Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry. The Minister of Labour.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of new amendments to the regulations under the Employment Standards Act which will give agricultural workers in the Province of Ontario engaged in the harvesting of fruit, field vegetables and tobacco, protection and benefits in the areas of minimum wage, vacation pay and public holidays with pay. Implementation of these changes will be effected as follows:

Minimum wage: From May 1, 1975, an able-bodied adult engaged in the harvesting of fruit, field vegetables and tobacco under normal harvesting conditions must earn at least the equivalent to the hourly minimum wage of $2.40 per hour. The usual offsetting allowances for room and board will be permitted. Serviced and unserviced house will be offset at the rate of $40 and $30 per week respectively.

Vacation pay: From May 1, 1975, workers engaged in the harvesting of fruit, field vegetables and tobacco who are employed for more than three months will be covered by the vacation pay provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

Holidays with pay: From May 1, 1975, those workers employed for three months or more will be entitled to holidays with pay on the basis of the following phased introduction; beginning in 1975 and thereafter New Year’s Day, Good Friday, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day; beginning in 1977 and thereafter Victoria Day and Dominion Day.

These new regulations specify the wage records that must be kept for these agricultural workers, including the name and address of the worker, the hours worked each week, wage rates and actual earnings.

An advisory committee to the Minister of Labour will be formed, composed of representatives of the Ministry of Labour; the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the agricultural industry and the workers to advise on further changes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ELECTION EXPENSES

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the government will introduce, today, its bill which will regulate political party financing, election campaign contributions and expenditures. The bill represents the reform -- and I would say the substantial reform -- of longstanding practices and customs which have governed this area of political activity. When the Act is passed, the people of Ontario can say of it that it is the most progressive and enlightened and toughest legislation of its kind in Canada.

The bill to be introduced today is the result of the direction given to the Ontario commission on the Legislature some two years ago, which called upon the commission to study and make recommendations upon all matters relating to party and campaign financing. Last November, the commission, through you, Mr. Speaker, brought down its third report, which contained a wide range of proposals, nearly all of which will be found incorporated in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the only specific request made to the commission with respect to these matters was mine, and it was that the commission provide for us a mechanism and procedure which would ensure the full, effective disclosure of political contributions. The commission, in my opinion, has done so; the Act will do so. As a result, Ontario will be the first in Canada -- anywhere in Canada -- to provide for the effective disclosure of political contributions. There has been a good deal of talk about disclosure, a general acceptance of the principle of disclosure, and some efforts made elsewhere to implement disclosure, but when this bill is passed, Ontario will be the first to have disclosure in fact.

As a result, Ontario will also have -- in terms of this issue and related matters -- the most open political system in the country, and for that both the commission and this Legislature may take satisfaction from their achievement.

When the commission’s third report was published, general satisfaction was expressed both inside and outside the House with regard to its proposed reforms. The same satisfaction should then be expressed with regard to the bill since, as I have said, it follows closely both the spirit and the letter of the commission’s recommendations. Furthermore, as the bill was in the process of preparation and under study by a committee of my colleagues, the commission was continuously consulted so as to ensure the full understanding of its purposes and to obtain the fullest benefit from the commission’s long and deliberate study of these matters.

There have been some modifications made to the recommendations in the third report, none of them, I believe, which are of substance; and none of them, to my knowledge, that the commission would view with any concern. We have, however, made one significant and substantive change in the commission’s recommendations, and that is with respect to its position on election campaign spending. In that matter, hon. members will recall that the commission recommended against ceilings being imposed on campaign spending at either the constituency level or the provincial level.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): It was a dissenting report.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We have carefully reviewed the commission’s arguments on this particular subject. The commission felt it vitally important that Ontario have an Act which was as clear and understandable as possible, an Act all parties could support and an Act whose provisions could be firmly enforced. For good reason, the commission did not believe spending ceilings could be enforced, to any practical degree, because of the difficulty in accountability.

It was the conclusion of myself and my colleagues that spending ceilings could be applied, in an election campaign, and effectively monitored, audited and enforced at both the provincial and constituency levels if the ceilings were placed on certain forms of campaign advertising -- specifically, political advertising by parties or candidates in newspapers and magazines, on billboards and on radio and television.

I believe this is both practical and desirable, and I am confident the commission will agree with me. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the bill will provide for campaign spending ceilings in those areas I have indicated which are, in the opinion of most, those areas where campaign spending has been of greatest concern.

For sound and practical reasons, we have not included the printing of pamphlets, handbills and similar materials designed for general circulation and display in the limitations which apply to ceilings; nor have we included the production costs for free-time television and radio. The best reason for not doing so is the reason argued by the commission, which is that the Act that will work best in these complex matters is the Act which is the most practical and workable and subject to the least dispute, arbitrary judgement and misunderstanding.

In any event, my colleagues and I have put in the bill spending ceilings for election campaign advertising in the confidence that these can, in fact, be effectively applied and enforced.

Mr. Speaker, some voices opposite and some outside the House have been somewhat cynical and defensive in their attitude to legislation of this kind. It has been alleged even when this legislation is in place, that my party will be comfortable with it because of the luxury of huge funds it has already at its disposal, so that the next election will result in an orgy of campaign advertising. It has also been suggested that the federal partners of our friends opposite are in the process of creating a multi-million dollar war chest in order to assist the opposition party in its campaign --

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Who would suggest that? It’s the first I’ve heard about it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, they said it.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): This one’s going to hurt.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary of Resources Development): Members haven’t heard the best yet.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In order to assist the Opposition party in its campaign to convince the people of Ontario that they are the only persons of integrity --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Ms. Davis: I have seen, Mr. Speaker, the figure put at $5 million by one of their spokesmen --

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Now the Premier is making a political speech.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- who spoke as an admitted aide and strategist to our friends opposite. Mr. Speaker, it will take a lot more than $5 million to convince anyone that integrity is the monopoly of the Leader of the Opposition and his friends.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In any event wherever they may choose to spend their $5 million, which is a sum far greater than any this party has spent or will spend or has ever spent to my certain knowledge --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If the Premier can make it stick.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- it cannot be spent on political campaign advertising when this bill is passed. What is the opposition going to do with all its dough?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On a point of privilege, they could give some of the remainder to us.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Or us. That’s a lot of money.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, when this Act is in place, then the proposed commission to regulate and administer the Act will also be in place. Both the Act and the commission will be in place in the next general election, barring totally unforeseen events.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): The Premier can speak plainer than that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want members to listen carefully, Mr. Speaker -- all of us -- to the next paragraph.

When the bill is introduced, I would serve notice that those provisions of the Act relating to disclosure and the limitations imposed upon political contributions are in force as of today, Feb. 13, 1975.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is the Conservative Party going to do with all its money? It can balance the budget.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I trust hon. members opposite will agree with this and assume a measure of responsibility for its acceptance in their own parties.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): They’ve got enough money for the whole campaign now.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I hope to have their enthusiastic support for this bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. V. M. Singer: (Downsview): The new comedy hour.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Where’s their enthusiasm over there? What happened? Have they lost all their integrity?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Yorkview with a message.

GLAUCOMA TESTS

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement to make on behalf of the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) who in your presence asked me to do this particular task.

As already announced, the volunteer service of the York-Finch Hospital, which is situated, of course, in the great riding of Yorkview, is conducting tests out in the west lobby for glaucoma. I might point out that this is the first time, as far as we know, in the history of mankind -- and I have heard that sort of thing from the opposite benches from time to time --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Always with truth.

Mr. Stokes: An appropriate ministerial statement.

Mr. Young: Yes, another first for Ontario. This is the first time, as far as we are aware, that this kind of test has been carried out by volunteer workers. The new machine which is being used is a non-contact machine, depending upon a puff of air. Many of the ministers had the test this morning and were delighted with it, to find that they are normal as far as sight is concerned, as far as glaucoma is concerned --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): This government is run on a puff of air too.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Terrific for hindsight.

Mr. Young: We might just say that the good-looking young ladies out here are doing this voluntarily and the Minister of Health is delighted, because it adds no burden to his budget. We feel that this can be duplicated right across the province, or across the land, and the service rendered for people without added cost.

Now the whips of each party have agreed they will see that the various members of the parties who have not already had the test will do so, and we hope during the afternoon and evening this will be done.

I might just say this, Mr. Speaker, there has been a slight change. Due to the rumour we might be through here some time today, the young ladies have consented to stay until 9 o’clock tonight and not return tomorrow. So testing will be done today, and anyone who is interested in a test for glaucoma -- it’s painless, easy, without any difficulty -- the door is here and we invite everyone to undertake that test this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition?

PARKWAY BELT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Premier having to do with the policy on the parkway.

It was reported yesterday that the cabinet, I presume either by order in council or by some other means, has permitted Shell Canada to encroach upon the property set aside for parkway use in the Oakville area. I wonder if the Premier would indicate the significance of this encroachment and whether, in fact, it means there will be other encroachments -- and what is the status of his parkway policy in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be properly directed to the Treasurer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would redirect it, Mr. Speaker, to whomever the Premier thinks can answer for him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They can answer a lot more effectively than the member’s people can.

Mr. Roy: Don’t all stand up at once, eh?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this was a decision taken by cabinet a couple of months ago, and I assume the reason it surfaced on Tuesday was because these matters are gazetted and it apparently must have been gazetted last week. It has been no great secret, however.

