the income his government makes every year from alcohol to the treatment of alcoholism through places like the Addiction Research Foundation? The government is giving less than a half of one per cent now.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I understand it is the policy of this government and its predecessors and other governments at other levels not to earmark a portion of any particular type of revenue for a particular programme but to sponsor those programs out of the general revenues of the province. It might well be that the grants given to those groups, which are bona fide and concerned about this, might well be increased. I can’t make that statement. It is not within my purview.

The liquor commissioners across Canada are meeting in June this year and will be discussing the question of advertising as it relates interprovincially.

I should point out -- I forgot this in speaking to the leader of the Liberal Party -- that my colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) and his predecessor (Mr. Potter), have the matter under review at the present time before the policy field in terms of the consumption of alcohol which is causing problems to a certain sector of the people in this province.

Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would this minister consider a proposition which has been presented to the House for the last 10 years, of a disincentive for advertising of liquor which would involve a contribution of $1 to a fund for the purposes of coping with the social problems to match every dollar used in advertising by the industry?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): And for smoking, too.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I would consider any proposition that was validly made and framed. I have considered a number of them. Some of the distilleries, as the member knows, have embarked on campaigns of temperance and this sort of thing in terms of their own products. The distilleries are concerned about it because, I would think, of the problems which can be created. The cost of alcoholism is very difficult to measure. We can measure road accidents but we can’t really measure absenteeism and those kinds of problems which flow from the abuse of alcohol.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. MacDonald: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister consider this proposition, which is in the record of Hansard from, literally the year 1968?

Mr. Lewis: All of these things are in Hansard.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes; as I said, Mr. Speaker, I would consider any such proposal.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

ALGONQUIN PARK YOUTH CAMP

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources if he has completed plans to establish a camp for underprivileged children this summer in Algonquin Park and whether or not these plans have been completed? Rather than putting the underprivileged children from Toronto and other urban areas in one centre, did the minister consider giving them the alternative of being distributed or having access to the young peoples’ camps at present operating across the province with governmental assistance?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of National Resources): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say we have considered a number of alternatives. After a thorough review of all such ideas which came to us we felt it was more practical to develop a camp such as we are doing in the Algonquin Park area. Our plans are well advanced and I am sure they will be discussed in the examination of my estimates when we start this afternoon.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary -- and the point about the estimates is well taken -- I would simply like to ask the minister further: Is he not, concerned about the possible bad effects -- or at least, let’s say, the less than best effects -- of putting all the underprivileged children available to take advantage of the programme, which is excellent in concept, in one area, rather than distributing them, without so earmarking them, through the camping facilities that are already available in the province and underutilized?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, we considered this very, very carefully and I think the underprivileged aspect may be overemphasized. We are going to ask the assistance, of the Ministry of Community and Social Services in picking the various children who will be coming, mainly from the urban areas, who maybe do not have the financial wherewithal to attend the other camps. We don’t see any of the problems to which the Leader of the Opposition refers.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister report on the progress of the master plan for the park, and will that plan be published and be available, in the Legislature and publicly, at the time the legislation for the Algonquin Forest Authority is brought forward?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that master plan is completed. It has gone to press, and I am hopeful it will be available before the AFA legislation is presented to the Legislature.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Am I right in thinking that the camp the minister has in mind will be for 56 children?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There are four such groups coming into the camp, Mr. Speaker, and they will be in groups of 50 to 60. We are estimating about 250 to 300 children will go through the camp through the summer.

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

LIQUOR LICENCE ACTIVITIES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d just like to ask a final question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is he the John T. Clement listed under licence activities for the week ending May 4, 1974, by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario in a transfer of the ownership or the control of something called Texas Steak House Tavern in Niagara Falls?

An hon. member: He’s a Texan.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I can’t believe that the leader of this party is asking me that question, Mr. Speaker. I always look over there for those kinds of questions.

Mr. Roy: Just answer the question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I am just interested in the minister’s ancillary activities.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, the answer to that is affirmative.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Does that mean yes?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Could the minister indicate what the nature of the transfer is, and doesn’t he feel that his involvement in this is just a teensy conflict of interest?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, we don’t have teensy conflicts of interest, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: That is embarrassing. We don’t want to embarrass the minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think the House might pick up some investment advice if I describe to the House, Mr. Speaker, how one gets involved in a rather large multinational corporate venture such as this.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Treasurer knows all about that now.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The first thing you do is you lend your client some money, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Sargent: Does the member want to hear the big one? Have the minister tell us about Labatt’s, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- to secure your loan you take shares in a private company. Then when you are made the minister, you sell those shares back to that particular person. The report in the liquor licence activities for the week ended April 4 -- or whatever week it is -- is in error. It was drawn to my attention this morning that there is something referring to 75 per cent. I had a 25 per cent interest in that particular establishment, which I sold out, about two years ago last August I think it was, but I didn’t receive the funds until rather recently.

Mr. Reid: We will hold a tag day for the minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I was to notify the board when the funds had been paid, and I did notify them when the funds had been paid. Then just to add a tear of regret, I took those funds and added some more to them and paid my income tax a week ago Sunday.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister’s conscience clear?

Mr. Shulman: We are going to give the minister a rough time at the hearings.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition? The hon. member for Scarborough West.

HOME PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Housing, how does he expect to improve on the HOME plan when the amount of money budgeted under the Ontario Mortgage Corp. in 1974-1975 is exactly the same as the amount budgeted for that purpose in 1973-1974?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we expect to improve completely on the HOME plan over the 1,500 units that were produced last year to approximately 6,000, all things being equal. We also expect that there will be some funds available by a merger of the HOME and the AHOP programme, which is a federal programme that is not working in any of the large urban centres in Ontario. The proposition was made to Mr. Basford about 10 days ago and, yesterday’s events and the coming events aside, we expect to have an answer. We think it’s a reasonable proposition; this money is not being put to work in the urban areas and with the doubling of the money, we certainly expect to have increased activity.

As well as our $75 million the federal government has approximately $80 million in AHOP which is not being put to work. We think putting the two together can have a very beneficial effect on the volume of activity under the HOME plan and the AHOP plans.

Mr. Lewis: Am I right in thinking that it’s really $69 million and $6 million was transferred from the community integrated housing programme and that the $69 million is exactly the same as last year? Could the minister not have budgeted himself increased amounts of money for housing under the HOME plan, rather than relying on federal money which may never be available? It hasn’t been available in the past.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my reply to the original question, I did say we felt that $75 million was adequate for the construction programme being planned for this year; that $75 million is sufficient.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister therefore expect that a doubling of the money will allow him to quadruple the HOME plan? If that’s so, does that mean he is going to halve the cost of the HOME houses or will they not be increasing in price as he announced the other day?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe the member understands what a merger of the HOME and AHOP programmes would involve. It would involve the HOME plan in encompassing those areas which it does not now cover -- but which AHOP does cover -- and, of course, it would involve AHOP coming into the HOME plan. Taking the two things together, the HOME plan would have to be revised to take into account such things as the purchase of existing homes, and going deeper into the income scale which AHOP does permit, except that the price ceilings don’t permit it to work. Putting the two together would have an expansion effect on the HOME programme and we might very well be able to build more houses if serviced land became available at reasonable prices.

Mr. Cassidy: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I still don’t understand, really, and perhaps the minister can explain -- how can he quadruple the number of HOME houses coming on to the market if he only doubles the amount of money available? If he is doubling the amount and trying to quadruple the plan, is this not another example of housing by headlines?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we said we would quadruple the HOME programme over last year’s home production. If the hon. member had been listening to the announcement I made a few days ago, he would have realized that one of the reasons the HOME programme did not work as well as it should have last year was because of a number of restrictions, which we have now revised. The revised programme will enable us, without any federal help, to quadruple our own production; with federal assistance we can expand the programme and improve it.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Housing another question? How is it that he has increased the amount of money for the Ontario housing programme by only $5.5 million over two years -- barely keeping pace with the inflationary rise, if that -- and therefore is obviously using no more public money in the provision of geared-to-income housing?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to believe that we are having an estimates debate in the question period and in my view it is not the proper place for it. The member will have full opportunity to debate my estimates when they go to committee.

Mr. Lewis: I must say the minister tabled this document yesterday and we now have a right to ask not specifics, but questions on it. The Speaker will rule me out of order if he wishes but I would like the minister to explain how he can have any more significant increase in housing in Ontario, given the inflationary costs, when he is budgeting what amounts to be less overall, given the inflation, in 1974-1975 than he budgeted in 1972-1973?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would have to examine the estimates to determine whether the member’s assumption is accurate. In my view, there is an increase. There has been a certain number of transfers and we have eliminated the north Pickering purchases which we no longer require.

Mr. Lewis: That is all aside.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In our view the budget is sufficient to carry out the programme we have in mind. I am prepared to answer any detailed questions during the examination of the estimates.

Mr. Lewis: All right. One last question of the Minister of Housing. On the face of it, the $4.3 million for the housing incentive grants will build 172 additional homes. If that figure is wrong, would he kindly tell us how many additional homes he expects to flow from that $4.3 million?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I think the $4.3 million the member refers to is part of the housing action facilitating funds. It is to be used as per-unit grants to municipalities, a table of which has been announced -- it has been widely publicized -- averaging about $500. I think if one divides $4 million by 500, one will get some idea at least of the minimum number of lots we expect to open up.

Mr. Lewis: Lots, that is it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Lots, that’s all it is.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: According to the minister’s figures a maximum of 8,000 lots will flow out of that particular housing incentives programme. How does that square with the 40,000 or 50,000 additional lots which government people have talked about for the next two years?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we are only talking about one year in the estimates. The hon. member has not looked at the second line in the housing action facilitating fund which is used to develop other lots. We confidently expect there will be a substantial increase over the normal production of houses in the province this year.

TAXES ON MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Lewis: A question of the provincial Treasurer, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the provincial Treasurer, in light of the federal budget last night would he now consider eliminating unearned depletion in the mining resources sector reducing the earned depletion rates and changing the 100 per cent writeoff in exploration and development to the 30 per cent level which the federal government is pursuing?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, a number of the federal changes, if enacted, would bear on our expected amendments. I have no confidence, however, that the proposed changes in the federal budget will be enacted.

Mr. Roy: Don’t bet on it.

Hon. Mr. White: And I have an idea that when the next government is formed by Mr. Stanfield, many of these measures will fall by the wayside.

Mr. Breithaupt: And so will this government!

Hon. Mr. White: Therefore, I am not prepared to guess about our future actions at the present time.

Mr. Cassidy: And the ripoff continues!

Mr. Lewis: Since the Treasurer felt confident enough about it to use a ministerial statement at length, can I ask if this government will occupy the tax room vacated by the federal government in the mineral resource industry, should it have that opportunity?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The Premier (Mr. Davis) is trying to keep the Treasurer quiet.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, we’re certainly examining all possibilities in the light of the budget. However, we wouldn’t attempt to make a decision until we see the progress of that budget.

DENTAL CARE FOR CHILDREN

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Minister of Health. Now that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Quebec have worked out dental health programmes for those under six and seven years of age respectively, does he have such a programme seriously under consideration for Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Can the minister indicate to us any of the cost factors and what the age level will be? I presume he will say he will introduce it in the fullness of time, but are there any ages or cost factors he has in mind?

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): In the fullness of time.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, we’ve been investigating lots of ways of providing dental care and other necessary components of our system that are not covered by insurance at present. I don’t have specific figures, although I realize from those that I saw that the plan’s cost increases very rapidly as it grows with the age of the population. If one starts, for example, with those in the population aged six and under, which I understand is about an ideal age for beginning, the cost is relatively modest; it’s in the order of $10 million to $20 million a year.

Mr. Lewis: Is that so?

Hon. Mr. Miller: It escalates then very quickly in two or three years to $60 million or $70 million per year as that age group gets older and remains within the umbrella. And it can escalate to $200 million or $300 million a year. No one is sure how much, because while expenditures for dental care in Ontario probably are in the range of $150 million a year today, that doesn’t by any means indicate that would be the total requirement of the population under an insured plan.

Mr. Cassidy: So the minister feels it’s better to let the kid’s teeth rot.

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

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the minister, in his concern about the escalation of the cost, is he giving further consideration to bringing in the paradental aspect, such as the denturists, and enabling them to practise -- at least in this case to provide dentures at a lower cost than is available from the dentist, particularly since the programme is apparently unsatisfactory in the view of the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we are very carefully giving consideration to this. I think I’ll be in a position to make a definite decision very shortly.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How about today?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Very shortly.

Mr. Breithaupt: How about today?

Hon. Mr. Miller: As to the utilization of other people within the allied health field in dentistry, we’ve had discussions with the college and with other agencies for a better training programme and a better classification of skills. I think this will take some time to materialize, but it’s on the way.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Bounsall: Can we assume from what the minister has said about the cost of such a programme and its escalation, that it’s going to be based primarily on a repair basis and some sort of fee for service, rather than on a preventive dentistry programme?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I don’t think one should jump to such conclusions, Mr. Speaker, either that it’s a fee for service or that it is on a repair basis. One of the facts that’s been openly discussed in this area is the need for greater fluoridation, for example, on a preventive basis to make the plan economically feasible. There are different methods of delivering the care, and they are all open; that’s why we’re not prepared at this point in time to come forward with a policy.

Mr. Lewis: One last supplementary question of the minister: Does he think that in terms of ordering the government’s social priorities, using his figures of $10 million to $20 million for all of those under the age of six, that that money would be better invested to provide dental care for everyone under the age of six in Ontario, rather than to pay the inflationary costs of the Krauss-Maffei system?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can hardly say that is either-or. Within our ministry we are studying these matters, and I think that I have to remain within the confines of the authority I have.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is a very modest man.

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

ALLEGED AIR POLLUTION IN ETOBICOKE

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the member for Etobicoke requested information on Friday, May 3, regarding pollution from two companies in Rexdale, Continuous Colour Coat Ltd. and Canadian Lukens Ltd.