Letters went forward from the staff to Shell, I think on Jan. 23. I can only say that there have been, I think, something like 500 applications for variances of one sort or another from the parkway belt; some 50-odd have been granted, and this was one of them. It was approved, and in fact recommended, by the town of Oakville.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Would the Treasurer not agree that when the debate on the parkway concept was going forward, the indication from the government was that with the dedication of this land -- I guess I use the phrase in the American sense rather than the religious sense -- these boundaries would be considered practically inviolable, since over the years, let’s say the next century, there will undoubtedly be tremendous pressures to put all sorts of things on those properties? What is the justification for the approval of only specific applications, rather than a firm position -- that certainly had been expressed by the ministry -- that there would be no encroachment?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that neither my predecessor, nor any one on this side of the House, indicated that something which was brought in as a government policy, which is taking, obviously, and will take some further time to work out in detail, was going to be so cast in stone that nothing could happen during the period that it was going on.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The government can’t reverse it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As a matter of fact, as I have said, something like 52 changes have already been made, including single-family houses, including the addition of the office building for Shell, including the test track -- all of which we think can be accommodated within the parkway belt criteria and which will stand the test of the public hearings.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As long as there is parkway left the government can give it away.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, my friend would freeze this province with the heavy hand of a central government so that it couldn’t move at all.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): The government froze it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Leader of the Opposition talks about centralists. He is the biggest centralist that ever was. It doesn’t matter to him what the own of Oakville thinks.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Didn’t we give the government five years to set that land aside; and isn’t the minister using his powers to give it back?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: That’s a mistake.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a mistake the government will regret.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have moved here, as we have with some 50 other properties and as we will continue to do.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister runs it to suit himself.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We’re not going to grind this province to a halt and we’re not going to administer with the kind of iron hand that a central Grit administration would like to see.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ruston: The campaign has started.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, that’s it; for the minister’s friends.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We’re all for local autonomy, the Grits say; but not today in Oakville.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s got nothing to do with it. This is the government’s legislation. It hasn’t got anything to do with Oakville. It’s got to do with the province.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: It’s a Tory grab bag.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for York Centre has a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It has nothing to do with Oakville? The Leader of the Opposition will regret that statement.

Mr. Singer: That’s local Shell autonomy.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, that’s it, eh?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): A supplementary: In connection with the approval to Shell, has the government insisted on Shell being prepared to accept the government taking back that land as greenbelt with no compensation for the improvement that Shell has made on it at this time?

An hon. member: What did Ottawa advise them to do?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I doubt that very much. At the suggestion of the municipality Shell has made modifications to the proposed plans in terms of screening, and it is compatible with the concept.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Deacon: A further supplementary: In view of the fact that is the basis of other agreements for encroachments why wouldn’t that apply to Shell?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, it hasn’t been the basis of all of them.

Mr. Deacon: Maybe it’s just the ones in my riding.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: My friend, the former Treasurer (Mr. White) is unkind enough to point out that we approved one in the member’s riding at his request.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Sit down.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: He should sit down while he’s losing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What a revolting development.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What a great coup that is.

Mr. Deacon: That’s why I asked --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a further supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Glad the member asked that.

Mr. Deacon: Since the terms of the encroachment being approved in my riding was that they had to agree there would be no compensation, I thought the same rule applied to Shell.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Questions?

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Ottawa Centre have a supplementary?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Yes, Mr. Speaker. As a supplementary, can the minister say that since he is now apparently abandoning the parkway policy instituted by his predecessor, are there any policies of the former Treasurer that the new Treasurer intends to continue with?

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

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’ll answer it.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t answer it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The former Treasurer, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Allan) and this Treasurer are all dedicated to one thing -- getting rid of the member for Ottawa Centre as soon as we can.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: The old guard.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: A lot of the members on that side of the House won’t be back.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Ottawa Centre’s leader is laughing.

Mr. Renwick: The minister just won the election for the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Come into my riding, then.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. In view of the great interest in this I will allow one more supplementary. The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: It looks like a spring election is becoming irresistible, doesn’t it?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The NDP aren’t going to mess us up, boy.

An hon. member: We’re going to have a nice long summer.

Mr. Lewis: I have one supplementary. What, out of curiosity, has happened to the parkway belt east?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The parkway belt east follows after the parkway belt west.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister will regret that statement.

Mr. Renwick: And never the twain shall meet.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I wish my friend had come to Oshawa yesterday --

Mr. Lewis: So do I.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: So does Dr. Godfrey.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- because this was a question which was asked on a number of occasions and quite frankly we apologize, for we are away behind as far as the parkway belt east is concerned.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The complexities of dealing with the parkway belt west have pushed the timetable for the parkway belt east somewhat behind.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Beyond the next election.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As we move ahead with the western sections and get into the public hearings, we will be able to devote more time and effort to the parkway belt east.

Mr. Lewis: Well, are all relieved to hear that.

Mr. Cassidy: With every step forward they take two backward steps.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have just had one. Right?

Mr. Roy: Right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I was the only one participating in that little exchange. I wanted to establish that before you get exercised about it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I don’t need any exercise.

GRAND HOTEL, ORANGEVILLE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Since the Liquor Licence Board suspended the licence for the Grand Hotel in Orangeville on the basis they bad received special consideration from Molson’s, Labatt’s and a company called Park and Tilford, why would the minister not undertake to lay charges against those companies which improperly made those, overtures let’s say, to the Grand Hotel? Why should they be the only one to suffer? Or has the minister in fact undertaken to lay charges against them?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Liquor Licence Board authority extends only to the establishment. The Leader of the Opposition may be thinking of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario; they may take some sanctions against the donors of improper gifts and, from my experience, they have in the past. I don’t know whether they have in this particular case, but I’ll certainly check into it.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Not yet.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since there have been a number of cases involving the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Ministry of Housing where employees of the government or those receiving bribes have been indicted, charged, tried and punished, why would the minister and his colleagues not think that it is just as imperative that the policy of this government descend upon those who offer the bribe in the first place? Why should there be any difference there?

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

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I can’t speak for my colleagues in the exercise of their responsibilities. I have just told the hon. member that in fact the Liquor Control Board of Ontario has imposed sanctions in the past on people who are under their jurisdiction --

Mr. Shulman: Why don’t they this time then?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- who have acted improperly, whether by violation of a directive on advertising or otherwise, and that will continue to be done.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): What is the minister going to do about this one?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In this particular case I would have to check the details before I could reply specifically as to whether any action has been taken or if any is contemplated.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It should be automatic.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary: In view of the circumstances, which have been fully explained, will the minister personally order his board to take action?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have the details of the situation. Until I have taken a look at them I will not make any such commitment.

Mr. Roy: Go and join their computer.

CATHOLIC CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker: I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Is he concerned about the welfare of the children under the care of the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto now that that strike has gone on for four weeks? Can he assure us that the care of the children is going forward properly? And is he prepared to intervene in any way in the negotiations if a settlement is not reached over this weekend, since the employees have offered to accept binding arbitration and this has been rejected by the board?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that I’m very concerned about the welfare of the children as well as the families and the workers. I met with the representatives of the FOCAS about less than an hour ago and I told them I’d be prepared to meet with them again if necessary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I wonder if the minister can indicate something more than concern for the welfare of the children? Will it be necessary to bring in other people to assist in the care? Furthermore, is he prepared to intervene more directly and carefully if settlement isn’t achieved this week?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I hope that will not be necessary. I don’t know if the hon. leader is aware that negotiations were being carried on this morning; the union representatives will be meeting by themselves tomorrow and I told them I would be in all afternoon and would make myself available to them if necessary.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Since the minister must surely understand that the obstacle to settlement is an eight per cent wage offer by the society, which he will recognize is unacceptable to the workers involved, and the society argues that there is insufficient money coming from his ministry, can he not intervene personally to clarify that, since surely he has given the society sufficient money to allow for an offer slightly in excess of eight per cent?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, again I would like to repeat that I told those with whom I met less than an hour ago that I would be available tomorrow, and that I would do everything I possibly can to try and assist in resolving this issue.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West with his question.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): One more supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to offer any monetary assistance to the society; if that is the reason they are giving for not being able to meet the latest demands of the employees, which is 16 per cent, against what they have been offered, 12 per cent? The difference is four per cent. If the society indicates they cannot afford that four per cent difference, is the ministry prepared to offer any monetary help?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we pay on a percentage basis. We pay about 70 per cent of the budget to the children’s aid societies; the remaining 30 per cent is paid by the local municipalities. As I indicated earlier, I am prepared to meet again if the matter is not resolved with the associations tomorrow.

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

ELECTION EXPENSES

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier: Since the Election Financing Bill which is to be introduced today is based on the Camp commission recommendations, which all of us have seen at some length and thought about, and since the only substantial change meets the requests of the opposition parties, would he consider -- eliminating any possibility of totally unforeseen circumstances -- asking this House for unanimous consent and allowing us to proceed with the passage of that bill today and perhaps tomorrow morning?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat familiar with the contents of the bill.

I think, in fairness to all of the members, there are some fairly complex and practical things that I think all members on both sides might like to assess and see whether or not any improvements could be made -- I’m not saying there would be, or should be; not in terms of principle. However, we felt there was merit in having this available for a period of time for people, perhaps even in the associations, because the associations locally became more involved in the financial aspect than has been the case in the past. My main concern is that the principles exist, and that the limitations and the contributions start as of today.

I think there is some merit in everybody having a chance to look at it to see if any improvements could be made in some of the practical parts of it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker; which, with your permission, is not directly on the subject: Can the Premier report to the House on the status of the activities of the Redistribution Commission which is of similar importance?

Mr. Shulman: It is not a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I agree, for once, with the member for High Park. I am not sure that it is supplementary but --

Mr. Shulman: How can he ask supplementaries that aren’t supplementaries and no one else can?

Mr. Breithaupt: Life is often unfair.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I made some reference to it; that report, under the rules, is in the hands of the commission. I forget exactly what the time limit is.

Mr. MacDonald: Thirty days.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The commission, in 30 days, has to report back to the House. I would think that we would probably have it very shortly after we reconvene in March. I can’t speak for the commission.

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

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Since we are likely to be asked some questions on the bill immediately after question period, could the Premier take a moment to reveal what the limitations are in the various media categories?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are a lot of limitations in the bill. The amount, in total, that can be spent on media -- and this is, as I recall it, defined in the Broadcast Act -- I think it is 25 cents per name on a province-wide basis, as far as the amount the provincial party can spend, and 25 cents per name within a constituency. I can’t give the hon. member any estimates as to the totals; however if he had a constituency, say, of 40,000 voters, this would mean that in terms of newspapers, television, radio, billboards, and whatever is defined media, he is talking about an upper ceiling, which can be audited and identified, of $10,000.

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

Mr. Lewis: And $1 million or so province-wide, I take it? One million dollars plus, province-wide? The Premier feels that is a serious spending ceiling, in conjunction with the riding expenditures? I see: okay.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I tell the member it is so far from the $5 million these people opposite want to spend --

Mr. MacDonald: How about the $7 million the government has in the bank?

PORT ROBINSON BRIDGE

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: What prompted him to sign, jointly with Jean Marchand, on Feb. 7 last, I think, the communique which indicated that the Port Robinson bridge would not be rebuilt? On what information did the Province of Ontario enter into that controversy? What recommendation, if any, did the minister make to the federal government? What report, if any, does he have?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did have discussions with Mr. Marchand in meetings that I held with him in Ottawa on other matters, and this particular subject was discussed. I would point out to the hon. member that the province, and my ministry in particular, has no involvement whatsoever in the provision of the bridge in that particular area. The bridge -- and any other crossing at that particular spot -- was provided by and was to be replaced by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority.

In discussions with Mr. Marchand, we dealt primarily with the need for a tunnel. It was determined by both of our ministries that there were higher priorities for any tunnelling to be done. For example, the Port Colborne area has a much higher priority. What we did in that particular release was simply to indicate that neither the federal nor the provincial government placed a high priority on the Port Robinson tunnelling at this particular time and that we were not involved in the provision of a bridge, that that was a responsibility of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority.

I can say that we have had some discussions on the provision of a ferry service in that area as a temporary means of being of some assistance to the community. In fact, just this morning I signed approval for a bylaw that would allow the corporation to pass this over to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority to operate.

But we are not involved in the provision of a bridge there. We simply set our priorities on the tunnel.

Mr. Lewis: I want to pursue this for a minute or two, because it is of such immense concern to the area residents.

Since the factual content of Mr. Normandeau’s memo to those concerned about whether or not the bridge was necessary, was inaccurate in 16 places, and since we are talking about the destruction of a small community and an area which people are very anxious about, does it not make sense for the province to indicate a willingness to move in on the provision of a bridge, which clearly it could negotiate with the Seaway Authority or with the federal government, since a tunnel, everyone understands, is 10, 15 or 20 years away, during which time everything will have gone down the drain for the people involved?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate very much to try and let the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority off the hook of its own responsibilities. It seems to be a great tendency by various levels of authority, when they get into a difficult situation, to try and dump the thing back into the hands of one of the provincial ministries. It happens continually between the federal government and agencies all over the place.

I don’t want to let the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority off the book. They had inadequate insurance coverage on the boat that knocked the bridge down. Let them wear the horns themselves for their own dilemma. As I say, I have no intention of letting them off the book on this. Let them meet their responsibilities and we’ll meet ours.

Mr. Lewis: I have one last supplementary. As the minister will know, in a vote the regional municipality of Niagara council unanimously -- unanimously, which is almost unprecedented -- requested that the bridge be built. I recognize the Seaway Authority’s responsibility, but what about the people involved? How is it that we have money to repave Spadina and extend Highway 400 and build the airport, but no money for a small community of people in the peninsula. What is wrong with the social priorities?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, we will do what we can in order to encourage and to coerce, if I can use that word, the Seaway Authority into doing something. We recognize there is a problem being created. We are willing to co-operate in any way we can for temporary crossing facilities. But I emphasize once again that the Seaway Authority has a responsibility to provide that bridge crossing and it seems to me that it must accept that responsibility. We will do what we can to encourage them to get on with the job and, if necessary, I am pleased to say I have a reasonably good rapport with Mr. Marchand, I’ll ask for his assistance as well.

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health, if I may: Is it possible, before he tables the report on the chest x-rays and sputum examinations of the workers at Elliot Lake, to have the medical data scrutinized by Dr. Stewart, the head of the chest division of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, since he has already said publicly that he believes that the data which the minister will eventually table will not turn up 100 additional cases because those who looked at the x-rays don’t understand what pre-silicotic conditions are all about?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Well, Mr. Speaker, first, if I am listening to the member’s voice properly today, perhaps we should have him in that lineup.

Mrs. Campbell: That fell flat.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, it did. I am sorry. That is the way it is.

I would be glad to talk it over with my staff and see the advantages of doing that and give it consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Industry and Tourism has the answer to a question asked previously.

SUN TOOL AND STAMPING CO.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, on Monday and Tuesday of this week, the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) inquired of us regarding Sun Tool and Stamping (1960) Ltd. of Windsor, relating to the vacation pay due to employees of a firm that is now in receivership.

As I indicated at that time, sir, we had discussions with GAAB, a federal agency, and the Provincial Bank, which is first on the receivership list. As to the funds that were available in retiring its loans and meeting its obligations as far as vacation pay is concerned, for some time we have discussed with them the possibility of meeting the vacation pay as it stands at the moment. This morning we are able to get the agreement of GAAB and the Provincial Bank, along with the Ontario Development Corp., to issue immediately, through the agent representing the bank, the vacation pay cheques to the Sun Tool employees.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

INQUIRY INTO DUMP TRUCK OPERATIONS

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the inquiry into the dump truck industry by Mr. Rapoport. Is it correct that Mr. Rapoport is on vacation until late in March? If such is the case, how can the minister be assured the report which he had expected within two months will be before the House or before the public within that time period?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I may have misled the House with some of the comment I made on the two months. I did know that Mr. Rapoport was in Florida at the time and I did know that the setting up of the commission would take some period of time. What I had intended to say to the House, in all sincerity, was that from the time that Mr. Rapoport started his inquiry it would take a maximum of two months to have the information before us.

My information is that a secretary to the commission has already been appointed and he will be in Toronto immediately to set up his office space, which is available, and that he will do the preliminary work prior to Mr. Rapoport coming to Toronto. I can point out to the hon. members that the inquiry officer has indicated he will devote full time to this inquiry. He will not continue with the law practice he has during this time period.

Mr. Breithaupt: If that is the case, then can one logically expect that it will be some time perhaps in early June that we would be most likely to receive the report?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will say early June; and hopefully before that, because I understand the gentleman is prepared to come back earlier.

Mr. Deans: How early? When is he coming back?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I understand he will be back early in March. The preliminary work will have been done and he will be able to start immediately.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As soon as the snow has melted.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition if he knows for sure; because he called him, I didn’t.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why didn’t the minister call him?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, how can the minister now stand here and explain that he knew Mr. Rapoport was away, in light of the answers he gave to my supplementary questions when this matter was announced? The minister must remember that we wanted to know when it was going to start and when it was likely to end in view of the urgency that the people affected feel is attached to this problem. Surly the minister can do better than that. If he had that information, surely he had a responsibility to tell the House about that. Why didn’t he do it?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Or just phone him and find out.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I will not accept the criticism that is obviously being levelled that I attempted to mislead for some unknown reason, because I had no reason to mislead the members. My information was that the gentleman was prepared to accept the responsibility immediately and he has accepted such responsibility. I have also been advised --

Mr. Singer: The minister said it will start immediately.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, and it will start immediately; but preparatory work is required.

Mr. Singer: He is going to be in Florida though.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is going to be done here in Toronto. The gentleman who has been appointed as the secretary is already starting to set up the preliminary work required. Mr. Speaker, I know without any hesitation that the hon. member for Downsview, with his great experience in these areas, knows full well that you don’t jump into an inquiry without briefs being submitted and prepared by those who wish to make submissions. He knows there is preparation work that has to be done. If he doesn’t, I am amazed, because he’s been involved in so many of these things over the years.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Given that the need to conduct such a study has been before the Ministry of Transportation and Communications for some considerable period of time -- for at least two years, to my knowledge -- why would he appoint someone who isn’t available to do the job?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. The gentleman is available to do the job.

Mr. Deans: He is not available!

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He was appointed primarily because of the expertise he has. He is looked upon throughout the industry --

Mr. Deans: Then he should be called as a witness.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and throughout the province as one who has great expertise and can handle this effectively. As far as that matter being before the ministry for two years, I cannot say whether it has been or not. I was only asked about the question of an inquiry at a meeting that I held with representatives of the dump truck operators around the province. I met with them in my office and it was the first time I had been requested to have an inquiry.

Mr. Deans: Ask the former minister (Mr. Carton).

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, I can certainly do that. But my information was that they were asking me for the first time, and I reacted and now we have an inquiry going for them. I’m not going to accept the criticism at all that we’ve dragged our feet on it, because it’s not as simple as hon. members opposite would like to make it appear. It’s not a very easy problem to solve.