Continuous Colour Coat has a long history of citizen complaints and orders from my ministry. In October, 1971, the company was ordered by this ministry to install fume incineration equipment to resolve the problem. The installation was completed as required but the complaints continued. Further investigation has indicated the company was not operating the equipment conscientiously. In addition, low-level sources which previously had not been detected were also identified and corrective action required of the company.

In September, 1972, court charges were laid by the ministry and in April, 1973, a conviction obtained for violation of the Environmental Protection Act, 1971. The company appealed this conviction on grounds of the constitutionality of the Environmental Protection Act, 1971. This appeal was heard in court last week and the court has reserved judgement. Additional charges are pending against the company.

In addition, the company has recently taken steps to reduce the low level odour sources. Increased surveillance by my ministry to evaluate the result of these changes has been started. Further violations will be considered for prosecution.

With respect to Canadian Lukens Ltd., this has been a long-standing noise problem in the community. In March, 1974, the newly formed noise pollution control section undertook a survey which indicated that the noise level exceeds the levels in legislation under consideration. The company was advised of the situation in a letter of April 3, 1974, advising that abatement measures were required to control noise from the operations. The company has responded by indicating that many of the sources of the problem have been reduced. Further noise measurements are to be undertaken to determine whether additional measures are required.

Members will see from this that we have attempted to resolve these problems as quickly as possible.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I ask the minister if the appeal of Continuous Colour Coat is successful, perhaps on technical grounds, is his ministry prepared to launch a further legal suit against the company in order that this problem, the odours, etc., from this company, be stopped?

Hon. W. Newman: I am prepared to wait until the judgement is handed down and see what the judgement is on the matter. The company was prosecuted and we are now waiting for the judgement to come down.

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

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have some dialogue with “smiling Bill” there. This question is so important --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I don’t think the hon. member should use that term of reference to the Premier of this province.

Mr. Reid: How do you know who he was talking to?

Mr. Speaker: Because the Premier was smiling.

Mr. Roy: Just call him Bill.

Mr. Ruston: There are a lot of Bills over there.

Mr. Roy: That’s “wild Bill” there.

HOSPITAL IN OWEN SOUND

Mr. Sargent: I am awaiting the report with regard to the serious situation in the Owen Sound hospital. The scuttlebutt around Owen Sound is that the Premier has made a statement that as long as I am the member for Grey-Bruce Owen Sound will never get a new hospital. The Premier’s statement is that these hospitals are awarded only on a need basis and not a political basis.

I am very concerned and I am asking this. Would the Premier consider offering the services of the government to allow us in our area to redirect our finances, such as postponing the road project in South Grey, etc., and let us have our hospital on a priority basis? In other words, if the Premier will not recognize the seriousness of our situation -- our halls are full of beds -- we are the main hospital in the area --

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Question.

Mr. MacDonald: Question.

Mr. Sargent: In other words, the question is -- and I have not had the report yet -- will the government allow us to approach the different levels of government to redirect our finances from this government on a priority basis to build a new hospital?

Mr. Shulman: If the member resigns will the government give him a new hospital?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): The member for High Park asked the member for Grey-Bruce a question. He can answer it. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, in reply --

Mr. Sargent: I would gladly resign my seat if the government would give us a new hospital.

Mr. Roy: Now the Premier is on the spot.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): How can he refuse?

Mr. Lewis: That is the lowest price he will ever get.

Mr. MacDonald: He will never get a better bargain.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: We will share the cost. I will speak to the member for High Park.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the Premier would like to take the question as notice?

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister without Portfolio): Is it okay if we take up a collection?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it’s quite obvious that the hon. member’s suggestion has some support amongst his on colleagues and others.

Mr. Sargent: I’ll buy that.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Just another by-election.

Hon. Mr. Davis: However, I must say to the hon. member, while I appreciate the generosity of his suggestion --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: When did the government last win a by-election?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I really am not prepared to take him up on that. I would also observe that any observations that he may have heard as to his being a member in that area is the reason for the problem of the Owen Sound Hospital, to the extent there is a problem, are completely without foundation. I may express some personal points of view from time to time but, by and large, they have been very constructive in nature. When I refer to the members opposite, I may some days question the credibility of the mathematics they use.

Mr. Roy: Is the Premier backing off?

Mr. Sargent: We’re not talking about that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I may question the irrational positions that he takes from time to time, but I want to assure the member for Grey-Bruce --

Mr. Sargent: I am talking about the hospital.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that on no occasion have I said, nor has anybody on this side of the House ever said, that something will or will not be done in an opposition member’s riding as it relates to that member himself. That has never been done in my memory in this Legislature. I just want to assure the member for Grey-Bruce that that is factually not the case. As far as my undertaking the other day goes, I said to the member for Grey-Bruce that I would personally take a look at it and I’m in the process.

An hon. member: If the member for Grey-Bruce wants to resign now, don’t let that discourage him.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

USE OF SODIUM NITRITE IN FOODS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the minister taking any steps to persuade the federal Department of National Health and Welfare to ban sodium nitrite from various foods, such as baby foods, bacon and frankfurters, because of the health hazard involved?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I want a clarification. Was that sodium nitrite or nitrate?

Mr. Burr: Nitrite.

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, I can’t speak from knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I’ll have to check into it.

Mr. Burr: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister not aware that nitrites can combine with other chemicals, either in the food or in the stomach, to form nitrosamines; that tiny amounts of nitrosamines have been found to cause cancer in every species in which they have been tested; and that it is, therefore, a matter of some urgency?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know those facts. I will be glad again to look into them. I know that sodium nitrite has been a preservative in foods for about as long as preservatives have been used. I would have thought that the federal drug agency would have looked into these possibilities and ruled upon it.

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

HOLIDAY MAGIC

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In the light of the fact that the Province of Quebec has warrants out under the Criminal Code against two senior officers of a company called Holiday Magic, which is an Ontario company, has he licensed this company to operate pyramid sales in this province? If not, does he intend to do so?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, Holiday Magic has not yet received a licence. It has made application. It’s pending before the registrar but we have not licensed them as of this date.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In light of the fact that his own pyramid legislation states that unless a company is licensed it cannot operate in this province, how has he allowed this company to operate for two years without authorization under the Act?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I can’t recall whether it applies particularly to this company or not, but I know in certain instances that while an application was pending and we were awaiting receipt of material from the company, we had them file security with us -- this is the whole gist of the legislation -- in the form of letters of credit or cash, and in the event that people wished to change their mind who involved themselves in these activities, there would be a fund from which they would be reimbursed.

My recollection is that so far we have reimbursed such people to the extent of roughly $225,000; and in the most recent one, last autumn, I seized a $100,000 letter of credit from an organization -- I am sure it is not this same one, but it was a similar type of organization.

Mr. Roy: Well, might I ask a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker? Just so we know where the minister is going in relation to pyramid sales companies, could he advise if he has recently licensed any of these pyramid sales companies? Secondly, does the minister plan to license Holiday Magic? And if he doesn’t, does he intend to take steps, either under the Criminal Code or under the pyramid sales legislation, to force them out of business?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t wish to make any reference insofar as Holiday Magic is concerned because of the matter pending before the Quebec courts.

It was the opinion of the law officers of the Crown initially that prosecutions could not be successfully completed against pyramid sales organizations under the provisions of the Criminal Code. It was some two years ago that this seemed to be the opinion of the law officers at that time --

Mr. Roy: Well, they have had a conviction.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- hence, the origin here of the Pyramidic Sales Act, which came into being in June, 1972, I think. Meanwhile, there have been prosecutions in other jurisdictions within Canada under the Criminal Code which have resulted in convictions. Because of the nature of those particular prosecutions, the law officers now are hopeful that this is the route that should be followed in the event that fraud is alleged.

With reference to a particular pyramidic sales organization, a criminal trial opened here in Toronto in late December or early January, I believe. We are awaiting the disposal of that. Meanwhile, the trial has been adjourned, pending an application of some kind that is going to the Supreme Court of Canada. So we are awaiting with interest the outcome of that. In the meantime, we will issue a licence to any pyramidic sales organization that complies with our requirements --

Mr. Roy: Including Holiday Magic?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t wish to refer to Holiday Magic because of the pending criminal case. It might well prejudice the prosecution or defence of that case. I don’t wish to discuss that one today.

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

NEGOTIATIONS ON BEHALF OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the House that he has no objections to the community college or CAAT academic unit of the CSAO now entering into direct negotiations with the community college presidents on behalf of reaching a contract, rather than dealing through the Council of Regents, whose last and only offer was a 5½ per cent increase on salary, which is well below the cost-of-living increase?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: As long as the procedures are agreed to and the law is being obeyed, I have no objection.

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

DAAL SPECIALTIES LTD.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Was the minister consulted or advised by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Guindon) of the proposed closing of Daal Specialties Ltd. in the city of Windsor, Daal being a subsidiary of Allied Chemical? If the minister was advised, did the minister not approach the Daal people in an attempt to have them continue their operations in the city of Windsor, since the removal of such operations means the loss of approximately 400 jobs?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Labour keeps us advised of closings that have taken place or are about to take place. My ministry people, in the industrial division, and the Labour people, will attempt to meet with management and try to find some solution to the problem. Sometimes it does not rest in trying to maintain the operation of the firm but in finding new jobs for the employees who are being displaced by a closing corporation.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Ministry of Labour advised this minister that Daal contemplate closing their operations in the city of Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I’ll have to check with my ministry people on that particular corporation.

Mr. B. Newman: Will the minister reply in the House when he has the information?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, I shall.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

OMA FEE SCHEDULE

Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the minister’s professed interest in preventive medicine, can he tell me why he has agreed to this new schedule of fees which literally “does in” the general practitioner? It reduces the payment for an examination from $15 to $10 and the $10 is to include any other tests such as Pap smears.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think questions on the Ontario Medical Association’s fee schedule are best addressed to them.

Mr. Shulman: Did the minister not approve this schedule of fees? Did he not say, before they came out, that the extra money was primarily to go to the general practitioners when, in actual fact, that is not what is happening?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Before jumping to that conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see more facts. I understood the general practitioner was to do better. Did the office rate not go from $6 to $7?

Mr. Shulman: The office rate went from $6 to $6.70, the examination rate went from $15 to $10, and the pre-schools went from $15 to $10. That’s a great raise.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has now expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Taylor from the standing administration of justice committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Solicitor General be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975:

Ministry of the Solicitor General

Ministry administration program .... $ 822,000

Public safety program .... 9,023,000

Supervision of police forces programme .... 3,900,000

Ontario Provincial Police

Administration programme .... 3,943,000

Criminal and general law enforcement programme .... 42,756,000

Traffic law enforcement programme ... 37,892,000

Mr. Speaker: Shall this report be received and adopted?

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Speaker: There is no motion for adoption.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I have had distributed today the report of the capital works programme of the Ministry of Government Services for the information of the members. We will be tabling a copy for the Clerk of the Legislature.

This, Mr. Speaker, gives the background information on the capital construction programme which will be considered during my estimates which are coming up, I understand, in a few days.

Mr. Speaker: Any further reports?

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet, Civil Service Commission, and Ministry of Revenue be referred to the miscellaneous estimates committee; and those of the Office of the Speaker and the Provincial Auditor to the procedural affairs committee.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Any further motions?

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill 25, An Act to impose a Tax on Speculative Profits Resulting from the Disposition of Land.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Chairman, there are a number of amendments which I have had prepared. There are not many copies. I have asked staff to deliver a copy of each of the sets, as far as we have gone today in getting our final drafts ready for debate on the matter, to at least one of the members opposite in the NDP and in the Liberal Party as well. I think, Mr. Chairman, you have a copy as well.

The very first amendment is a brief one dealing with the title, and if I may, I would like to put it before we get into the bill itself. Was there a question raised first, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, only that it is rather awkward to receive only one set of these amendments. We realize they were late because of other requirements, but I’m wondering if the minister could allow us at least a few moments to have further copies of these run off so that various members of the opposition parties will be able to consider them.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, I would also ask that that concession be made. There are a number of us over here --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): We are all interested in this bill.

Mr. Lawlor: -- who are vitally interested, and it’s a shame we couldn’t produce more copies.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Let me just see how many more copies are available. We weren’t able to get too many put together, but certainly I would be only too pleased if all hon. members who wish to participate in this debate could have copies of all the amendments.

Mr. Renwick: We would be glad to let you use our Xerox.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Let’s adjourn for 10 minutes until we all get copies, because it is unfair to try to debate this without the amendments.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): That’s right.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): You don’t have to push it through today, after all.

Hon. Mr. Meen: If other members were prepared to make their own copies in the same vein, I think we might get on with this in the meantime.

Mr. Singer: No, we can’t!

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): It is very complicated.

Mr. Chairman: I believe the --

Mr. Bullbrook: We have to --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I believe the first amendment is just a slight change --

Hon. Mr. Meen: A change of the title.

Mr. Chairman: -- in the title of the bill.

Mr. Bullbrook: On the point of order, may I suggest to you most respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that we’ve attempted to analyse this bill, and I can assure you, sir, that any amendment that can be made perhaps will have an impact on some other section. We have to have that assurance so that we know what we are doing on this bill.

Mr. Singer: Absolutely.

Mr. Bullbrook: It is a very complex thing.

Mr. Cassidy: We already have these amendments --

Mr. Breithaupt: May I comment on that, Mr. Chairman? Now that we have sent out the one copy of the amendments that we were provided to be mimeographed, we don’t have any.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Singer: May I add to this particular point of order, Mr. Chairman? In delivering the first speech of the second reading debate, I asked the minister to make the amendments available to us at that time. It is absolutely impossible and unfair and undemocratic to ask us to proceed with this bill without having copies of the amendments available to all the members.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It is not even nice.

An hon. member: Let’s adjourn.

Mr. Singer moves an adjournment for a period of 10 minutes.

Mr. Lewis: We second that.

Mr. Renwick: I second that.

Mr. Bullbrook: Absolutely.