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

WIRETAPPING BY ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: In the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr) and the Attorney General (Mr. Clement), and inasmuch as there will not be another opportunity to question them in this Legislature, would the Premier be willing, when the facts can be put together, to make public, as has the Liberal government in Ottawa, the number of wiretaps that the Ontario Provincial Police has carried out under the new legislation? And, specifically, how many politicians have had some attention?

Mr. Breithaupt: Only one.

Mr. Deans: Not only one.

Hon. Ma. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for High Park knows that I’m not going to answer that; and I don’t know anyway. I’ll chat with the Solicitor General and the Attorney General.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the Premier assure us that no elected politicians have been wiretapped?

Mr. Lewis: Why is the Premier turning his hand that way?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The implication is that some of them have.

Mr. Singer: They are the ones who are wiretapped all the time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say, Mr. Speaker, I certainly am not aware of any.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Did the Premier know that the Liberal caucus is sufficiently paranoid that its members had their phones checked out?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of this; but neither am I surprised.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I thought the Premier might like to know.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, I would be very interested to know if that’s so -- maybe it was the NDP who were checking out our phones.

Mr. Roy: They were listening in!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why would they bother? There is nothing to hear.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Very interesting conversations.

Mr. Roy: Our secret of success.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A lot of dissident Tories and unhappy members of the NDPs.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Education.

COST OF EDUCATION REPORT

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sarnia asked me a question the other day concerning a report called the Hay report, and he wanted to know if I’d seen it and why it hadn’t been made public.

I would like to tell him that I do not have the report, I did not commission the report, and I have not seen the report. It was commissioned by the committee on the cost of education; it is in their possession. They have not made it available to us, and they do not intend to make it available to us at this time -- not until their interim report is presented to us, probably sometime in late spring or early in the summer.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Mr. Speaker, can we presume by way of supplementary, that when Dr. McCarthy finally reports, that the Hay and Associates report will be available to US?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can’t give the hon. member that assurance, because I haven’t got the report; and I’m not sure --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, the minister found out what it is.

Mr. Singer: He works for the minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member is under the wrong impression. He doesn’t work for me; he’s an independent commission.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Jack McCarthy is in charge of this. Whatever happened to Jack McCarthy?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Actually, a Mr. Tom McEwan is in charge and he’s perfectly within his rights to carry on research studies. This was a research study. When the commission has completed its work, I presume it will turn over to us all the documents. Until that is completed, it’s their property not ours. Why doesn’t the member ask Mr. McEwan if he can have a copy?

Mr. Singer: That’s why they set up commissions -- so we can’t find anything out.

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

SEX DISCRIMINATION

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In view of the fact that in the past the Liquor Licence Board has seen fit to try to control the morals of this province through the licensing of establishments, is his ministry or is the licensing board going to take any action against any private clubs that clearly discriminate against women, as with the situation in Ottawa last week where a female employee of the city of Ottawa was barred until 6 o’clock at the Laurentian Club? Is the minister going to take any action? They have a liquor licence, don’t they?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the incident the hon. member refers to. I am not sure whether or not the Liquor Licence Board has received a complaint on that, but I assume if they had they would look into it and take appropriate action.

Mr. Roy: May I ask the minister one supplementary, Mr. Speaker? Is the minister prepared to state here that as a matter of policy his department, or the Liquor Licence Board, will follow the dictums and the general principles of the Human Rights Code and will be reviewing the licences of clubs such as these, or other private clubs, which have clearly discriminated against females or other people?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, neither my ministry nor the Liquor Licence Board is responsible for the administration of the Human Rights Code. Perhaps the hon. member would like to direct his question to the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They blame him for everything now.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s right.

HIGHWAY 20 ACCIDENT STUDY

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Would the minister ask his officials to make available to the city of Hamilton the degree of traffic that travels on and the accident rate on Highway 20 between the Queen Elizabeth Way and Highway 53? Will the minister take steps to ensure that the proposition put forward by the Hamilton board of control -- that Highway 20 be developed as the major north-south access route from Nanticoke to Hamilton -- be discarded because of the dangers it will inflict?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, yes, indeed, I will see that the information we have is made available.

As far as discarding the proposal -- I haven’t seen that particular proposal. I would like to look at it first. I recognize there has been considerable debate in the city of Hamilton over the possible location of this facility. I won’t say I will discard it at this time but we will certainly look at the situation that has been proposed.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

LANDFILL IN QEW LINK-UP

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: In light of the fact that his water quality branch and the Hamilton Harbour studies have shown the adverse effect of existing landfill in the Hamilton harbour area, has his ministry done an environmental assessment on the impact of the proposed eight-lane realignment of the QEW, between the Guelph Line and Highway 20, that would require considerable landfill in that area?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the only concern that I have had recently is the railway dumping fill into the harbour. I wrote to the federal authorities, to the federal Minister of the Environment, Madame Sauvé, pointing out our concern about fill without proper environmental controls, and I can assure the member that if there is work being done within T and C, we work very closely with that ministry on environmental matters.

Mr. Good: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that the link-up is in its advanced planning stages and calls for a considerable amount of fill in that area? Is this not an indication of why the minister resists environmental assessment impact legislation -- simply because the minister does not want to clamp down on people like T and C?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Good: What is the minister doing about it?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, it is just too bad that in the dying days of this session some people want to make political remarks.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister is imputing motives.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I think it is entirely out of order to make political remarks in this assembly.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that our people are aware of any environmental matters that are going on in that area. As far as any other branch of government is concerned -- we do happen to work very well together in this government on this sort of situation.

Mr. Good: One final supplementary: Has the minister asked T and C to realign that proposed road so that it does not require so much landfill into the harbour?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, every piece of work that is done is checked out for environmental purposes. We have not, to my knowledge, asked for any realignment of the highway, no.

Mr. Good: Show us the studies.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.

OHC HOME VISITORS

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing with regard to the cutbacks of the inadequate staff of OHC. Since the report of a home visitor is a prerequisite to any decision with regard to providing accommodation for an applicant, what is the justification of OHC in cutting back the number of home visitors from eight to six?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I regret I can’t hear the question.

Mi. MacDonald: Since the report of a home visitor is the key to any decision with regard to an application for accommodation in OHC, and since there is a very great backlog and great delay in home visiting, what is the excuse or rationale of OHC cutting back on the home visiting stuff from eight to six?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I will find that out for the hon. member and tell him.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview was on his feet a few moments ago. I will allow him to put his question now.

PNEUMATIC TUBE CONTRACT

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement -- a question of the Minister of Health.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: Let’s get together on this.

Hon. Mr. Davis: A statement is probably closer to the truth.

An hon. member: A little later he’ll be making a statement.

An hon. member: The member had better start practising.

Mr. Singer: Right. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health will recall the correspondence he exchanged with me about the bid put in by Thorne Pneumatic Tubes for a tube system in the hospital, which was the lowest bid and which did not get the contract. The contract was awarded to --

Mr. Stokes: Question?

Mr. Singer: -- a bidder who was two or three times higher. Could the minister explain how he is going to penalize that particular hospital in handling provincial grants, because the grants are given on a per-bed basis and have nothing to do with pneumatic tubes? And could the minister also explain why, since so much money goes into building hospitals, the minister is not able to assert some kind of authority and make sure that the low bidder does, in fact, get tenders when he is the low bidder?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, apart from the fact that the member is looking into the future in a very poor crystal ball --

Mr. Singer: The minister told me that in his letter. I’m quoting from it.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The member is not connecting his thoughts with mine right now.

Mr. Roy: The member was right the first time. He did make a statement.

An hon. member: He’s after the minister’s job.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, that’s certainly a nice thought.

Mr. Roy: That’s what the public think.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I would suggest that the low tender is not always automatically chosen by anyone requesting tenders, and with good reason, as the member knows. However, normally it’s been the policy of our ministry to grant moneys on the basis of the low tender if a hospital board selects other than that tender.

This has happened in other cases. A board, for very good reasons, may have chosen a contractor who is within the community that that hospital serves, versus one in another country, or in another part of Ontario. Where the board has made that determination -- or on the basis of product quality has made that determination -- we have seldom gone along and given a grant on anything but the lowest tender.

Mr. Singer: Would the minister explain, by way of a supplementary, why this particular low tender did not get the contract? In none of the correspondence -- and it’s been voluminous -- was there any suggestion from the minister or from anyone else but that the low tenderer was a good tenderer; that the low tenderer was Canadian; that the one who got it for 50 per cent more was an American company. Can the minister explain why, in this case, the low tenderer did not get the contract?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Earlier, the member’s leader was implying that all decisions should be made in Queen’s Park, and now he is.

Mr. Breithaupt: Not in the slightest.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They are the greatest centralists over there that ever were.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just where is the minister spending his money?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I would only say to the hon. member we do set up boards --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They’d destroy local government, hospitals, school boards. They’re just bureaucrats.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Miller: We do set boards up to make decisions based on the facts before them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

RENT CHANGE SURVEY

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. In view of the fact that rent increases of 35 per cent or more are becoming the rule rather than the exception in Metropolitan Toronto and other parts of the province, does the Ministry of Housing now carry on a regular survey of rent changes in the province and, if so, will the ministry publish that on a regular basis?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we do not carry on a regular survey but we carry out a survey from time to time to indicate to us what the rent increases are. As I said before, we think supply is the answer to controlling the rent increases and we still intend to pursue that policy. I would hope that the figures that have been reflected recently will increase, as they have shown that the vacancy rate in Metro Toronto which was 0.9 is now 2.6. I hope that continues in that direction.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: Will the ministry publish its most recent survey of rents, or table it in the Legislature, along with the comparison of the increases in cost that may have been experienced by landlords?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I will take that under consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Could he explain to me why the advertising agencies have been chosen to publicize the lottery in this province before the appointment of the Ontario Lottery Corp.? And if everything is going to be done by the government, what purpose is the Ontario Lottery Corp. going to serve?

Mr. Breithaupt: That was the first lottery.

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple answer: There has been no award of any contracts for those particular services.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The minister is saying, then, that the report in the Globe and Mail this morning is not correct?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s not unusual.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The report referred to was in yesterday’s Globe and Mail, Mr. Speaker, and the factual situation is that there is no permanent board in place to award contracts.

LOW-ALCOHOL BEER

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Regarding the introduction of a 3.9 per cent alcohol level of beer, does the minister agree that this is beneficial to the Province of Ontario? If he does agree with this presumption, why did he not see that there was a price differential built into the cost of this product which would truly reflect the lower costs of manufacture?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I think the introduction of the new low-alcohol-level beer gives people an alternative which should be available to anyone. The reason there is no price differential is because there is no cost differential.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I have a question --

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The time is just about up. I will allow only a couple of new questions.

AUTOMOBILE LICENCE INFORMATION

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Since citizens can no longer get the names and addresses of motorists in the province by phoning in to this ministry and giving the licence plate number, is the minister prepared to stop his ministry selling names and addresses of Ontario car owners and drivers to a United States based firm which is a commercial organization and which, in turn, sells to other commercial organizations? Would the minister not agree this is really a commercial invasion of privacy?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the government still doing that?

Mr. Stokes: All for $35,000.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that particular matter is under review at the present time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was three years ago.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think that --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We keep getting those plain brown envelopes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If the sort of stuff the hon. Leader of the Opposition buys has to come in a plain brown envelope, he can go right ahead.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It comes because they are given the name and address.

An hon. member: It’s most likely the stuff the ministry sells.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Gaunt: May I have a simple answer to my question?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is under review.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I gave a very simple answer. I said it was under review.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister doesn’t like to apologize, but he apologizes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Stewart tabled the report of the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario and the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to table as a report a list I have compiled of all the properties that were purchased by my ministry for future Highways 403 and 407. Between Burlington on the west and Markham on the east, a total of 97 properties have been purchased between Dec. 22, 1954, and Dec. 4, 1974. I table that for the information of the House.

I would point out that this information includes the registration date of deed, the owner, the value of the purchase and the acres acquired. I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, that the information will also show quite clearly that a comment which was made by the Leader of the Opposition -- that one land purchase of $1,500,000 was the largest single land purchase ever made by the ministry -- is totally inaccurate.

Mr. Roy: The member knows more about the ministry than the minister does.

Mr. Wardle from the standing administration of justice committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

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

Bill 118, An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

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

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Motions. Introduction of bills.

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM ACT

Hon. Mr. Davis moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to regulate Political Party Financing and Election Contributions and Expenses.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the report of the standing committee on the administration of justice, I don’t recall whether the Speaker asked whether that should go to committee or not.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): He certainly did.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed the usual pause and there was no dissent.

Mr. Cassidy: There was a great deal of confusion in the House at the time, Mr. Speaker, and it was very difficult to hear the member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member for Ottawa Centre made it.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): He was asleep at the switch.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to ask that it be put into committee, please. It was made clear at the time that we intended to put it in committee.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I quite distinctly asked the question. I am sure it came out loud and clear. If someone was distracted, I’m sorry, I can’t help that. I can’t change the order.

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

Hon. Mr. White: The member is out of luck.

Mr. Cassidy: We have about half an hour debate in committee, which was intended to be held in order to put forward certain points. It seems to me that a certain cooperation in these affairs would be helpful. The report came through. It was not being anticipated and it simply didn’t come through to us. We normally react to these things in this party, Mr. Speaker, as do the Liberals.

Mr. Speaker: Actually, there is no point of order. The procedure went forward according to the standing orders. I have no power to change it.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, this is a breach of understanding in the honour of the House. We downstairs made quite clear that on this condominium thing there were a number of amendments. We gave notice that it would be heard in the House. By a slip or oversight it passed through in the confusion of the thing. I would ask that we be given permission to do this. I also spoke to the House leader of the Conservative Party and asked that this would be forthcoming immediately. We are sitting here ready to go ahead and we would ask you to give us this favour.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know why our friends perhaps sat muted at that point, but it may have been lost in the hearing of the House. We certainly would agree to consent to a reversion so that the bill could be directed to the committee of the whole House, which I understand was the expectation, at least of the members.

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker will await direction from the House leader.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I must say I understand from the minister that it certainly would proceed to the committee of the whole House. Although I am not the one to ask for unanimous consent in this particular instance, it is my understanding that that was how the business would proceed.

Mr. Stokes: That’s right.

Mr. Speaker: Do you mean direct it to the committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: I so direct it to the committee of the whole House.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD ACT

Mr. Young moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how I should do this.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Stokes: Don’t do it right now.

Mr. Speaker: Did the member have a point of order?

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, just a word of explanation; the purpose of this bill is to expand the jurisdiction of the board to enable it to approve terms of conditions of supply agreements between the companies and the consumer, particularly in the area of water heaters and conversion burner rentals.

Mr. Cassidy: First rate.

POST-RETIREMENT INTEGRATION OF INSURANCE MONEYS AND PENSION BENEFITS PREVENTION ACT

Mr. Laughren moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to prevent post-retirement integration of Insurance Moneys and Pension Benefits with increases in Government Social Security Plans.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prevent the reduction of moneys paid out under an insurance or pension plan because of a general increase or cost-of-living increase in a government social security plan with which it may be integrated.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peel South has a point.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, in last night’s Star -- in the three-star and four-star editions at least -- on page A6 there was an article about the 3,800 unfortunate Ford auto plant workers who were laid off, and the author says: “Provincial red tape has held up the unemployment insurance benefits.” I think that should be clarified. It implies that the province is responsible, and of course we all know that isn’t the case. I think there should be clarification of that in the House.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Just before the orders of the day, I would like to draw to the attention of members of the House that this group of pages, the young people we see around us who have been serving us faithfully for the last five or six weeks, will be leaving these hallowed places, possibly today if we should finish our session, and going back to their studies. I am sure that you agree with me when I say they have served us well and we all wish them well in their studies and their future careers.

According to custom, I will now read their names so that they appear in the record and be enshrined in the history of the province. These are the young people’s names:

Ellen Atkin, Whitevale; Garry Bearss, Ridgeway; Anthony Bird, Toronto; Sylvie Browne, Thunder Bay; Trevor Burns, Mississauga; Mark Ferrier, Timmins; Eris Flint, Willowdale; Linda Hack, Scarborough; Paul Holbrough, Beaverton; Susan Hoy, Kingston; Joanne Jamieson, Etobicoke; Stewart Jeans, Burford; Darryl Kelly, Fort Frances; Ian McLagan, Ingersoll; Michael Parker, Agincourt; Carter Powis, Kitchener; Heidi Schumacher, Weston; Paul Smith, Sault Ste. Marie; Angela Stewart, Downsview; and Ruth Walker, Dundas.

Orders of the day.

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

CONDOMINIUM ACT

House in committee on Bill 118, An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section of the bill? If so, to what section?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Sections 2 and 7, Mr. Chairman.

Section 1 agreed to.

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

On section 2:

Mr. Cassidy: You got it right, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I have a double-barrelled amendment to propose here. There are two points we wish to raise under this particular clause, and because of the rules of order, we have to join them together into one amendment.

The purposes of the amendments are to prevent discrimination in condominiums against people with families, and secondly to prevent the conversion of apartment buildings into condominiums without a very close and detailed and tough scrutiny by the municipality or by the province.

The question of preventing discrimination against families has been covered separately by me in a private member’s bill, but it seems to remain here at this time. It was raised during the course of the committee discussion.

The question about the conversion of apartment buildings into condominiums has been raised by my leader, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis), and is adapted from a similar kind of bill that he has put forward in the House.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 2(2) of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:

“(8) No declaration by law or rule shall restrict an owner or lessee from allowing dependent children or children in his custody to occupy his unit and to enjoy the rights and privileges pertaining thereto, and no declarant or owner or their agent shall refuse to sell a unit by reason of the prospective owner having or intending to have children.

“(9) (i) No declaration or description of the property shall be registered pursuant to this Act where the buildings are occupied, and it is proposed that this Act shall apply to such buildings, unless the council or municipality in which the buildings are situate passes a bylaw approving the proposal that this Act should apply to such buildings.

“(ii) The council of a municipality may by bylaw approve, refuse to approve, or subject to such terms and conditions as it may consider appropriate any proposal that this Act should apply to any buildings.

“(iii) Before the council of a municipality passes a bylaw under subsection (ii), it shall hold a hearing open to the public in order to consider (a) whether or not there is or should be a priority of rental accommodation over privately-owned housing in the area where the building or buildings are situate; (b) the proposals of the owner or developer for the relocation of the persons occupying the building or buildings; (c) the life expectancy of the building or buildings; (d) the projected increases in maintenance costs due to the condition of the building or buildings; (e) compliance with the applicable bylaw of the municipality; and, (f) any matters that are necessary in its opinion to properly assess the issue.”

Mr. Cassidy: Those are the amendments I would put, Mr. Chairman. I will comment on them after they have been received by the House.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre has moved two amendments to section 2. Shall the committee take them as read, or do you want them repeated?

Mr. Cassidy: That is fair enough, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed. Does the hon. member wish to speak further to the amendments?