Mr. Chairman: Well, I just wonder --

Mr. Lewis: You have a motion to adjourn for 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Just one moment, please. May I ask if there is a solution coming to this?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I have obtained one extra copy. That leaves me one --

Mr. Cassidy: Big deal!

Hon. Mr. Meen: I wish I had more. Now if the hon. members want to adjourn while other copies are run off, that’s fine; except I thought --

Mr. Chairman: To simplify matters, suppose I just suspend the operations for about 10 minutes.

Mr. Singer: All right.

Mr. Lewis: Ten minutes. Well done.

The House recessed for 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman: I think there are some copies right here. The hon. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, before we get into the sections of the bill I have an amendment.

Hon. Mr. Meen moves that the long title of Bill 25 be struck out and the following substituted therefor: An Act to impose a Tax on Land in Respect of Certain Disposition Affecting the Control or Ownership of Land.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think it matters what the name of the bill is -- a rose by any other name would smell just about as sweet -- but I wonder if the minister can tell us what the object of this is? I guess that maybe some of his advisers feel there might be some great constitutional implication in the old tide and therefore have suggested a new title.

Since all of this literature has gone out, forms have been printed, permissions have been granted, all with the old title on -- I have a couple in my office right now -- I wonder whether those are good or whether I have to apply all over again. It seems a little confusing that we have a bill as important as the minister says this one is and we can’t even figure out what it should be called.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think, Mr. Chairman, the member would agree it is an important bill, he supported it last night in principle. In short, if he looks at section 22 in the bill he will see that the short title, which is what would appear in the affidavits, is the Land Speculation Tax Act.

That was the title we had given it in the ministry. It was legislative counsel who put together the more elaborate title that appears on the face of the bill and at the heading of the first page.

The difficulty is a constitutional one. I agree with the member that a rose is a rose, but there still has been the suggestion, particularly from the member for Downsview, that there might be a constitutional problem involved. We don’t think there is but inasmuch as we did not wish to have any appearance whatever that this was a tax with respect to profits -- and that was the suggestion that some members had made when they were suggesting that possibly the federal government might have some justification for claiming this as a non-deductible item before computation of the federal income tax, either personal or corporate -- it seemed to me best to make it abundantly clear by removing any wisp of evidence, even so little as in the title, by referring to this becoming a tax on land.

That’s what it is. It is a tax on land in respect of certain dispositions affecting the control or ownership of land. In that sense it gets away from any element, and that’s the only place where any element relative to profit shows up. In every other place it has been quite clear we are taxing the land and we are simply doing the same thing in the title.

Mr. Singer: Would the minister not agree with me that it is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that the courts will pay no attention either to the title, the preamble remarks or marginal notes? Really, if there is a constitutional argument, the argument revolves around what the bill says, not what its title is, not what the preamble is and not what the marginal notes may appear to indicate.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, I am inclined to accept that position, but people are trying to interpret this Act and are coming to us and saying: “For goodness sake, you are even calling it a tax on profits”. To avoid that, and since everybody trying to interpret this Act at this time is not a constitutional lawyer, we felt it wiser to have the title of the Act in concert with what we believe to be the law.

Mr. Renwick: There is obviously more than one problem raised by the minister’s proposed amendment. In the short time we’ve had to look at it, we think there are three problems which the minister’s amendment raises.

I think each one of them are equally important, but I’ll leave it to the minister to decide which one he wants to give pre-eminence to.

What is the effect on the bill of the Interpretations Act when one changes the long title? It seems to me that my colleague the hon. member for Downsview, in his reference to the marginal notes and headings in the body of an Act -- “shall be deemed to be inserted for convenience of reference only” -- certainly does not apply to this. The long title of the bill is an integral part of the Act. It would appear to me that one can’t get away from the matter that he title is an integral, definitive part of the statute which was put before us for debate; that’s the first point.

The second point, of course, is the obvious constitutional problem which the minister, if I may say so, overlooked in the Land Transfer Tax Act; and the obvious constitutional problem he overlooked when this bill, in haste, was drafted. Now it seems to me that the minister’s got to indicate to us whether or not the tax levied by subsection (2) of section 2 of the bill is the tax on land. It certainly doesn’t say so. That refers to a particular disposition, and the results of the disposition is a change in control or ownership. There’s a tax imposed by this statute in addition to the tax imposed by subsection (1) of section 2. That’s the second problem that’s raised.

The third problem to which I’d like my colleagues, both in this party and the Liberal Party, to address their attention, is whether or not there shouldn’t be a second reading of this bill, in that the change of the long title means we are now dealing in committee of the whole House with a bill which is a new bill.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The government got itself in the same boxes two years ago.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): That’s right.

Mr. Renwick: The change in the long title is a change in the bill. It is a change in the bill to the extent that this is not the bill which we debated and on which there was a vote last night. It seems to me that perhaps we should adjourn again --

Mr. Breithaupt: Adjourn the House.

Mr. MacDonald: Adjourn the House; right.

Mr. Renwick: -- until perhaps the Clerk, the Chairman of the committee and the Speaker of the House have an opportunity to determine whether or not this is the kind of change which would require us to revert to second reading.

Mr. Givens: He’s right.

Mr. Renwick: Now I would be very interested in the minister’s comments on those three aspects of the bill, while I casually read a little further into the Interpretation Act to find any other flaws which may come to mind as a result of this change.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I too could speak to this matter and refer the House to rule 43.(a). Rule 43.(a) says:

Every bill shall be introduced upon a motion for leave for introduction and first reading, specifying the title of the bill.

Now it would appear to me, Mr. Chairman, that in this circumstance we are making an amendment which will mean that the bill whose title we have specified in the first and second readings, is not the bill that we will be able to give third reading to.

It would seem rather odd in our procedure if we were to introduce a certain bill for first and second reading, then to amend the title, and seemingly out of the blue as it were -- the “blue machine” at least -- be able to give a bill third reading, the title of which has not appeared when first and second readings were granted.

I think, indeed, the hon. member for Riverdale may have raised a very interesting point, particularly of procedure, in that we seem to be splitting ourselves so that on the record of the House it will appear that a certain bill has received first and second reading, and another bill has received third reading.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, before we go any further, may I remind you that the government and the minister have walked into this with what should be their eyes wide open. When we started second reading we asked -- as we felt we were entitled to -- for copies of what were then alleged to be 13 amendments. Thirteen amendments runs the serious risk of a change in the principle of the bill. And this was precisely why we asked for them. Because two years ago we had exactly this kind of situation -- precisely why we ask for them because two years ago we had --

Mr. Givens: The member for Downsview suggested the way to deal with that.

Mr. MacDonald: The Speaker concluded that it was a change and it was referred back to the government; it had to be withdrawn and a new bill introduced. However, it seems to me that the point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is wholly academic, because once you have changed the name of the bill, it is a different bill, as rule 43 indicates, and therefore the argument really doesn’t need to be pressed.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. I think we can --

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Yes?

Mr. Renwick: On this same point --

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Just one point, just one point.

Mr. Roy: I want to speak on the amendment.

Mr. Renwick: If I may, on the same point. Following along with what my colleague the member for Kitchener said, as well as my colleague the member for York South, I had occasion to look at the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday, in which it now appears to indicate the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 25, An Act to Impose a Tax on Speculative Profits Resulting from the Disposition of Land, was again adjourned and then during the evening sitting the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 25, An Act to Impose a Tax on Speculative Profits Resulting from the Disposition of Land, was again resumed, and after some time the motion was carried on the following division -- I don’t think it’s necessary for me to read the names -- and the bill was accordingly read the second time and ordered for committee of the whole House.

Now you can’t have it both ways; the Votes and Proceedings are the formal record of what took place in this House, and yet there is never going to be a statute by the name that we passed at second reading last night.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: No mention of tax on land.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Renwick: The tax on land --

Mr. Chairman: Is there further comment? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Look, I can recognize a filibuster when I see it, and I think this is just because --

Some hon. members: Oh come on.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: It’s not a filibuster, you are knee-deep in legislative chaos.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It is still Bill 25. You can have amendments --

Mr. Cassidy: It’s a deliberate attempt to muzzle the rights of this House.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It doesn’t really matter whether you are omitting sections in the bill. It becomes a different bill, in that sense, when you have any amendments at all.

Mr. Lawlor: A piece of crippling ineptitude.

Mr. Renwick: Did you hear what my colleague from York South just said?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Unless we depart, of course, from any significant sort of principle.

Mr. Renwick: He said you are knee-deep in legislative chaos.

Hon. Mr. Meen: If you are going to go this way you could say, well you can’t have any amendments in committee of the whole because according to the argument made by the member for Kitchener, it’s simply a different bill when you’ve made any change.

Mr. Renwick: That is not so.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It’s still Bill 25, and it will remain Bill 25 until it is otherwise disposed of by this House, by whatever name. Now for goodness’ sakes --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: If you want to filibuster, just carry on forever.

Mr. Chairman: Order please, I have listened to the arguments pro and con; in my opinion there is no change in the principle of the bill and the final --

Mr. Bullbrook: Well there is.

Mr. Roy: Could I speak to that?

Mr. Chairman: Just one moment please; not while someone else is speaking.

I think the member for Kitchener came very close to the answer to it when he mentioned that after third reading -- resolved that the bill be now entitled as in the motion -- this is when the final entitling of the bill is accomplished.

Actually, in my opinion the new name for the bill doesn’t change the bill; it could be just called Bill 25 or nothing or anything, as far as that goes.

Mr. MacDonald: You are openly flaunting the orders of the House.

Mr. Lawlor: That is very poor indeed.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: I would say the debate should go forward; that is my ruling.

Mr. Renwick: We can challenge that ruling.

Mr. Roy: Can I speak to the amendment?

Mr. Chairman: I’ve made my ruling that the debate is now in order.

Mr. Good: On this point, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, surely in a matter that is so deeply concerned with a departure in tax legislation, it seems irresponsible indeed that the minister would treat the House, and you sir, in this very strange and peculiar way.

It seems to me the rules are quite clear and it would be a travesty on the responsibility that we have, not just as opposition members but your backbenchers too, that the minister would undertake to accomplish this change, and in this particular way.

I ask you, sir, to reconsider your ruling; or as my colleagues have said we’ll have to challenge it.

Mr. Givens: Ring the bells.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, if I may address myself to the amendment: The approach taken by the government on this particular bill, Mr. Chairman, is typical of legislation by way of headlines, and there is very little to back it up.

There is another standing order which might well be apropos in this case. Standing order 44 says: “No bill may be introduced either in blank or in imperfect form.” If there ever was a bill, Mr. Chairman, that was introduced in imperfect form, it is this bill.

Mr. Renwick: That’s extremely apropos.

Mr. Roy: Yes. Including the fact that the title was wrong, the minister is proposing some 13 or 14 amendments.

Mr. Good: There are 21 pages of amendments.

Mr. Roy: There are 21 pages of amendments. If we’ve ever had a bill that was in imperfect form, it is this one.

But the point is simply this, Mr. Chairman, that all bills that are supposed to be passed by this House are to receive three readings, as I understand it. This bill for which we’re now discussing amendments has not received first reading. This bill. An Act to Impose a Tax on Land in respect of certain Dispositions affecting the Control or Ownership of Land, has never had first reading.

Mr. Good: We’ve never seen it.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): No.

Mr. Roy: We’ve never seen it before. So we say, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment as introduced by die minister is out of bounds. He should live with his arrogance when he looks at the suggestion made from this side. Surely to God -- he’s a lawyer and he should know better than to try to introduce legislation which is so ill-drafted, especially when the amendments come to us five minutes before we are to discuss them in substance.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that this bill should go on back to second reading.

Mr. Bullbrook: I just want to add a comment, if I might. I was reading rule 44 and I suggest to you most respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that you’ve not given us an opportunity. You’ve made your ruling before we’ve had an opportunity to give you the benefit of our thoughts.

They might not be so significant as to sway your mind, but let me just point out to you something peripherally touched upon by the member for York South. Rule 45 says:

“Except by unanimous consent of the House, no bill shall be read for the second time until it has been printed and distributed, and so marked on the orders of the day.” This bill will never have been marked on the orders of the day in compliance with the rules of this House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a fact.

Mr. Bullbrook: I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, at no time will that bill be shown on the orders of the day in its proper form, as amended, with a proper designation in compliance with rule 45, if we’re to carry on.

We don’t want to exercise this out of some type of errant disregard for the rules of the House or some attempt to filibuster. We’ve attempted to do our homework on this but really it’s a travesty to ask us to come forward today and debate a significant piece of legislation, which in effect the minister has changed essentially by changing the name of the bill. We don’t want to be put in a position of having to challenge our colleague who sits as Chairman. It’s not some sort of a game we’re playing. We voted in this party in support of the government as a matter of principle, because we see there is essentially a good principle to be put forward.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A tax on speculative profits.

Mr. Bullbrook: Right. But the minister has changed the principle in changing the very name and he doesn’t comply with three of the rules of the Legislature itself.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Chairman, the minister made some remark about how he recognizes a filibuster when one is made. I think the minister should appreciate that the onus is being put upon him right now. It is one of the most fundamental rules of British law and British justice that a tax statute is always strictly construed and has to be so carefully brought through parliament, introduced properly, and passed properly, because it is always rigidly and strictly construed in a court of law.

The minister is running the danger that if he proceeds in this way, in putting this thing through this Legislature right now, somebody is going to attack the validity of this piece of legislation. He has hundreds of millions of dollars involved in this thing. Does he want to run the risk, after the members of the NDP have warned him and after the legal brains on this side of the Legislature have warned him of what he is embarking upon, that somebody is going to challenge the validity of this legislation in a court of law? If he wants to run this risk I’m saying he is doing this with the greatest of folly involved.

Mr. MacDonald: A bill that has never had first and second reading would be beautiful in the courts.

Mr. Givens: He is making a very serious and grave mistake. He might as well swallow his pride whole and start all over again from scratch, because as far as we on this side are concerned we’re prepared to support the principle of this bill, but the way the minister is putting this thing through it is going to be a nullity. We are warning the minister in the most serious way possible that what he is doing here is going to be challenged in a court or law that is going to render this legislation a complete nullity.