Mr. Cassidy: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. The first amendment states that a person with kids cannot be prevented from acquiring a condominium and cannot be prevented from renting a condominium and that the dependent children are in his custody. That would mean foster children or children who are wards, kid sisters who are sent down to live with an older married brother or sister -- that kind of situation. They would also have normal access to the other common facilities that pertain to that particular unit, both the exclusive common elements, and also the tennis courts and the halls and the other popular places that are for the use of all condominium owners.

It also prevents any restrictions on the sale of a unit and any creation in the bylaws, the rules or the declaration of a restriction against people with children. I have raised this point as recently as yesterday in the Legislature about an increasing number of rental and condominium units in which these kinds of restrictions are beginning to apply. It clearly is unacceptable and it clearly should not be allowed to apply, in our opinion. We grant that some condominiums will be of a nature that does not encourage people with children to buy them, but it should be their decision to decide whether or not to buy into that particular project, and they should not be prevented from so doing.

It seems to us that it is just as much in violation of human rights for a parent of a child to be prevented from acquiring a property as it is to prevent somebody from acquiring a property or living in it because they are black, because they are Jewish, because they are Hindu, or because they are female. This discrimination has got to stop.

Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but there are certain instances in a condominium where people move into the unit, not expecting to have children, but by some accident of luck or design or God, or whatever, they get landed with the children of a relative who was killed in an accident; a woman in her thirties or forties happens to get pregnant; somebody who had intended not to have kids has kids. And then they get put into a situation which is completely unconscionable, I would suggest, where they might be forced to leave the unit solely by reason of having had a child.

It seems to us that insofar as is possible the rights of a private owner to enjoy his home as his castle, as the common law used to say, should apply in condominiums. While that isn’t completely possible because people are living close together, in this matter of children there certainly should be no restrictions and no restrictions permitted of law.

I hope that the minister will comment on that part and, hopefully, will accept it. I hope that he will then comment on the second part of the amendment, which is to require that any conversion of an apartment building to condominiums requires a municipal bylaw first, that the municipality set standards for those conversions, and that it consider each such conversion on its merits, and with public hearings, and with particular regard to the needs of tenants in the area and to the interests of the people who may he evicted in the case of the conversion to a condominium going through.

I hope the minister would accept that part of the amendment as well. If he says he’ll accept one part or the other, then we will change the amendment in order to suit his requirements.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Just a brief word on this, Mr. Chairman, if I may. This is a double-barrelled thing, having basically to do with children.

The structure of our society in terms of housing is changing before our eyes. You will see that a greater and greater proportion of the population are living in apartment houses or in rented units, one kind or another. Surely, the exclusion of children from that whole demesne, which is an increasing phenomenon, is one which we must all find regrettable, because it’s an artificial form of birth control if nothing else. If people are to have families and this country is to progress, then the future of the whole province is at stake really in a very determinate way under this legislation and what’s happening in front of us.

I think the minister, having had so much to do with housing, is perfectly cognizant of the apocalyptic impact of what is happening around us. More and more buildings are excluding children. More and more buildings have been converted to purely adult buildings. There is an arbitrary limitation in this particular area.

Lord, it’s vicious enough when it attaches to apartment buildings, but it’s doubly vicious when it extends itself into the condominium concept; because condominium ownership is the only form of fee simple ownership largely available to the bulk of our population right at this moment in time. All the rest of the single-family home concepts have been completely priced out of the market.

So, this is the saving wedge; this is the thing that’s alleviating the whole thing. The ministry or the province as a whole, including all parties in this House, have the opportunity to alleviate housing conditions. It’s a new invention, relatively novel to the minds of the province, but once adopted has had an explosive impact. And now, coming to bear in this particular area, it is cutting back on its efficacy as to what it’s designed to do: to put a roof over the heads of families. To permit that to be an ongoing thing and not to move in is to be something less than responsible in terms of the ministry, and in terms of the social whole and the impact that we are suffering from.

Therefore, I would very much seek to prevail upon the minister, since these two amendments are really tied very much together, to give his assent, to bow his head and to accept, knowing the weight and feeling of these two amendments. It will greatly improve the legislation as it presently stands. It will take into account a range of social inequity not presently caught within the ambit of this legislation. The minister well knows the deficiencies that even now exist, as pointed out in committee by any number of people, and which we weren’t able to rectify at this last sitting or now. We would anticipate that further amendments will be coming forward in the spring, and rather manifold too, to the Condominium Act as it presently stands. But this can be accepted, clearly understood, and moved upon immediately, and I would ask the minister so to do.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendments as proposed. There is no question that in the city of Toronto it is becoming more and more difficult for people with children to find adequate accommodation.

I would just like to put one part of my concern to the mover, if I might, if I could have the attention of the mover or his seconder or whatever? One of the problems in condominiums that I have run into, however, is the matter of the availability of parking when there are several children with cars wanting access to limited parking space. I wonder if the mover would give some consideration to the availability of the common owners in a building to sort out that problem of parking. That would be my only concern.

Certainly the rest of it is clear and a matter of natural justice. In some of the places there have been cases where one parking space is allocated, for example, and the children -- who are dependent children, nevertheless -- have cars and it does create a problem. Surely that is not contemplated in this particular amendment? It says, if I may, “shall restrict an owner or lessee from allowing dependent children or children in his custody to occupy his unit and to enjoy the rights and privileges pertaining thereto.”

Mr. Cassidy: The member for St. George is confusing a matter of human rights with a matter of excessive affluence.

Mrs. Campbell: No, I am not.

Mr. Cassidy: No, this is serious.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): You know cities are for cars.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s the Conservative position.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: When did that happen?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Cars are a necessity of life.

Mr. Cassidy: The phrase about enjoying the rights or privileges that pertain thereto means, presumably, that if the kids are over 16 and can drive they have access to the parking space or spaces which belong to that particular unit and nothing more. If there are five children over 16 and they each have a car of their own, that’s their problem. I don’t think the human rights legislation or something like this should seek to cover it. I don’t think we are really that much at odds on this.

Mrs. Campbell: I am not at odds, Mr. Chairman, I just have found this to be a case where there were lessees from the owner and the lessees, for example, had several cars, and it created problems for the rest of the owners. I just put it out as one word of caution. As far as human rights are concerned, there is no question that we have to support this particular amendment. As I say, in Toronto and I am sure in other areas, more and more people are being driven into trying to get into condominiums because there are fewer apartments available and they cannot afford housing separate and apart from condominiums.

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

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, first of all I must say that the amendments moved by the member for Ottawa Centre -- at least the first amendment is one with which I must admit a certain amount of sympathy. However, I don’t believe I can accept the amendment in its present form. He did equate what he calls discrimination against children with racial, religious and sex discrimination. I don’t really think they are in the same category.

Mr. Cassidy: Sure they are.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s the opinion that has been expressed by the hon. member on several occasions in this House and, as I say, I don’t agree with that particular equation.

I admit there is, perhaps, some inequity. However, there is also the right of covenant, I believe, of people who feel that they wish to have a particular type of atmosphere in which to live and condominium living is much closer than single-family dwelling living. So I would say that if people join together in a covenant to agree to move into a building in which there are no people below a certain age, they should have that right.

However, the second argument that the member put forward, and I think it’s a valid one, is that when those people move in and have children, while that may not necessarily be an act of God it’s certainly one which I don’t believe could have been foreseen at the time they entered into the covenant. Under those circumstances, it is my understanding that it cannot be enforced. Those people did not have children and moved in, and I don’t know whether a medical examination would be necessary but I presume that they had not even started to have children and there would be no way that that type of covenant could be enforced.

As far as the municipal authority to have some input into condominium conversion is concerned, of course, it’s already there. The municipality is already required by the Ministry of Housing to study conversion requests. They act on guidelines which are supplied to them by the Minister of Housing and can discuss with the building owner -- not a condominium owner, the building owner -- the terms and conditions under which they would like to see the conversion approved. Those would be passed on to the Minister of Housing who has the absolute authority either to accept or reject a request for conversion.

I really can’t say that I’m terribly impressed by the hon. member for St. George’s argument. I simply feel that a discouragement of the proliferation of cars is one of the things this government has accepted as a matter of policy. In my view, any such amendment as she suggests would simply defeat that policy, since most of the condominiums are going to be in cities, they’re not going to be in small towns, and it’s in the cities where the automobile is a threat to the very existence of the types of communities that we have developed in Ontario.

Mr. Ruston: Close all the automobile factories down.

Mrs. Campbell: It shows he doesn’t understand my position.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would like to thank the member for Lakeshore for some of the kind words he said about the whole condominium concept because, again, it was this government which promoted the concept of condominiums at a time when it wasn’t popular to do so. It has been very successful to the point now where we’ve had a condominium Act and its amendments --

Mr. Lawlor: You would have been negligent if you hadn’t done so.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- and I quite agree with him that there will have to be future amendments as the concept develops. But, Mr. Chairman, I must say that the amendments as put forward by the member for Ottawa Centre cannot be accepted at this time.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of -- I’m sorry. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I won’t press the point right now, but I would ask the minister to seriously consider this debate and the comments that have been made and to reconsider his attitude on discrimination against kids, since he seems to feel right now that’s different from discriminating against blacks or Jews, and perhaps he would consider whether he could bring forward amendments in the spring that would embody either or, I hope, both, of the points that are made in this amendment.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. Cassidy: You had a tough tune on that one.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment defeated and the section carried.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions, criticisms or amendments on any other section of the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: Section 7.

Sections 2 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

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

On section 7:

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ln view of the fact that this is the last day we’re seeking to make our points but not be unduly dilatory in the discussion.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 7 be renumbered 7(1) and a new section 7(2) be added as follows:

“7(2) Section 10 of the said Act is further amended by adding a new subsection 4 as follows:

“No bylaw governing animals is valid and no rule governing animals shall require approval by more than the number of members of the corporation who together own a majority of the units.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, that amendment is contained on the sheet I sent up on the first amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Shall we take the amendment as read?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, take it as read.