An hon. member: Right, a good point.

Mr. Givens: It’s going to be null and void ab initio. This is the risk that the minister is running.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I too would like --

Mr. Cassidy: I don’t believe it. I really don’t believe what’s happening over there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: We wish to make a point --

Mr. Cassidy: The great Liberal flip-flop is under way again and all over a title. Little do they know how much they rock with that particular amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point. Surely there is a constitutional point; a point in parliamentary procedure. I suggest you should inform yourself as to how intrinsic titles to bills are. My opinion is that it is fundamental to the existence of the bill. Not only does a change in title alter the bill itself -- make a change there and you change the purpose of the bill -- but it is a double effect.

The second prong to the argument is that you wouldn’t be making a change in the title if there was not a fundamental change in the whole purport, orientation and purpose of the legislation as it stands. You don’t change a book called “A Guide to Fly Fishing” to “How to Perform the Art of Scuba Diving” without making some kind of change which has some practical effect out there.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is yielding ground.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, there are some things which I think particularly need saying at this point. We have had the point raised by the member for Riverdale and by myself with respect to the titling of the bill. There is an even more important point which I think should be discussed and it flows from this amendment as well.

We have had comments by the minister reported to us from time to time that there would be some particular amendments to this bill. We called for them on second reading and they were not available for good and valid reasons. We understood there were amendments in three particular areas and we were led to believe at least that these were not large amendments of substance but rather the sort of thing which could ordinarily be dealt with in the give and take of committee.

We now find, Mr. Chairman, that we already have 21 pages of amendments to a bill which is only 27 pages long, and there are many more yet to come. I do not think that tax legislation can be dealt with in this slapdash procedure. The only way we will be able to deal intelligently with the large number of amendments which the minister is bringing before us is, I believe, to see a reprinted bill with the amendments which the minister proposes. There is simply too much here to be put through this House by this committee in this kind of form.

There are many substantial changes being made, and I echo the comments of me member for York-Forest Hill that it would be prudent of the minister to bring in a new bill under the name he wishes to have for the bill and that the bill be reprinted with the large number of amendments which the government proposes so that we can do our job and deal intelligently with this vital piece of tax legislation.

Mr. Givens: We are going to make our own.

Mr. Renwick: I was really rising on a point of order, because as usual I am just a mouthpiece for my colleagues to the left. I would like the record to show that it was my colleague, the member for York South, who whispered in my ear that this bill would be invalid if this amendment passed.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I have had a number of conversations with my colleagues about the constitutionality of the bill if the title is changed. I think the points made by this party and the Liberal Party are well taken.

However, I have to say this to the minister, that seldom has a once-great party veered so abruptly on so little pretext, given the fact that whatever --

Mr. Givens: Why is the member always worried about this party?

Mr. Cassidy: -- the constitutional grounds are, the wording of the bill, what the bill does and the principle of the bill are not going to be changed. I am telling the minister that for constitutional reasons and because of the rules of the order of this House, he should not change the title of the bill.

Mr. Breithaupt: That was decided last night.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. I am just saying the Liberal Party is preparing the ground.

Mr. Givens: Are you supporting the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: We have opposed the bill; we will continue to oppose the bill. What are you doing now? Nobody can keep up with what the Liberal Party is doing.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We know where the enemy is.

Mr. Breithaupt: Sure do.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, the only conceivable reason the minister may have for changing the title of the bill would be if his advisers found some legal reasons that the words “speculative profits” should not appear in the title.

If that is the case, then clearly they would have also changed section 22, but the only amendment to section 22 in the bill was to change its number to section 24. Section 24 will read, according to the amendment: “This Act may be cited as the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974.”

I point out to the minister that quite apart from the constitutional question concerned, he will lose the support of the Liberal Party for this bill if he changes the title. That’s what’s going to happen.

Mr. Good: Talk for yourself.

Mr. Cassidy: Now I don’t know whether you are trying to drive them into that or what. I don’t know if you realize just what a massive impact you would have on them with the change of a few words. At any rate, this is not permitted by the rules, and I urge the minister to withdraw because it is clearly an insubstantial reason he has for doing it and the consequences are grave.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s the best speech in support of the Tories I have ever heard.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: I just want to say the best evidence we are sincere in this is that we have to put up with that kind of comment and still go against the bill.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I’m not really counting on support from any quarter on any particular section of this bill. I’m counting on the wisdom of the House to pass the bill.

Mr. MacDonald: You sound like Turner and his budget.

Mr. Cassidy: You are kicking the Liberals out of bed.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Frankly, I didn’t. expect any kind of opposition to this. You quite surprised me.

Mr. Renwick: Frankly?

Hon. Mr. Meen: After all, it seemed to me to be clarifying the nature of the entire bill. We aren’t changing a single --

Mr. Givens: Jot or tittle.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Jot or tittle, yes; of principle in this bill.

Mr. Singer: Then leave it alone.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Now it is an interesting observation as to whether it goes to the constitutionality of it. I can’t imagine that it does. Once it has been proclaimed, it is proclaimed. Then one looks at the substance of the Act, by whatever name.

Mr. Cassidy: But not if it hasn’t had second reading.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I would advise the House that I am told that the Speaker says there is adequate precedent for this kind of thing, the change of the order paper to reflect the altered name when it comes before the House for third reading. There is no problem, as is envisaged, I think, by the member for Kitchener; that’s not a problem. But I would suggest --

Mr. Renwick: Where is the precedent?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I don’t have the precedent, and I would like to have that precedent; I would like to know what it is.

Mr. Cassidy: Why not? Just like the amendments?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I can give you a precedent, if I may. Remember the bill to establish the Ministry of Food and Agriculture? The minister decided he didn’t want “Food” first; he wanted it “Agriculture and Food.”

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There was no complaint in the House because the concept did not change, the title had been readjusted. This is certainly a different case.

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Meen: With respect, I’m grateful to the member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon) for bringing that precedent to my attention. I was not in the House at that time.

Mr. Givens: He’s the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In reference to An Act to Impose a Tax on Speculative Profits resulting from the Dispositions of Land, some people -- and they have not been legal types so much as people simply concerned about the way in which the tax might be applied vis-à-vis the federal income tax picture -- pointed out that we were referring to profits. It seemed to me we might just clean that up by the revised title to refer to the tax on land in respect to certain dispositions affecting control of the land.

Now if the hon. members are concerned -- and I think we are all concerned that we produce a bill that is the very best bill capable of going through this House -- if they are concerned on this, Mr. Chairman, I think we might defer your ruling on the matter for a while and get on with the rest of the bill --

Mr. Cassidy: No, no.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I could bring this matter back to the committee at the end of the bill when we conclude the various sections.

Mr. Cassidy: No, sir.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps I should clarify my ruling. In the first place it is not my place to rule on any constitutionality question; that’s for the courts in case it should ever arise. The member for Sarnia made the point that the second reading was of a different bill. Actually the second reading yesterday, as it continued, was of the bill as printed, so that clears that away. In my opinion --

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t see how it clears that away. It is marked as in the title.

Mr. Chairman: Second reading was on the bill as printed at that time.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That’s right.

Mr. Roy: But this bill here has never had second reading.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. No. 3, I can see no change; the title does not affect the principle and the contents of the bill.

No. 4, the title is an intrinsic part of the bill and so can be amended, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out a moment ago regarding the bill last year that referred to Agriculture and Food instead of Food and Agriculture, but which was considered as such. So that is a strong precedent.

I rule that the motion is in order and we will now proceed. Is there any further debate on it?

Mr. Renwick: We would appeal your ruling.

Mr. Chairman: Can we stack that?

Mr. Renwick: No.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There has been a motion proposed by Mr. Meen to change the title of Bill 25. This motion was upheld by the Chair. The Chairman’s ruling was challenged.

The committee divided on the Chairman’s ruling, which was upheld on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 48; the “nays” are 35.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the Chairman’s ruling upheld and the motion in order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, I would propose that the motion which I put to you be further amended by --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: What!

Hon. Mr. Meen moves that the amendment presented earlier be itself amended by changing the word “dispositions” and substituting therefor the words “speculative transactions.”

Mr. Lawlor: Come on. Why don’t you leave it alone?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): This is just ridiculous.

Mr. Lewis: Withdraw the bill.

Mr. MacDonald: This is to keep the Liberals in the fold. Talk about indecently being in bed or an indecent invitation to stay in bed.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Let’s see what this is about.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): I never have time to go to bed.

Mr. MacDonald: You ought to take a look at who is in bed with you this time.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Cassidy: I will see what the Liberals have got to say about it.

Mr. Bullbrook: You see the position he has put you in again.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I think there are certain things which should be said while more government members are present than is usual in committee. This kind of a tax bill and the kinds of amendments-

Mr. Cassidy: There is a great sigh of relief from the comer right now.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- which are being brought forward in this way are not in the best interests of this House. You should know, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Lewis: Mind you, they will vote for it if you press them.

Mr. Cassidy: That is right.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- it is important, I believe, that the kinds of amendments being brought forward are clear and we have time to study all of these others in greater particularity, as was referred to earlier in the debate this afternoon. It seems rather sad that the minister can’t even decide what the title of the bill should be.

Mr. Lewis: Just withdraw it.

Mr. Breithaupt: One would have thought, Mr. Chairman, not only with this amendment but with many others, that we would have had the opportunity to deal in a substantial and serious way with this most important piece of tax legislation. I think the approach being taken in avoiding the earlier matter of the rules of the House -- at least as we saw them on this side of the House -- and now even further in bringing in an amendment, brings the whole legislative process close to ridicule. We will oppose the amendment.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: You missed on that one.

Mr. Cassidy: I just want to say, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Cassidy: I yield to your seniority.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, this debate is being reduced to the ludicrous now. When I came through the door this afternoon into this chamber, it was like walking right through the looking glass. At the moment we are in an Alice in Wonderland fantasy world.

It’s unbelievable that you would try to make an amendment. Of course dispositions doesn’t cover the range of transactions that you intend. You have a very specific definition for dispositions within the terms of your legislation.

Mr. Cassidy: Just take it out.

Mr. Lawlor: Why didn’t you think of that five minutes ago? Then you have to alter that to transactions and then in order to feed a particular maw -- a particularly brainless maw -- you have to substitute the word speculative.

Leave it out. Forget about it. You railroaded it through a few moments ago. What’s the point of this particular exercise? The parliamentary system is going to be reduced to shambles in conditions of this kind.

Mr. Cassidy: It has been.

Mr. Lawlor: Withdraw it and get on with the bill.

Mr. Bullbrook: The very point the member for Lakeshore makes is the point to which I wish to address myself. You were put in the position a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, we say this most respectfully to you, when you had to make a ruling which we reluctantly challenged. I suggest to you there was some foundation and validity in the ruling you made, but we had to challenge because we didn’t believe it was an appropriate ruling.

The foundation for your ruling was that, as a matter of principle, notwithstanding the change in the nomenclature, the principle of the bill involving a tax with respect to land and the dispositions as defined in the bill were not changed. Dispositions is defined in the bill and you will not find anywhere in this bill anything that has to do with a definition of speculative transaction.

The problem is the minister has put himself in this awkward position. I invite him to reconsider this. Bring the bill back in again, as the member for Kitchener, our House leader, suggested to you during the debate before, with your amendments included therein.

We have had the ruling now on the question of second reading. Let’s go about the public business in a business-like fashion so that we can look at what the amendments say and come to some logical conclusion in connection with them.

But the fact is, Mr. Chairman -- I reiterate -- the fact is this, that now with this new amendment he has put you in this position: The new amendment with respect to the name of the bill has nothing to do with the dispositions that are involved in the very definition of the bill itself.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the Treasurer (Mr. White) has left, because I want to try and explain to the House why the bill has been brought forward at this time, and why we concluded the second reading debate yesterday. It was a deliberate attempt by the government, I would suggest, to race through with this bill during the time that the attention of he public would be focussed on what is happening in Ottawa.

Today the public press, the radio, the television are concerned with what is happening, with whether or not there will be a federal election; and the government is coming forward and abusing the process here in this Legislature --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Cassidy: And abusing the process --

Mr. Chairman: Order please. We are dealing with an amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: If you want me to document the abuse I can tell you that for 15 or 20 minutes --

Mr. Chairman: Order please. That is not what is under discussion at the present time.

Mr. Cassidy: Pardon?

Mr. Chairman: We are discussing the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: Sure, and we are discussing why the amendments are so badly drafted -- the amendments themselves are an abuse of the parliamentary process; the way in which they have been brought forward is an abuse of the parliamentary process.

Mr. Chairman: That is not the point that is under discussion at the present time.

Mr. Cassidy: There is a cover-up going on here, Mr. Chairman, an attempt by the government to simply put this thing through and not under public scrutiny, and it is an abuse of every party in this House.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The member for Downsview

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, what puzzles me is how the minister allowed himself to get into this position, and it really has nothing to do with a constitutional question at all. What it has to do with is a point that was raised on second reading and commented on at some length in the press, and that is whether or not the government of Canada is going to allow this tax to be an expense of doing business. Since that question has been raised, and since the minister has run circles around the answer, his best answer was: “I am told by my officials that if the rules of the game have not been changed we should be all right.”

Now the hon. minister knows better than to describe it in that way. And he neglected or refused to answer whether or not he had ever taken the bill up to Ottawa and gotten a ruling from them; or even applied to the technical interpretations section; or gone to Mr. Gray or to Mr. Turner and asked them what they thought. Surely that should have been done?

Well somebody apparently has got the wind up over there and they are now worried about what rules the game is played by, and so they are fiddling about with the title. They don’t even fiddle about with it consistently, because the bill came in with one title one day, we had a bit of a dust-up earlier this afternoon, and now the wise men of the Revenue Ministry have had second thoughts -- and again we don’t know.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Then third thoughts.

Mr. Singer: Yes -- well, we will probably have third thoughts by the time we are through.

If the minister had done what was appropriate and cleared with Ottawa what the government had in mind, then he could have established easily what the rules of the game would be before he brought the bill in and ask this Legislature to enact it into law. What we are engaging in now is an effort to shore up an off-the-cuff comment of the minister, which was not properly researched before the bill was brought in.

I think it is foolish that the minister comes into the House so badly prepared. I can’t see what he is gaining by fiddling about with the title and then talking about the rules of the game which he doesn’t understand -- the rules of the game which he hasn’t asked the umpire about -- and he is making a laughing stock of the whole legislative procedure and particularly of himself.

I would suggest, as my colleague from Sarnia mentioned a moment ago, that discretion being the better part of valour, if the minister would take his bill away, incorporate in it these amendments -- and I gather we have only got half of them here; there are another 11 or 12 pages yet to come -- bring it in as the bill the minister thinks he wants, and let’s have a go at a clean bill brought in by an intelligent minister and considered by a reasonably intelligent Legislature.

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

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the member for Downsview; the minister is turning himself into a laughing stock. He will be a subject for cartoons. People will find out he exists.

I want to point out to the minister that the vote on the Chairman’s ruling in this bill I think is the closest vote we have had in this parliament. It is rather interesting that this is happening around this bill.

We also want to point out to you that this bill was, in a sense, the cornerstone of the budget.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Lewis: That speculative land tax was the feature on the budget on which the minister was willing to hang his public reputation. And hang it he has, because the minister was revealed today for the absurdity that he is -- in collective, generic terms as a government -- I don’t mean that in personal terms. But what is being said by the member for Sarnia and what was said by the member for Lakeshore is entirely accurate. The word “transactions” as a definable term does not exist in your legislation, so how can you put it in the title?

Mr. Chairman, you are now faced with something very serious. It is no longer a case of being a chairman who is a Tory, who sees his role as upholding the public business by impartially declaring the rights of the government. He is now faced with the real problem. The minister has got an amendment to a title which no longer reflects the principle of the bill, and the title is therefore unacceptable.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Oh nonsense.

Mr. Lewis: No! The minister has now altered it. Let him shows us where transactions are dealt with in the bill. At least dispositions were dealt with. He tried in as coarse a seductive process as was ever visited on anyone, to woo the Liberals by changing “dispositions” to “transactions.”

They are not so easily wooed in this process. So what the minister should do is withdraw this bill at this point. He can’t proceed with this bill now. He is just going to grind this place to a halt.

I cannot remember in the years I have been in this House any bill so totally amended in committee. There has not been another parallel. I can remember no bill which flowed from the budget -- indeed which was a centrepiece of the budget -- which has been so emasculated by the government subsequent to its introduction. I can remember no bill whose title had been amended twice in one afternoon --

Mr. Singer: Never been done.

Mr. Lewis: -- once by design and once by incompetence. The minister told us sotto voce as he walked over here he was currying our favour. The minister was seeking our friendship -- well, that was what was happening. The look of --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I understand. I understand the process -- the look of feckless desperation on his face as he sidled up nudging the desk greatly. Sort of saying to the member for Riverdale “Jimmy.” Every time the minister wants us, he calls us “Stevie,” or “Jimmy,” etc. It is the only blandishment the minister knows. He said to us “What do the hon. members really object to in the title?” He was hoping desperately, you know; his frantic needs on his visage; sweat pouring from his brow.

What kind of nonsense is this? Seeking from us in advance the kind of adoration which would support his titular change, or something of that kind.

Mr. Givens: Titular!

Mr. Lewis: Well, look, it won’t wash. He can’t con us that easily. Offer us money, not a change of the title.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: Offer us a share of the tax.

Mr. Lewis: Good Lord! This has really reached the reductio ad absurdum. The fact of the matter is that the sub-amendment is wrong; the principle is changing in the process of these alterations. No bill has been handled so incompetently in the last five years of this House or further back. The minister indicated to us that he could bring us a reprinted version on Thursday incorporating all of the amendments --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Maybe.

Mr. Lewis: Surely that is an intelligent way of approaching it. Just suspend it now; withdraw the bill. Don’t force us into yet another vote -- vote after vote -- that’s what we urge the minister to do.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I hope Mr. Chairman, that we are not simply going to go into a position here where in a division of the House it will be settled in favour of the minister. He is showing his incompetence today and his back-bench supporters are squirming as he leads, or attempts to lead, the passage of the bill through the committee stage.

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the minister give consideration to the events we have been faced with this afternoon. He comes in with a stack of amendments but only three copies of each. He asks for a suspension while the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville goes out and uses the Xerox machine, so that at least we can see what the minister has in mind.

There has already been sufficient said about the title changes. In my view, they jeopardize the constitutionality of the bill, and you may think that we are unduly sensitive, but certainly in my view do change the concept of the bill that was put forward for debate at second reading.

Let me just say to the minister before he entrenches himself -- and this is one instance where he can’t say he has nothing to do with the principle of the bill, that it belongs to the Treasurer; this is his bill -- surely what he must do now, Mr. Chairman, if he is not prepared to do as was suggested by the NDP, to withdraw the whole bill and retreat humbly into some back comer, to be replaced by a new bill or by some new minister --

Mr. MacDonald: New minister.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: New minister, yes; but perhaps that is a bit much to ask. But at least he should simply stand this down for the present time, get the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Allan) to speak on the budget and tell us about things we would listen to with great interest --

Mr. Singer: Or even ask the member for Haldimand-Norfolk to rewrite the bill for you.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- until the minister is prepared to bring in this bill in such a way that we can amend it and, hopefully, bring it forward as a bill that will tax speculative profits, which is the principle we support.

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

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, in speaking relatively briefly to this bill during my reply to the budget, I suggested to the House, and particularly to the members on the other side, that this bill was as misconceived’ and as mangled in its presentation as the energy bill.

I made a serious mistake after that. I said there wasn’t enough public support behind this bill as there was behind the energy bill, and that while that one blew up in your face, this one might not.

I was wrong. This one is blowing up in your face too, because this is misconceived. This is mangled. You can’t make up your mind from hour to hour what you want in the bill. I was more prophetic than I dared to believe.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York-Forest Hill.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Chairman, might I make a suggestion briefly? It may be that the minister, who I think is under pressure right now, finds it too humiliating to withdraw the bill and bring it back in another form ab initio, where he starts out with the proper title, the proper amendments and so forth. Might I suggest that somewhere in this building, in this great administration, there resides --

An hon. member: A Liberal.

Mr. Givens: -- a fulcrum or a locus of expertise of law. I would like to suggest that the government resort to the officers of the Crown for their determination as to whether this is constitutional or not.

I would like to appeal to the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) -- and he’s not here; there’s nobody in the front row to talk to -- that he refer this matter to the officers in his office who are knowledgeable in these matters for a legal determination as to who is right here.

Let them determine what gamble they want to take -- or if it isn’t a gamble, what determination they want to make on a legal basis -- as to how this legislation should proceed, because we’re obviously stuck on centre here and we don’t know which way to go. We have given our legal views as to what the situation is. The members of the NDP have given their views --

Mr. Breithaupt: Here’s help.

Mr. Givens: -- and we are all of the opinion that what we’re doing is wrong -- here comes the Premier right now -- and I think we should leave this matter in abeyance for 24 hours until the law officers of this government can come in here with a determination as to whether the way we’re approaching it right now is right or wrong. If they then come in and give us a ruling, then we will abide on that basis.

But there’s no point in having a division of the House, and dividing along party lines; that gets us nowhere. Either the thing is legally right or legally wrong. We think it’s wrong. And I think that with the high-priced talent that we have, there is no use in the minister walking back and forth under the gallery and appealing to people on his staff who are trying to right the thing that has gone wrong. Actually, it’s a self-serving situation because they’re trying to correct something that obviously has gone off the track.

Again -- and I repeat myself -- we should appeal to the officers of the Crown to give us a ruling as to whether this thing is right in the way it’s being proceeded with or whether it’s wrong.

Mr. Lewis: How can it be right? Withdraw the bill for 24 hours.

Mr. Givens: I think that this Legislature would be willing to abide by the ruling of the officers of me Crown on the constitutionality of the way this matter is being proceeded with.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier is ready to intervene.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I think that the suggestion should be made, now that the Premier and the Treasurer are here, since neither he nor his senior cabinet minister were here during the second reading debate, that if this is as important a piece of legislation to the government as the Treasurer appeared to think it was when he introduced his budget, then it should be taken back to the drawing board and brought in as a new whole.

I think the only way to enact a proper statute would be to present it as a reasonable package, and a reasonable package is not one that has to have its title amended twice before we even get to section one. A reasonable package is not one that has to have 21 pages of amendments.

Now that the leader of the government is here I think a quiet appeal to him -- he came into the House because he’s been listening to this debate over the mike.

Mr. Lewis: And he is determined to do something.

Mr. Singer: And he is determined to save face.

Mr. Lewis: I could see it in his face, the moment he walked through the door.

Mr. Singer: I would suggest that the Premier take this bill or instruct his minister to take this bill back to the drawing board and bring us in a new bill which incorporates the government’s ideas, we can then proceed to a sensible logical debate on it.

Mr. Bullbrook: Eminent good sense.

Mr. Lewis: There is no indignity in that.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, just to second the remark by the member for Downsview and appeal to the Premier, you recall that we originally supported the bill in principle -- a tax on profits from speculation. We have ourselves drafted what we feel are sensible and objective amendments to the bill. But surely, Mr. Premier, you must be asking yourself and looking at the minister and asking yourself certain questions about problems with the bill when this minister, first of all, cannot even make up his mind what he is going to call the bill -- and we still have 21 pages of amendments to go through.

Mr. Lewis: That’s just for starters. Think of tomorrow.

Mr. Roy: That’s just for starters, yes. So I would like to second the appeal of the member for Downsview, for the Premier to look at this particular question.

Mr. Breithaupt: Those are their amendments, much less ours.

Mr. Roy: We are prepared to help the Premier, but we are not prepared to be railroaded; and he should not use his majority to railroad us.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier wants their votes, but he has to woo them.

Mr. Roy: The Premier is going to make the pipeline debate look like a game of cards.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Premier doesn’t have to put the chairman in that position; he really is in a difficult position.

Mr. Roy: In fact, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier --

Mr. Lewis: The Premier’s budget is jinxed, one year after another --

Mr. Roy: -- at stake is the reputation of a minister who is a lawyer, who has a QC behind his name, and I hope that he would show more flexibility than he has so far.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, we did resort to the very best advice in the preparation of this bill. The suggestion by the hon. members that we haven’t had that good advice is utterly false. If there is any question as to the change in the title, it stems from myself as a result of suggestions made by hon. members in the course of the debate. And as a result of people who have come to me and suggested that with the title making reference to profits, there were some doubts in their minds as to the way in which it might be treated in Ottawa with respect to the federal Income Tax Act and appropriate allowances.

Mr. Singer: Oh, talking about constitutionality, is the minister changing his thinking in mid-stream?

Hon. Mr. Meen: What I’m proposing to do in this amendment -- and I had the benefit of the best legal minds when preparing the amendment -- was to direct the attention of anyone who took the time to read the long title at the head of the Act to the case that the tax is imposed on land with respect to -- as we had it in the title at that time -- to dispositions.

Then I came to thinking, perhaps the argument stemming from the other side is that in this amendment I’ve removed the reference to speculation, which is really what we are getting at. We are trying to get at speculative profits or speculative gains derived through various transactions. Now we don’t define “transaction” -- in fact we don’t use the word transaction anywhere else in the Act --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right, except in the title.

Mr. Breithaupt: The point the member for Sarnia made.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It couldn’t matter less. The point is that “transaction” is generic and covers the disposition after acquisition at the beginning and the disposition at the end; the differential in between, less certain allowances, is what we chose to call the profit.

Mr. Bullbrook: How does the minister know that when he doesn’t define it?

Mr. Lewis: But he doesn’t know that when it isn’t defined.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Now what I had suggested by my amendment to the original amendment stems from the discussion here this afternoon that we could remove the word “dispositions” and insert “speculative transactions,” so that it became abundantly clear in the long title that we were imposing a tax on land. And that’s the constitutional matter. We are imposing a tax on land here in Ontario with respect to certain speculative transactions occurring with respect to the ownership of that land.

Mr. Roy: Which the minister didn’t define in his bill.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That is precisely what this title does. It does not change the principle of the bill. The title is part of the bill, consequently, it can be subject to amendment just as though it were a section in the bill. I suggest that hon. members, if they really are supporting the principle of this bill -- as the Liberal Party in its blandishments have allowed as how they were; I’m beginning to wonder.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Last night it was intellectual integrity. Today it is expediency.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Here they are. They are busy suggesting to me that I should withdraw this bill and give them time to get it all printed and all the rest of it. They have a bunch of amendments --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: At least get your amendments ready.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The amendments are available to you. Everyone’s interrupting --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- I am entitled to proceed and I suggest we should proceed, Mr. Chairman. We are wasting the valuable time of the House when we could be getting on with this bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Well, Mr. Chairman, before your ruling there are still certain things --

Mr. Lewis: What ruling? We are debating. The motion as amended.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- that we require to say on this particular matter.

I don’t see, first of all, how the minister can say anything but that we are in fact causing taxes to be raised here as a result of certain dispositions of land. You define the results of that disposition either to be speculative or not, depending upon the terms of the legislation that follows along in the title. We are not then, in your view, in fact trying to deal with something that isn’t even defined in the Act. What we are doing is raising the taxes based on the results of your view of a certain disposition of land.

Now the minister brought in this first amendment. It was brought in here when the House resolved itself into committee at about 3 o’clock, and after that lengthy time with the bells ringing for 40 minutes, perhaps it was an hour, we suddenly are faced after that vote with a further amendment.

An hon. member: Another amendment.

Mr. Breithaupt: Now, surely the minister cannot seriously raise the point that he has had, since 4 o’clock --

Hon. Mr. Davis: He is accommodating the feelings that you expressed.