Mr. Chairman: All right. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre again.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the pets amendment. The question of pets has been discussed with some acidity from time to time among the groups of people who are seeking to find ways of co-existing in condominiums. I guess it is because pets are so dear to us and because on the one hand they provide such solace for many in our society, and on the other hand they create such aggravation for other people in our society, that the debate about pets has tended to be particularly bitter.

The present situation is that all condominiums have a set of bylaws, drafted for them by the developer and which, according to the bill, will be shown to any prospective purchaser before he signs the agreement to buy his condominium unit. They are available now if anybody asks for them, and I presume that they are often shown.

It’s common in the bylaws which are normally drawn up to have a rule which prohibits pets entirely or else permits them only so long as they are kept within the unit itself or within the unit and its exclusive common element, the little backyard of the townhouse or the balcony of the apartment. That is a very common provision which is found in condominium bylaws drawn up by the declarants, and in fact those bylaws are recommended by the Urban Development Institute in a model set of bylaws which most developers use.

However, it has also been common that the people who sell condominiums have tended -- that is, the sales people -- have tended to gloss over the question when pet owners or pet lovers have asked, “Look, what does this mean? Can I bring my dog or my cat or can’t I?” They say, “Sure, of course. That’s just a kind of routine thing we put into the bylaws, but you’ll be okay.” The person accepts that verbal warranty from the salesman and moves in, but when the owners take control over the condominium what typically happens in a number of cases is that some people who don’t like pets or who feel that dogs leave dog dirt in too many places or whatever begin to protest and seek to apply the provisions of the bylaws relating to pets to the letter of the law.

There is currently a case before the Ontario Supreme Court, I think, which reflects the degree to which this particular kind of conflict can go. In that case I think that the attempt is being made to make a condominium owner leave the condominium because he refuses to get rid of his pet.

The particular problem that emerges in addition is that the bylaws are intended to be not quite graven on marble but at any rate fairly permanent rules for the manner in which the affairs of the condominium are carried out. To change them therefore requires a vote of two-thirds of the ownership of the common elements of the building -- not two-thirds of the people who show up at a meeting or even necessarily two-thirds of the unit holders, but votes by people who own two-thirds of the common elements. That’s a very onerous restriction, particularly when you consider that in many cases it’s difficult to even contact all of the owners. Some are in Florida, some are posted abroad with their companies, and some just out of character refuse to respond to any attempt to involve them in the management of the condominium.

Therefore, if people with pets wish to change the bylaws that have been imposed upon them by the declarant, they find themselves frustrated in a number of cases, either by a determined minority within the condominium who are damned if they are going to have pets come into the place and who refuse to agree to a change in the bylaws or by that group plus another group who are quite simply apathetic, so apathetic that they refuse to get involved or who were inaccessible.

I thought about what should be done and I don’t know whether what is proposed here is the most desirable final solution to the question about pets. It seems to me it would be an improvement on the current situation, particularly in view of other amendments that were made during the course of the committee stage.

We were told that one of the reasons that rules and regulations tend to be written into the bylaws of condominium corporations was because of an ambiguity in the Condominium Act of 1970. This was an ambiguity which indicated that it was possible that rules and regulations had to be approved by 100 per cent of the owners, rather than 66% per cent or by a majority.

An amendment to section 7 of the bill makes it clear that rules and regulations to be created or changed require only the support of a majority of the unit holders. And it is clear, therefore, that the rules and regulations are not quite as graven in marble as the bylaws. You have a gradation. It takes 50 per cent plus one to pass or change a rule. It two two-thirds to pass or change a bylaw. It takes 80 per cent to approve the termination of a condominium. And there may be one or two instances, possibly, where it requires 100 per cent to do something fundamental with the declaration. I’m not sure about that.

At any rate, it seems to me that the least we can do, considering that pets are such a solace for so many people and that pets have become such a part of our way of life in this society, is to acknowledge that at least to the point of saying, “You can make rules about pets, but for God’s sake don’t make a bylaw about pets which requires a two-thirds majority of all of the people in the place in order to change.” In other words, don’t solidify whatever the existing regime may be to the point where it is impossible to change it. Provide flexibility by ensuring that if anybody can get 50 per cent of the people in the condominium to agree, one way or the other -- no pets, some pets, all pets -- that then the necessary change in the rules can be made.

I hope the minister will appreciate that this is a kind of halfway house -- that in proposing it I have stopped short of the suggestion that I think was made by animal lovers that it was a violation of domestic rights in some way to prohibit pets under any circumstances. I hope the minister will agree to this slight modification of the existing regime.

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

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, of course, the first amendment put forward by the hon. member dealt with children. I must admit that I am far more attracted to the principle behind that amendment than I am in this one. I agree entirely that pets are a great solace to a number of people. The nature of the pet is, I think, what causes difficulties for some other people.

At the present time, pets can only be prohibited under the Act, and not by bylaw or any other way. But in the Act, if they use the common elements, which means, of course, that those pets which cause no disturbance to other people -- such as birds within a cage, fish in a fish bowl, etc. -- can be kept in a condominium and they cannot be prohibited by bylaw or any other way.

However, there are pets which, from time to time, cause disturbance to other people. It was felt quite appropriate that bylaws be permitted to control the proliferation of pets, such as dogs. I notice that the hon. member’s amendment covers animals. I think I would like to be sure that a two-thirds majority would be required to permit a lion in an apartment. It just covers animals, and not necessarily the normal type of household pet.

As the hon. member pointed out, rules require only a simple majority, and there probably is some merit in having a simple majority, 51 per cent of the owners of the common elements, having some control over this. But it could be very disturbing to a very, very large minority, as much as 49 per cent of the owners, if there suddenly happened to be a concentration of people who liked lions or liked tigers, or some other type of disturbing pet.

I agree entirely with the lion, member --

Mr. Cassidy: You are stretching it -- you are really stretching.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, we used the extreme to point out the ridiculousness of the possible amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: You are using the extreme.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t think that extreme would ever occur, Mr. Chairman, but it is possible under the amendment. It’s not for that reason that I can’t accept the amendment; I just want to point out there is that possibility. I do believe the safeguards that are presently in the legislation and in the bylaws of most condominium units do permit the quiet enjoyment of pets. Certainly I would not want to be accused of being against pets at this particular time.

Mr. Cassidy: But that’s what you are being.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, we are not. I think the marketplace may decide. If people know that their pets are to be allowed in a building, they will buy a condominium in that building. Certainly people who move in without pets and then acquire one know that they are violating the rule under which they moved in. As far as the misrepresentation by the salesman is concerned, I am quite sure that the hon. member will support me when I bring in legislation to govern that type of thing, but it should not be dealt with only under condominium legislation. There are other misrepresentations that have to be dealt with in separate legislation.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, if I can take it a bit further, I am rather alarmed by the fact that if 33½ per cent of the owners in a condominium -- a substantial minority in other words -- don’t like lions, they can be overwhelmed by the vote of two-thirds of the people in that particular condominium in order to permit lions to be had as pets. In taking the argument to the extreme the minister has really got to the ridiculous. I don’t think he has answered the point with which I began, which is that the initial rule about pets tends to be anti-pet or anti-domestic animals. If he wants to put the word domestic animal or domestic pet in here, I am quite happy to change that. The UDI recommends that that be done.

Given the fact that there are a certain small number of people who don’t like pets at all and other people who are apathetic, and given the difficulties that we were told about in the course of the committee hearings in making any changes to bylaws, because you have to assemble a two-thirds vote, it makes it for practical purposes well nigh impossible, or at least extraordinarily difficult, to change the rules relating to domestic animals. Yet it doesn’t seem to me that the rule about domestic animals is in the same category as, say, a rule about the corporate structure, which is governed by the bylaws and which ought to properly be enshrined in them.

It seems to me that if we move this to the category of rules requiring a 51 per cent majority of all the people there, it is still certainly open to a group that doesn’t like it to negotiate, to go through the political process, to say, “Look, if you want to have dogs of any sort wouldn’t you agree to a rule that permitted small dogs?” and to do that kind of thing in the same way as has happened on occasion within this particular House -- and, in fact, in the way that I am hoping might happen between the minister and myself.

He is quite correct in saying that he feels more strongly about children than about pets. I do too. That is why the amendment concerning children said that under no circumstances should condominium owners or declarants be permitted to prevent kids from coming into and living in a condominium. What this amendment says is that for the sake of the large number of people in our society who do care about pets if they are a majority they should be able to make reasonable kinds of rules relating to domestic animals and they shouldn’t be hung up because of a set of rules that has been drawn up by the UDI and adopted by the declarant.

As for the point about misrepresentation, as far as that is concerned, by the time somebody finds out that the rule about pets is going to be applied to the letter of the law, the agent who sold him the unit has probably long since departed and gone into selling automobiles or canned beans or something like that. In fact, the declarant himself may have also gone out of the business. It’s not something where the effect is normally immediate. It’s more like something that arises out of tensions and so on over a year or two before it all comes to a head.

The third point is that in many cases a person may be a pet lover and may want to have a pet and be assured that despite the bylaw it is going to be okay. Even though they know that pets are not permitted, they may, however, want to have the condominium for other reasons. It’s close to the place of work, they like the setting, it suits their financial ability to pay, and any condominium that actually permits pets is beyond their ability to pay. In other words, the question of pet or no pet may not be central to the decision, even though it is a substantial influence and therefore they cannot afford not to say yes to the place, even though it has got the pet rule.