Mr. Singer: Oh come on. Save your ministry and save --

Mr. Breithaupt: -- in these last 45 minutes, the benefit of the best legal views in the province as to what the title of the bill should be. I think that is even a bit much for the hon. members on this side of the House to accept.

We have seen this kind of a change being proposed. There are too many amendments in this bill, far more than the minister had adverted to when he said that there would be some particulars which would be dealt with -- in three areas, I think he said it would be.

We have half the amendments before us. It would not be difficult by 8 o’clock tonight, if the minister was so minded, to have a typed copy of an amended bill on the desk of every hon. member of this House.

Heaven knows we have the statement from the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) who is making his remarks today. If that can be run off, surely something more important in the particular work that we are doing in the House, at least at the moment, can be run off in a short period of time. We would have something to work from and we would be able to do our job.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I want to come bearing olive branches and with palm leaves around my brow and act as a peacemaker. There is one thing that always really generates a particularly hot quarrel and that is when the peacemaker intervenes.

What I would like to suggest to the minister in the resolution of the issue before us this afternoon is, and I am sure we will receive his utmost commendation on this particular point, could you please consider making just one further amendment in the title? Would you please consider putting in it the words transactions and dispositions? That kind of covers the waterfront. I would find it completely palatable. All the objections that have been taken on either one of those terms or the other would be --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, I would reject that utterly.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Out of hand!

Mr. Lawlor: Well, I find that this debate is kind of running down. There is hardly any point in my standing here --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Come on over and join us.

Mr. Lawlor: -- if you can’t find a reasonable compromise -- Well, I knew the peacemaker couldn’t win. This is it.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister a question about the deductibility of this tax for the purpose of federal income tax. Has the minister received any opinion with respect to its deductibility for the purposes of the Ontario corporations tax and if so, could he give us that opinion? If not, is he proposing to introduce an amendment to the Corporations Tax Act of Ontario to permit deduction of this tax?

I don’t intend or suggest that I am an expert in the field of corporation tax law, but it does seem to me that the very same question with respect to its deductibility for federal tax purposes is raised by our own Corporations Tax Act. I know of nothing in the wording that I can see in the Corporations Tax Act which would permit its deductibility without an amendment. If the stated reason given by the minister for this second amendment to the long title of the bill is in some way to bolster up his argument with the federal government that it be deductible, then it would seem to me that it must be equally specious that it is deductible at the present time under the Corporations Tax Act of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I don’t think there is any question in my mind, Mr. Chairman, that it would be deductible under our Ontario Corporations Tax Act before computation of the amount of the tax payable, whether under the Act or under the regulations under that Act. We certainly would be permitting it as an allowable deduction.

Mr. Renwick: I simply say it’s not a matter of grace as to whether or not you permit a deduction of a particular tax for corporation tax purposes. It’s a matter of law.

Mr. Singer: Your regulating powers are law.

Mr. Renwick: It’s a matter of law.

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That means that the Act is wide enough.

Mr. Renwick: I do have a couple of bibles that I refer to every now and then. Gilmour’s Income Tax Handbook is a recognized taxing authority. It’s very clear that with respect to the deductibility of provincial taxes for federal tax purposes, you must specify them.

We had an example in the budget last night in respect of the mining taxes which are presently deductible by a specific section of the federal Income Tax Act and the regulation made thereunder. That deductibility is now going to be withdrawn, just the same as the Treasurer in his budget has decided that the mining taxes will not be deductible any longer for Ontario corporations tax purposes, and presumably that will require an amendment either to the Act or by way of regulation.

When you look through the index of Gilmour you find provisions with respect to the deductibility of foreign taxes, but you don’t find anything under the heading deductibility of provincial taxes. And you must look at the specific deductibility section. I’m simply saying that unless the minister can point to the section of the Corporations Tax Act or to the section of the federal Income Tax Act under which he believes the matter to be deductible we here must assume that the question is a very nebulous one and a very real one.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s right.

Mr. Renwick: That changes the complexion of the Act we debated on second reading.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Renwick: That means that in fact the tax that you are asking us to pass will be in the nature of a confiscatory tax.

Mr. Lewis: Worse than confiscatory.

Mr. Renwick: It’s not a question of the merits.

Hon. Mr. Meen: You want to make it 100 per cent.

Mr. Lewis: But not 112.

Interjections by hon members.

Mr. Lewis: Why not draw the line at 100? We are not discouraged by your --

Mr. Renwick: I am simply pointing out to you that it’s not a question of whether one would approve or disapprove of a confiscatory tax. The question is, is the tax a confiscatory one? Because then we can address our minds to that question, and that raises significant constitutional questions as to whether or not that matter is confiscatory or not.

Mr. Chairman: This is all very interesting but it has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. Bullbrook: This is as a result of that amendment; it really is.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the minister gave as his reason, as I understand it, the question of deductibility. Surely it is open to me in this debate to discuss that question with the minister. I am simply saying to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that unless he can point to chapter and verse in the Corporations Tax Act of Ontario or of the federal Income Tax Act, then the nature of this tax is undisclosed to the Legislature.

Mr. Lewis: That is right.

Mr. Renwick: And we can’t let it go that way.

Mr. Lewis: On principle!

Mr. Renwick: A 50 per cent tax, given the assumptions that are in the Treasurer’s table in his budget which raises it to 61 per cent or up to 84 or whatever that matter is, that’s one tax. A tax at 112 per cent or at some higher figure, if it is not deductible for federal income tax purposes or Ontario corporations tax purposes is another kind of a tax, and that’s a different principle and a different objective. I think the House is entitled to know whether or not it is deductible; and whether you have made representations to the federal government or whether you are going to amend your own Corporations Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, just very simply, we do not need to amend the Corporations Tax Act.

Mr. Renwick: What is the section?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I can’t point to the section. I don’t have it here with me. We are dealing with another Act. But I’m telling the hon. members that it will be deductible. As I understand it, and I’m so advised --

Mr. MacDonald: Even if you have to amend the Act.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- it is not necessary to amend our Act for any purpose of that nature.

Mr. Roy: You can’t even make up your mind on the bill.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That is our intention, and that is the way the rules have been played. And as I expressed it last night on second reading, we were talking about the federal Income Tax Act and the rules that have been applied under that Act.

Mr. Renwick: Listen, you have got experts --

Mr. Lewis: Look at the shift in events, Mr. Chairman. When we were debating this bill on second reading last night, the minister indicated that he had not had any guarantee from Ottawa in terms of the deductibility.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: He indicated that, of course, if it weren’t deductible it would be absurd, because not only would it be a confiscatory tax, it would be at a level of something like 112 per cent and you would keep every piece of land off the market forever.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Exactly.

Mr. Lewis: All right, and he indicated that.

Now, precisely at the point we were debating here last night, the federal Minister of Finance was beginning to shift the ground, just as the provincial Treasurer has been shifting the ground, to remove the deductibility features of analogous taxes. What he did last night in terms of mining royalties obviously creates real problems for the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta; and, if I may argue by extension, it follows logically that this tax will not be considered deductible when computing taxable income.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He didn’t mention that.

Mr. Lewis: No, as a matter of fact, that’s a simple, natural extension of the process which was begun by the provincial Treasurer and reaffirmed by the federal Minister of Finance last night. Let’s suppose the government is defeated at 5:45 tomorrow afternoon and there is an election called on Thursday, then you are in this incredible hiatus until July 8 -- well, take a look at it.

Mr. Givens: Let’s wait until we know for sure.

Mr. Lewis: Never mind the outcome --

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): He’s still the minister.

Mr. Lewis: You are passing a bill, the essential provision of which you know nothing about.

Mr. Givens: Right.

Mr. Lewis: The bill is absurd if it is not deductible. Every piece of evidence you have suggests that it probably won’t be deductible in order to compute taxable income.

Mr. Singer: That’s why you are changing the title.

Mr. Lewis: So what are you doing? You are throwing the whole land and housing market into a shambles. There isn’t a person around this province, from a major developer to a small house builder, who will know where the devil he stands. You can give us no guarantee. You have talked to no one. And all the evidence we have in the past 24 hours suggests that this will not be accepted. Now even you were a little concerned about it. Don’t tell us you weren’t concerned about it. You said to the member for Downsview you were changing the title because of worries about constitutionality. You blurted out that you were changing the title because of worries about the deductibility feature.

Mr. Singer: Right.

Mr. Lewis: Now, if you are changing the title because of concerns about deductibility for the purposes of computing taxable income, then you can’t play with the title this way, because in itself it is evidence of weakness. What you are saying to the federal tax officers is, “I don’t really know whether or not this should be deductible.” And I will tell you, consistent with the trend in federal matters they would say this is not deductible.

What you are really presenting us with today is a bill in which you yourself have no confidence, which in fact looks as though it confiscates rather than taxes. It is ironic that a Tory government brings in confiscatory legislation without compensation. The only other person I know who wants to do that is Mel Watkins. Mel Watkins and the minister are the great confiscators.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I resent that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I resent that. I am his chief officer.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Lewis: No, darn it, Mr. Chairman, I am talking to the bill. I am interspersing an occasional aside, but I am talking to the bill.

Mr. Chairman: No, we are not discussing the bill. We are discussing whether this amendment is in order, and I would like to give my ruling as soon as possible.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s what I would like to hear, whether the motion is in order.

Mr. Chairman: We are not really discussing the content at this time.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I don’t care how long you want to prolong it, but I think it is important to point out the box we have been put in. The minister can’t do this to the title. He can’t handle it this way.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: It’s too important. You can’t play with the centrepiece of the budget which is turning out to do exactly what you don’t want it to. It is socially destructive.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: It’s counterproductive. You have nothing to tell us. May I say, through the Minister of Revenue to the Treasurer, why would it be wrong, what would be humiliating, what would be demeaning about it, for you simply to say, “Okay; we realize there are some problems; we’ve even had to amend the title twice. We’ve got 21 pages of amendments. We’ll withdraw it until Thursday.”

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington-South): Even money.

Mr. Lewis: “We’ll reprint the entire bill with the amendments included, all members of the opposition can absorb it.”

Mr. Roy: They’ll make up their minds.

Mr. Lewis: “We’ll try to get some greater sense of a deductibility.”

Mr. Singer: They may even go to Ottawa and talk to Herb Gray.

Mr. Lewis: Why is it necessary to be so intractable about it? It makes very good sense. I really think you are making a mistake on the inflexibility; you are inviting a public hornet’s nest. You had it on the budget last year, inadvertently. You are getting it on the budget this year. Your budgets are jinxed. The public considers them to be objects of ridicule because of the way you handle their central features. What is wrong with withdrawing it until Thursday and then presenting us with a printed bill? Is there anything perverse about that? We don’t sit tomorrow.

Mr. Roy: Do you like being minister now?

Mr. Lewis: It’s a matter of 3½ hours.

Mr. Roy: Do you like being minister now?

Mr. Chairman: Any further comment? I would make a ruling as to whether or not this amendment is in order.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): The timing of the debate is not my responsibility; quite obviously this is for the minister and the House leader. I’d like to make one or two comments in the face of all the passion I’ve listened to in the last little while. We are attempting to bring land costs under control so we can house our people. The wording of the title --

Mr. Lewis: Come on. That’s a red herring.

Mr. MacDonald: That objective is shoddy.

Hon. Mr. White: -- is a highly technical matter.

Mr. Lewis: That’s been discredited since day one.

Hon. Mr. White: I listened to you, now you listen to me. The wording of the title is a highly technical legal matter, far beyond my competence. I have no opinions.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe somebody else has.

Hon. Mr. White: Notwithstanding some of the assertions and implications here within the last half-hour, an effect is being realized. I had occasion yesterday to quote briefly from one or two real estate experts. Here today I have learned that in the month of March there were 200 properties offered for sale each day through the multiple listing system in Toronto. In the month of April there were 300 such listings per day and so far in May there have been 500 such listings per day.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Are you trying to tell us this is because of the principle of the bill?

Hon. Mr. White: These two big taxes are completely innovative, completely novel, and they are going to be troublesome, we know. I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to one short paragraph in the budget statement.

Mr. Lewis: We know that paragraph.

Hon. Mr. White: It says:

The government of Ontario recognizes that strong measures are required to curb the excessive land speculation now occurring. We are determined to proceed with firm action. At the same time we recognize that this is a complex matter and unforeseen problems may emerge in administering this new tax.

Mr. Worton: This is one of the unforeseen.

Hon. Mr. White: To continue:

Thus during the first year of operation I envisage a series of amendments and refinements to the land speculation tax bill.

And so it is, sir. We have a number --

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

Interjection by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order. Doesn’t the minister realize that the number of listings on the MLS in Toronto rise every spring between March and May? This is perfectly normal and not due to his tax.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

An hon. member: Out of order.

An hon. member: You can’t deny it.

Mr. Singer: You are not calling anybody else to order.

Hon. Mr. White: I expect it does but we have quite a lot of other evidence that this is working.

Mr. Lewis: What evidence? You don’t even know what it means.

Hon. Mr. White: Conversations I have had with real estate brokers in London who say the speculation in housing and land has ended, just like that.

Mr. Lewis: I have had a lot of conversations too.

Mr. Singer: We are not talking about that now.

Mr. Roy: You mean your day in Paris?

Hon. Mr. White: Now the question --

Mr. Lewis: Just a second. What did you say -- that the speculation in housing and land had ended, just like that?

Hon. Mr. White: In London, Ont., this is what I am told.

Mr. Lewis: In London, Ont. We’ll watch very carefully. That will be of interest.

Hon. Mr. White: Yes, we will.

Mr. Lewis: You pretend to be credible and say that kind of thing --

Hon. Mr. White: The question has arisen about consultation with Ottawa. Of necessity there had to be some number of elected persons and appointed officials in the conversations which preceded the drafting of this legislation --

Interjection by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: I want to take one more minute. As some number of experts were consulted within our ministry --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Chairman is trying to get order.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and in other ministries lawyers, economists, financial experts and others -- we ran, as always, some significant risk that the news of this would get out in advance of the introduction and effective date.

To attempt to discuss this at that time with many officials in Ottawa was absolutely impossible. That would have been putting ourselves in jeopardy in a real way. For that reason, the consultations with Ottawa have taken place since that date. The minister has given us an assurance here that the representations in the budget table are correct, and that we will recognize them in our statute, which he says covers it already. Since our statute mirrors the federal corporations legislation, I have confidence that this will be the same insofar as the treatment from Ottawa is concerned.

Mr. Lewis: You can’t work without this assurance?

Hon. Mr. White: If events prove this not to be the case, of course, some further amendment will be needed.

Mr. Lewis: Some further amendment?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, surely the point that is --

Mr. Chairman: We have had a very broad discussion on this and really the only matter is whether this amendment is in order or not. I would like to make a ruling, unless there is some other point, as to whether this is in order or not. We don’t want to debate the motion. We are not debating the motion.

Mr. Renwick: Has anybody questioned whether or not the second amendment is in order?

Mr. Chairman: That is what has to be ruled on right now.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I don’t know.

Mr. Chairman: If you recall, we ruled that a change in title was in order earlier and that ruling was upheld. However, I have received a lot of advice at great length since then and I now have doubts about the amendment to the amendment.

It has been rather confusing to sit here and listen to all the advice I have been getting. I suggest to the House that this amendment be stood down and that we move to section 1 of the bill. We’ll report later on on this amendment, whether it is in order or whether it is not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, we have sympathy with what you are faced with. You were prepared to say the first amendment was in order and now you’ve got your doubts about the amendment to the amendment. If the minister is going to serve you and the House properly it is time for him to now rise and say, “I would like to take this bill” -- don’t use the word “withdraw” -- and ask the House leader to proceed to another order of business. Then he could bring it in, as was suggested on Thursday, so that he has the material that he is prepared to present and stand behind.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, surely the attitude of the House must now be that amendments that are going to be brought in in this form are going to be very provocative. I don’t think we’re going to have any real progress if we continue this way.

Mr. Singer: Right.

Mr. Breithaupt: I seriously feel that now that a couple of hours have gone by with nothing accomplished concerning this bill, that this is likely to be the case if we proceed through this afternoon or if we proceed this evening I would feel that it would be in the best interests of the House that the House leader consider having the committee rise, and we could go on dealing with the other group of bills that are not controversial. They could be cleaned up by 6 o’clock.

Then by 8 o’clock tonight, Mr. Chairman, this bill could be run off with its amendments in order, and if the minister doesn’t think he can do it, I think we can arrange to have it typed and run off on our copying machine. I think that would be a much happier way of dealing with it.

We are at the position now where we are all becoming somewhat upset about this bill. I don’t think we are going to be able to report progress and I would hope that in the best interest of the members of the House the committee could consider at least rising at this time and then proceeding, when we’ve all had a chance to cool down and study this matter, at another time.

Mr. Lewis: Can we have a view from the House leader then? I really think that if the Chairman has now said that the re-amended title is unacceptable, then frankly --

Mr. Chairman: No, I didn’t say that exactly.

Mr. Lewis: You are not going to put it? You are not going to rule on its appropriateness? Then frankly it becomes impossible to rule on any of the subsequent sections. We are thrown into chaos and it makes much greater sense to withdraw the bill as has been urged.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Okay, here he comes, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Chairman, based on the assumption that we will move back into committee on Thursday, I would be prepared to --

Mr. Lewis: We could have saved two hours.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Based on that assumption, I’ll proceed to ask the committee to rise and report.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I would just like to make an observation, Mr. Chairman. Until about noon -- I didn’t have my body of amendments until 1:30 or 2 o’clock --

Interjections by hon members.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Now, listen, do the hon. members want to hear the reason behind this or not?

Mr. Lewis: You shouldn’t have brought it in. It’s a measure of your view --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Let’s keep a friendly atmosphere here.

Mr. Roy: We don’t want your apology.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We had wanted to go on with this. The Treasurer has indicated the urgency attached to getting on with this legislation --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come!

Mr. Roy: That’s the philosophy --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How come it was so urgent last week?

Mr. Roy: Your bill is retroactive.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The indecisiveness of a bill before the House that has not been passed obviously has its effect in the commercial area. And if there’s any reason for the commercial people to be worried, it’s to hear people such as the hon. member for Scarborough West casting some doubts as to the way in which the tax would be applied. Or the hon. member for Downsview.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Who is the chief speculator now?

Mr. Lewis: Well, you cast the doubt on it.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister doesn’t know when he should remain silent.

Hon. Mr. Meen: You’re just encouraging them. You’re trying to give them the impression we might very well withdraw the bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The sooner this bill becomes law, the better.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Meen: What we can --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Mr. Winkler has made a motion and I’d like to put it --

Mr. Cassidy: To hell with parliament; to hell with the rules of this House! To hell with them!

Mr. Lewis: Why do you bring in amendments you haven’t seen till 2 o’clock?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I have seen the amendments. I’m just trying to tell the hon. members that they were in final form by noon today.

Mr. Lewis: This is too much; you should be more flexible about it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I did my best to have copies. They can all have copies -- and they do have copies now -- of all these amendments, which is the normal sort of thing to do.

Mr. Cassidy: It is not normal!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Mr. Winkler has moved --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Roy: Sit down. You’re out of order.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: I would like to put the motion, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Chairman, please let me finish. I simply want to tell the hon. members --

Mr. MacDonald: You’re getting in deeper all the time!

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- that by Thursday we can have a printed bill for them that shows all these amendments, if they want to have it that way. I had wanted to get on today frankly, anticipating we’d make some progress.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Have you no sensitivity? No understanding of this House?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I am disappointed by their obstreperous attitude.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House reports progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Mr. Lewis: No progress. It won’t fly.

Mr. Roy: The only fellow making progress is the minister. He’s going backwards.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING ACT, 1973

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves second reading of Bill 36, An Act to amend the Ministry of Housing Act, 1973.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the minister would like to make a statement.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, when I introduced the bill on first reading I outlined the purpose of the amendment, which is to provide authority which doesn’t exist in the present legislation.

The Ministry of Housing Act, as enacted last session, requires the minister and the deputy minister, subject to the direction and control of the minister, to -- and I quote from section 7 of the Act:

(a) Make appropriate recommendations to the government of Ontario on policies and objectives on housing and related matters with regard to the short-term and long-term housing needs of the people of Ontario;

(b) Make recommendations for the effective co-ordination of all housing and related matters within the government of Ontario with a view to ensuring the consistent application of policy;

(c) To advise and otherwise assist the government of Ontario in its dealings with other governments regarding housing and related matters; and

(d) To advise and otherwise assist local authorities and other persons involved in local planning and development of housing with regard to resizing the objectives of the government of Ontario for housing and related matters.

That’s the end of the quote from the Act.

This process has been under way since the ministry was established late last fall, and we are now at the stage where, resulting from our recommendations and advice, steps can be taken to carry those recommendations and advice into active programmes. The ministry does have available to it under the Housing Development Act certain enabling powers, and I expect to be bringing forward amendments to that Act shortly. However, we feel that in the meantime some overall authority to the ministry should be provided within the ministry Act itself, and this, as I say, is the purpose of the amendment.

If I remember correctly in listening to the debate, there was some criticism of the ministry Act when it was in the House last fall, particularly, I believe, from the member for Ottawa Centre, who claimed that the Act gave no power to the ministry.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I was right.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He said the Act gave no power to the ministry and it was an Act which said nothing. It said a great deal, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Cassidy: It gave the minister no power at that time.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s right. Mr. Speaker, we didn’t need the power, but now I do need it and I am asking the House for it. I can say to you now, sir, that the ministry Act, in the few short months it has been law, has provided the government with the necessary authority to prepare some very meaningful programmes and we are now in a position to proceed with those programmes with this amendment. I ask for the support of all members for this amendment.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, the comments I have to make on this bill will be brief. It is interesting to see, following the interjections from the member for Ottawa Centre, that the minister has now admitted he requires certain powers, which he apparently did not have, in order to do certain things.

I, for one, had looked at this very small amendment and questioned whether the minister needed to have any particular general power to implement things that others might recommend to him. Surely, if a ministry of the Crown is developed and has an Act by which it carries out certain policies of the government, one would think it would have the opportunity to deal with recommendations or not as it sees fit. In that light, the amendment is almost to the effect that one might say the minister has the right to receive mail if it is sent to him. No one questions that.

The point is if there are recommendations made, they can be dealt with by the minister, and that is why I wondered why this particular comment had to be added. However, if one does look at section 7 of the Act, in conjunction with this section 7(a), it could be seen by some that the powers which are being given to the minister are indeed very sweeping.

Possibly, Mr. Speaker, it could mean we would find implementation in areas of planning as well as housing recommendations, which could simply have the approval of the cabinet and indeed might not need to be brought before the House. What I would like to see, of course, is a confirmation by the minister that the powers he has here to proceed will not be dealt with without the advice or knowledge of the Legislature.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Right; good point.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is one thing, of course, to have these general powers to act upon recommendations. However, we have seen over the past number of years that this government is very fond of dealing by regulation and by the general powers which allow the minister to do whatever the minister wants in order to follow a certain statute.

I would like to hear from the minister at least a confirmation of the view that this kind of dealing is not going to be done to avoid the legislative process but rather to stimulate it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I guess the minister will realize we would have supported this bill since I think it’s proper that the New Democratic Party can claim paternity for the bill. As the minister so rightly recalled, during the debate on the Ministry of Housing Act --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Did the member say paternity?

Mr. Cassidy: Paternity, yes.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Illegitimate paternity.

Mr. Cassidy: No, not illegitimate; very legitimate, as a matter of fact. The member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) will back me up.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: What’s that? It was proposed from this side of the House and at that time, if I can recall --

Mr. Roy: The party is sterile and the member knows it.

Mr. Cassidy: What’s that?

Mr. Roy: The party is sterile and he knows it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There was no marriage.

Mr. Cassidy: Well talk to my kids about that.

Mr. Speaker, we said to the minister of the day that he needed these powers and now, eight months or six months later, the new minister is coming along and saying “Yes, the New Democratic Party was right.”

At that time though, if the minister goes back to regard the debate, he will find that what was said at that time by the then minister was that the powers that were needed in order to carry out the programmes of the Ministry of Housing were to be found in the Housing Development Act. As I recall specifically, we brought forward into this Legislature the wording of the new Act that had just then been passed in British Columbia in order to establish a Ministry of Housing, and that Act had the teeth in it which the Ministry of Housing Act in Ontario lacked.

The minister, at that time, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Welch), then said: “But we have those powers in the Housing Development Act.” We disagreed. Looking at the Housing Development Act right here, it’s clear that any kind of powers the minister had were very limited; and that has now clearly been accepted by the new minister.

Frankly, we welcome that, I would hope that after the fumblings and the ramblings and the stumblings that have gone forward in housing policy as far as the government is concerned since September, and since the creation of that ministry -- was it in October that we passed the bill -- I would hope that the new minister does, in fact, intend to take some specific action.

However, the minister won’t be surprised, because he’s heard it from us before and heard it from other people as well, that we haven’t seen those actions. All we have seen are announcements of rising prices for HOME lots and some intentions.

There was some discussion in the Legislature today which indicated, as far as I’m concerned, that even the increase in HOME lots which the minister talks about will not take place during the current fiscal year, but will mainly take place after March 31, 1975, since the money will not be available in the budget in order to finance those HOME projects until after that time.

In other words those particular 6,000 lots, if created, will only be housing starts. They will not be homes for people until the summer or fall of 1975. And the money, if it’s ever going to come, will be in that particular budget year and not now.

Mr. Speaker, when I took a look at the bill originally, I have to say that the protections of cabinet approval around the actions of the ministers are relatively flimsy as these things go, in the sense that it’s all within the closed circle, the term “circle of government.” The powers which are put forward here ought, in my opinion, to be spelled out in a specific fashion rather than being put forward in this general fashion.

The minister may recall, or if he has examined the debate of the Ministry of Housing Act, as I’m sure he has, he may recall that I believe we read into the record some of the specific provisions that are in that BC Act, in which the minister and the ministry had the power to acquire land, to build if necessary, and to do a number of other things. In fact when you added all those specific powers end to end, you had a fairly sweeping set of powers.

My own understanding and feel for legislation, however, tells me that it’s not good legislative practice to give to the minister such a wide, sweeping set of powers as is given here without enumerating them. It makes an awful lot more sense that the powers actually be enumerated.

As the minister is aware, as far as we’re concerned if you’re going to have any effective answer to housing problems in the province, the powers assumed by the minister are going to be quite broad. They include the power to acquire land on a very large scale. They include the power, if necessary, to homologate; and the power, if necessary, to freeze land for a temporary period while a decision is made about the public acquisition of that land. We suggested all these things in the Legislature. So we’re not afraid, per se, of having wide powers with the ministry. We are, though, suspect about giving a minister in a Conservative government the powers and not enumerating them; and that is done in this particular case.

I’m afraid, too, that we’re also a bit wary because of the fact that the ministry has tended to work behind closed doors, and that tendency is not being corrected in this particular bill.

Fortunately for the government, the minister has found some check on his tongue over the last two or three weeks. Seldom have so many words been spoken by a minister so soon after assuming office as by the present Minister of Housing. In fact one feared that the province would be deluged and that even the housing problem could have been licked using the newsprint that has been used by the minister in his various speeches and announcements about housing. And if there was a slight problem of the doors and windows not being completed, then the rumours that were coming out of the ministry about the housing action programme in various parts of the province would have been sufficient to have completed’ the job. While the minister has learned to curb his tongue to a certain extent -- to the great relief, I suspect, of some of his officials, who were afraid that he would run away with them -- possibly he is having some of the leisure that he hoped to have in order to get involved with housing policy, but even there I am not particularly sure.

The most concrete piece of information we have about the way in which the minister intends to use his housing powers is in the spending estimates which we received in this Legislature yesterday. There you will find, Mr. Speaker, that whatever the powers to take measures as the minister may consider appropriate may be, those powers are not backed up with any significant increases in funds, far from it. In fact the powers are backed up by a significant decrease in the total amount of funds which are being made available for spending through the Ministry of Housing.

Of course there is a planning and policy group which is growing up around the ministry; That tends to happen, and it is costing about as much as the Ministry of Energy. This is the fashionable thing these days when you set up a ministry. You have a number of people who do studies, do surveys, make proposals and that kind of thing, but the minister must surely know that you have got to show some muscle. You don’t only show muscle by taking legislative powers as is proposed in this particular Act; you also show muscle by having the money to back up what you want to do.

In the minister’s spending proposals there is not the money to back up what this particular piece of legislation purports to do. There is no increase in funds to acquire land. In fact there is a very substantial decrease in funds from the amount that was spent on land acquisition last year, because of the fact that there is no transfer or movement, beyond the North Pickering project, to acquire land in other parts of the province for urban expansion and urban development or for a shift in land owner- ship in urban areas from the private sector to the public sector.

There is no increase in the rent-to-income programme, which the minister can accomplish with these new powers or with the existing powers of the Housing Development Act or whatever amendments he happens to want to bring forward. In fact, the amounts of money are being cut by 40 per cent: And that’s a very substantial cut, Mr. Speaker; that amounts to something of the equivalent of, I think, about 5,000 or 6,000 housing units that won’t be built because of that particular cutback.

There is no increase in the funds available for HOME. There is the possibility of an increase in the funds available for people on modest incomes to purchase housing with an amalgamation with AHOP, the federal plan.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It just goes to show how successful it is.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister has said today that that federal programme is not successful. We now have a situation where for the next few months there is no federal government. After that, God knows what is going to happen.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There is a government; there may not be a parliament.

Mr. Cassidy: There may not be a parliament? The minister can be damn sure the government will have other things on its mind than worrying about negotiations with this particular minister.

Mr. Breithaupt: There is nothing more important.

Mr. Cassidy: Well I hope the members of the opposition talk to their friends up in Ottawa then, in order to get that particular piece of legislation changed.

Mr. Roy: Let the member for Ottawa Centre talk to his friends and we’ll talk to ours.

Mr. Breithaupt: If the member does too the whole thing will fall apart.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I wonder if the member for Ottawa Centre would return more to the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I have been talking about the bill. I have been referring to it regularly at intervals of every six to eight seconds.

Mr. Speaker: I think you might better discuss the specific provisions of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: The specific provisions, Mr. Speaker, are so wide and sweeping that in fact any comments on housing would be in order under this bill.

Mr. Breithaupt: But not under this Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: Not under this Speaker. When the Speaker regards the bill, it says that the minister may take such measures as he considers appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I have a copy in front of me.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. I am not going on into a long speech on housing, and that for one reason; the bill has been jammed in at short notice because of the rather disastrous upset of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen), and because we are supporting the bill we don t intend to talk about it at length. All the same, it seems to me to be a sham --

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if you would be good enough to talk about the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: The minister comes in and takes the powers when he does not have the spending in order to back up the assumption of these powers. Sure he can do a few things with the powers. We are glad that he has them. They should be enumerated in a different way, and they should be backed with the fiscal capacity if the government is to show that it means any kind of business in solving the housing crisis that exists in the province right now; but it doesn’t.

This minister wasn’t in the Legislature yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when we were concluding the debate on second reading of the Land Speculation Tax Act. He should have been, because that tax was just as germane as this particular bill to solving the housing crisis, or at least that had been the intention of the government. The minister wasn’t around in order to put his point of view on that bill, wasn’t around to indicate that he even saw it as providing a solution, and wasn’t around to say what he would do to back up what the Treasurer (Mr. White) was purporting to do.

Well Mr. Speaker, I think I have said enough. We will support the bill. We wish the minister had some money to back it up and we will watch his use of these powers with a good deal of interest.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for Ottawa South?

Mr. Roy: Ottawa East.

Mr. Speaker: Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: The member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) is on your side, Mr. Speaker. I am very disappointed that you are confused on that point.

Mr. Speaker, just very briefly I have had occasion now to read section 7 of the Ministry of Housing Act and there is no doubt that there are sweeping powers under that particular section, which can be enforced now with this particular amendment. My concern, and question to the minister, is: Why would he want to circumvent the scrutiny of this Legislature when he is adopting or intends to bring in certain measures, hopefully, to enhance tie housing situation in this province.

There is a tendency, Mr. Speaker, of great concern to me, for so many laws, so many enforcements to go through by way of regulation rather than by way of legislation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is very little in our present system, as it exists, to scrutinize regulations.

We have the regulations committee, but we know that this is really a useless committee which has no powers whatsoever. This is a point which is recognized by all sides, and in fact the committee seldom sits. And yet, Mr. Speaker, we have volumes and volumes of regulations that are passed without any type of scrutiny at all. People are not aware of these regulations until they are affected by them.

I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that by proceeding in this fashion with this particular amendment, we are again going into an area in which the minister will have jurisdiction to do certain things. This will be legislated not by way of legislation which is studied and scrutinized in this House as it goes through committee and so on, but will be done by way of regulation.

I am really concerned about that. I am concerned that this is a trend that in fact seems to be accelerating in this province. This is one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I felt some time ago the only protection we had was to pass some form of a bill of rights to in fact scrutinize or challenge certain regulations.

I say this very sincerely to the minister: Since he has been Minister of Housing I think there is little doubt that he prefers to stick his chin forward, and it is obvious that he is sincere -- I am not saying that he is successful -- in attempting to correct the housing situation.

Just as when he was a private member, he is talky, he is not afraid to take his lumps; and he is doing it as a minister. But he has had a tendency, since he became a minister, to make major statements outside the House rather than inside the House and I am concerned that he will proceed by way of regulation as well, rather than by way of legislation which will be scrutinized here.

It is of concern to me, because if this is the approach that he is going to take -- obviously he has had problems in the past, he has antagonized half of the municipalities in the province by some of his statements -- and if he proceeds in the same manner by way of regulation under this particular amendment, it is not going to work. Unless the minister gets the co-operation of all levels of government, he is not going to be successful in enhancing and improving the housing situation in this province; and after all this is why he is seeking these powers.

He hopefully wants to have something in writing or have teeth into section 7, rather than just make recommendations. Now he will have power, through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to take such measures as he considers appropriate to implement any recommendation made under section 7; and the minister knows what section 7 allows him to do.

I suppose it allows him to do pretty well anything; and I am concerned about this. I would like to hear, as a matter of policy, whether the minister, when he feels that he is going to be going into an area of great importance -- which may well affect individuals, which may well affect certain areas of this province, which in fact are major decisions in the area of housing policy -- whether he should not bring decisions about by way of legislation rather than proceed by way of regulation.

Mr. Speaker, I say this to the minister, I would hope he would see fit to give some consideration to these comments. We agree that he needs powers; but on the other hand I am very much concerned, knowing him on a personal basis and looking at his approach since he has become minister that he might decide to circumvent the normal legislative process and to use the wide, sweeping powers that he has with this amendment in section 7 to sort of ramrod certain things. Of course if he does that, he may get into trouble with certain levels of government. In fact it states here that he can enter into any agreement with municipalities, and so on.

So we will support the legislation, Mr. Speaker, but we express this concern. We would like to hear the comments of the minister about what he has in mind as an approach to implementing some of the matters under section 7.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, on the bill, on second reading, I have just a couple of laconic comments to make about it. We will want to explore with the minister in committee the use he will make of this very plenary power which he is asking the assembly to grant to him. One can hardly think of language broader than the phraseology of this particular amendment. By the introduction of section 7(a) to the Act. The minister, with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, may take such measures as he considers appropriate to implement any recommendations made under section 7.

Since it was a new Act last year, for practical purposes, and as the use made of section 7 has been relatively new and as the minister now wants to come in and have the authority to implement those recommendations, it does appear to us that in supporting the principle of the bill, that is the principle of the grant of this wide power to the minister, we should have the opportunity in committee of exploring in some detail the kinds of recommendations which have been received under section 7.

We would like to explore what his plans are with respect to the implementation of one or more or all of them, and what generally has developed within the ministry regarding the land of procedures which have been developed for the recommendations going forward under section 7. These are now selectively, apparently, going to be chosen for implementation. For that reason we will ask that the bill go into the committee of the whole House; but that choice of course is up to the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Does any member wish to speak before the minister replies? Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might just comment on the brief remarks of the member for Kitchener, who questioned the need for the amendment in view of the fact that there were powers under the Housing Development Act. He is quite right. In fact we have been using those powers extensively since the formation of the ministry.

It was felt, however, that in order to give the sanction of legislative authority to some of the agreements we would like to make, that we should have an amendment that would give the minister, under The Ministry of Housing Act, specific powers to enter into those agreements.

I quite recognize the broadness of the powers which are granted to me. Of course we do say “in this Legislature” and ask for guidance in using power wisely. This is one of the things we always have to keep in mind.

Just about 10 days ago in Ottawa I was told I had power to force through a development. “You don’t have to pay attention to anybody, you have the power to do it.” Well I think any minister, recognizing he has power, has to be very careful to use that power with some reason and some consideration. I put that to my questioner, whether he wanted me simply to blunder in and say: “I have got the power to do it.” I would rather do it by negotiation and agreement.

However, in the crunch and the government policy is such that power has to be used, then I suppose power will be used.

I would like to relate the remarks of the member for Kitchener to those of the member for Ottawa East. The question of putting before the Legislature details in the course of negotiations obviously would hinder any negotiations that might be taking place; for example under the housing action programme. I would have no objection whatsoever in saying to the Legislature right now that agreements which are contemplated under section 7(a) and in this amendment, with municipalities, with regional or metropolitan governments or district municipalities, should be made available to the Legislature; so that there is no question whatsoever of their being any secret deals.

We hope, of course, that there will be uniform agreements. There may be variances between one locality and the other, and I think the Legislature should be aware of these. However, we cannot come to the Legislature every time and ask for authority to enter into an agreement, and this is the purpose of the amendment. There is no ulterior motive in it; it is not designed to give the Minister of Housing any great power to push his way into some situation where he feels he has to do things.

Of course, I was surprised to hear the member for Ottawa Centre, of all people, accuse me of speaking too much. This is an unusual thing to come from him.

Mr. Roy: The minister is jealous.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: But there is no question whatsoever that I made a number of speeches at the outset of my ministry. These were speeches which I think had to be made. Last night I was not here, unfortunately; I would have liked to have been here to listen to the end of the debate on the tax the Minister of Revenue was pro- posing, which the Treasurer announced in his budget.

Unfortunately, at that time I was trying to negotiate for hard services in a very complex negotiating situations. It requires sewer, water, population target negotiations; and a variety of things which affect our housing action programme. I expect to continue to spend many hours on that.

What I want the amendment for, and what I am asking the Legislature to support, is the power to have those agreements supported by legislation. Of course, the ministry can enter into agreements with anybody and they would have the full force of a contract in law. I really think something stronger than that is required because -- and I am sure the members of the New Democratic Party would agree with me -- many of the people with whom we are negotiating really require this type of thing in order to make sure they live up to the terms of their agreement. I have been told, and I accept it, that I do require these broad powers in order to be able to make binding, firm agreements which commit people to actions, not only today but in the years ahead.

Unfortunately for the member for Ottawa Centre, while I haven’t made any speeches recently I will be making one again tomorrow night. He will probably want to get a copy of my speech so he can criticize it the following day.

Mr. Cassidy: Good; we will look forward to it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Right. It’s the usual hard-hitting speech that the member for Ottawa East says I happen to engage in from time to time.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister strikes out occasionally.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The member for Riverdale, I think quite properly, will be asking us in the committee for the kinds of things on which we would like to use this section. At the moment, as he and every member of the House who has been listening to the question period in the last few days knows, we do not have a signed, sealed and delivered agreement from a number of people. I have proposals before me which I really would like to get into the form of firm, binding agreements which commit people to certain actions and to certain concessions to the taxpayers of Ontario in the form of land transfers.

As far as the criticism of the member for Ottawa Centre is concerned on the lack of money in our estimates, I think if he listened to the Treasurer’s budget speech he would have heard a word which was used very carefully; it wasn’t used without a great deal of forethought. The amount which has been allocated to the Minister of Housing in the housing action facilitating fund is an initial amount. If we are successful, and I hope all members of the House wish me success in this, in bringing about a number of agreements to accelerate the production of serviced land and to implement those agreements, more money will be required in order to make sure that the taxpayers in certain municipalities do not bear the cost of accelerated development. I hope all members of the Legislature, and in the estimates committee, will support additional funds.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister dropped by $100 million initially; will he drop by another $100 million later in the year?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The explanation for that $100 million was accepted by the member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon) this afternoon. There is no question about it; there is a reason for that. We feel, again without debating the estimates, there is sufficient money to do the things the programmes of my ministry require us to do.

Mr. Speaker, there was some criticism of our having only the power to make recommendations and not having any other power. Of course we are acquiring land every day. We are letting contracts every day for building things like senior citizens’ housing, family housing; all of these powers have been there. The powers of expropriation are available to the minister.

This minor amendment to the Act really gives the minister the power -- and I look at the latter part of it -- to enter into agreements. This is really the purpose of it.

Recommendations are being made daily to the government on a number of housing approaches. Those recommendations become policy, they are translated into programmes; and many of the programmes require action on the part of the government. There is no intention on my part, and I am sure on the part of the government, to hide any of the actions we are taking.

At the present time we are in the negotiating stage. I am hopeful that within a few short days or in one or two weeks, I’ll be in a position to come in with a progress report and say this is exactly what has been achieved and that it will be supported by agreements rather than words. I am being pressed every day to say what has been achieved? In fact I want those agreements in my pocket before I make any announcements to the House, and with the help of the members I hope to have them in a very short time.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 36.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Renwick: Committee of the whole House.

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

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Renwick: Does the minister want to go into committee now?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No.

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