Does the minister see what I am arguing here though, that because it’s the declarant who makes the bylaw and he does it just with the stroke of a pen, and because of the excessive difficulty that there is in changing those rules, we ought to just permit changes of rules with a 51 per cent majority?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, first of all I disagree with the hon. member in that I consider the presence of disturbances in the form of pets much more important to the enjoyment and quality of life than the corporate structure of the condominium. The corporate structure of the condominium does require a two-thirds majority to change bylaws, and I would certainly think that that type of intrusion on the rights of the co-owners should be governed by bylaw and therefore it would take 66% per cent of the owners to change it.

I don’t think the fact that UDI has a model set of bylaws is necessarily enshrined in tablets of stone. Any declarant may, if he wishes, include in his declaration and description the fact that pets are permitted, and this again, I think, might be governed by the marketplace rather than by legislation. I think the difficulty in changing bylaws was exaggerated by those who dwelled on this point at great length before the committee. It has always seemed to me that if anybody is really set on obtaining a two-thirds vote, it can be done by knocking on doors and obtaining the necessary proxies. So if there is really a serious move toward a change in a bylaw, it may be cumbersome and it may be difficult, but people who are really dedicated to that cause can achieve it without all the difficulties that were attributed to it in the committee.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy has moved an amendment to section 7. It was previously read.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it. I declare the motion lost.

Are there any other comments, criticisms or amendments to any other section of the bill?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Section 14, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 7 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has an amendment.

On section 14:

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves that clause (f) of subsection 1 of section 24b, as contained in section 14 of the bill, be amended by adding at the commencement thereof: “Where the agreement for purchase and sale is entered into within the year immediately following the registration of the declaration and description.”

Hon. Mr. Handleman further moves that subsection 4 of section 24b, as contained in section 14 of the bill, be amended by striking out “c” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof: “(f) of subsection 1, or clause (f) of ...”

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, there was considerable discussion of this clause during the standing committee. The amendment was added to require a forecast of the first year’s budget to be given to a purchaser after registration, and the amendment confirms the requirement to ensure, where the purchaser is in the first year and not in subsequent years, that he will receive the information that was intended by the section as it was discussed during the committee.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on the minister’s amendment? The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: The point that the first half of the amendment makes, that this requirement that the budget statement be given by the declarant on a building that has been registered only in the first year -- because that’s when the declarant prepares the budget and after that it is normally assumed that the owners have control -- is a reasonable kind of amendment. It makes sense to us and we are willing to accept it.

In the second part of the amendment, I think that the “c” referred to should say “e,” according to my reading, for it to be strictly correct. My copy of the bill as amended by the administration of justice committee has “e” where the minister’s amendment suggests it should be a “c” and where we both agree it should be an “f”.

I have another question which relates to subsection 4 of that section. The second last line uses the wording “except in respect of increased expenses referable to the determination of an agreement under section 15a”. That didn’t really jibe with my recollection of what we had agreed to. I had: “Except with respect to the increased expenses attributable to the termination provided for in section 15a”. The word “determination” may be an error. Perhaps the minister’s officials can send him up a note on that.

The intent of the committee was fairly clear that if new management came in and made decisions that increased the expenses, by increasing the level of services for example, then the declarant shouldn’t be liable under the penalty clause. Can the minister comment on whether those words are as intended, or whether a mistake could possibly have been made?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, on the first point that the hon. member made, if there is an editing error I think it can be corrected by the legislative counsel on re-examination. On the second point that was made, I don’t believe there’s any error, and that the wording as now indicated meets the wishes of those who were at the committee.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I asked the brilliant hon. member for Lakeshore for his legal opinion. In other words, did he understand it? And he said no. He was very succinct, as well, in that legal opinion. Could the minister explain what the phrase “referable to the determination of an agreement under section 15a” actually means?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, it should read “termination.” I think that was the word that we were using in the committee. That’s acceptable.

Mr. Chairman: I missed that correction, Mr. Minister. Would you repeat that again?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes. It should read “termination” in 15a.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, that is acceptable, I think. The word “referable” is a bit archaic, but as long as it says “termination” rather than “determination” that’s --

Mr. Lawlor: Let me understand what’s happening here, though. In committee the word was “attributable to” -- I haven’t looked it up but that’s what remains with me. You, in the meantime and out of committee, have thought through legislative counsel that the word “to the determination of” more closely reflected the intent of the committee -- is that what you’re saying?

Mr. Cassidy: Would you accept “attributable”?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: “Attributable” is the word that was used in the committee, but we’re talking here about the change in the word “determination of an agreement” as I understand it. And the word should be “termination.”

Mr. Cassidy: We accept the change from “determination” to “termination”, but since it’s now agreed by both the minister and by ourselves that the word that had been used in committee, when the amendment was made, was “attributable”, we’re asking if the minister would now go back to the word as proposed by the committee.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes. You’re saying that the word “referable” is not as clear as the word “attributable”?

Mr. Cassidy: Not in our view. It is not, no.

Mrs. Campbell: Referable doesn’t mean the same thing.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: As I recall, the wording that the committee did use was “attributable to the termination of.” If eminent people of the profession, such as the hon. member for Lakeshore, feel that that’s not clear, I’m quite prepared to accept --

Mr. Lawlor: Well, we are not going to.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- and leave it to the courts to determine whether or not “attributable” can be interpreted in the way that it was intended by the committee. So I am prepared to accept the word “attributable” to replace the word “referable” and remove the word “determination.”

Mr. Cassidy: Is that a motion?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, I would move that, Mr. Chairman, if it is necessary to effect that change by movement.

Mr. Chairman: We have heard the original amendment presented by the minister plus the two verbal -- one verbal amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: Two.

Mr. Chairman: Two verbal amendments.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: One, Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe that requires an amendment. The word “determination” is simply an editorial error. I wouldn’t have to move the correction of that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves that the word “referable” in section 24b(4) of the Act be changed to “attributable.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further questions or amendments to any other section of the bill?

Sections 14 to 20, inclusive, agreed to. Bill 118, as amended, reported.

MINING TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill 111, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act, 1972.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): When this bill was debated on second reading, I made mention of the fact that there were four amendments to be made, and I provided those amendments to the Speaker so that the reprinted bill now includes those technical amendments, none of which are substantive.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, if I may interject and interrupt the minister in this regard, you will note if you look at the bill that some of them are amending sections of the Act which were previously not before this committee. When my friend says that they are not substantive, we over here feel we have some obligation to say that as far as we consider this revamped document before us is a wholly new bill. We have a new kind of animal; and to seek to amend legislation in this particular way is not parliamentary, to say the least, and we must place our objections before you on this particular count.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, certainly we can do one of several things. We can consider it now, or let the matter go until the next session. I am sure I don’t care.

Mr. Lawlor: He doesn’t care!

Hon. Mr. White: But, in fairness, let me point out that I drew this to the attention of the House while the leader of the NDP was in his seat and while the Liberal leader was in his seat, and I explained that by providing the amendments to the House, to the Speaker, at the time of second reading, it enabled us to have the printed versions in the book, probably yesterday -- I am just not sure when they won’t in the book. This, it seemed to me, was ever so much to be preferred, contrasted with my offering these technical amendments -- which, indeed, is what they are -- during this committee meeting. Do what you want; I couldn’t care less.

Mr. Lawlor: All right, calm down, take a sedative. We will proceed with the legislation.

Hon. Mr. White moves that the reprinted bill be the one considered.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section of the bill -- and, if so, which one?

On section 1:

Mr. Lawlor: Does the hon. minister have to move these amendments, or have they already been placed before this House?

Hon. Mr. White: I am now in the hands of the lawyers, I am sorry to say, with respect to this and my previous remarks. I am now informed by law officers of the Crown that I don’t have to move the amendments, they having now been put before the House in the form of this document.

Mr. Lawlor: Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, taking the new amendment to subsection 2 of 1, where output is defined and a greater definition placed on processing, would the hon. minister -- I think we are going to drive you this far -- would you give an explanation, each in turn, of your amendments -- starting with these particular ones -- so we will have on the record precisely what your intent is?

Hon. Mr. White: Yes, sir, this amendment deletes reference to mineral substances “incorporated in any manufacturing process.” The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that the tax imposed by this Act is a tax upon mining profits when realized and not a tax on notional profits before the minerals or the processed materials are sold.

This amendment will assist mining companies that pay income tax to jurisdictions outside of Canada to claim full credit for Ontario’s mining tax in calculating that other income tax liability.

The additional amount of money made available to the companies as a result of this credit, it is hoped, will be available for reinvestment in exploration and development within Ontario.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, what impact does it have upon stockpiling and inventory? Can they escape your tax by simply spacing it out and averaging it over the years by getting larger or smaller piles of material in an unprocessed state?

Hon. Mr. White: No, this is not possible.

Mr. Lawlor: It is not possible?

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. J. B. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I haven’t had a chance to look at the reprinted version of the bill. What section of the reprinted bill covers the allowance of the basic $100,000 exemption for what is purported to be a new mine? Where would I bring that up, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Maybe the minister could enlighten the Chairman on that.

Hon. Mr. White: As soon as I enlighten myself.

Mr. Stokes: I think it is section 2.

Hon. Mr. White: Yes, it’s section 2.

Mr. Chairman: Okay, the hon. member for Thunder Bay.

On section 2:

Mr. Stokes: Yes, my question is purely for a matter of clarification. We did have some discussion about this on second reading, and the minister alluded to the fact, which is reflected in the bill -- it was in the original version -- that the first $100,000 of profits would be exempt in the case of a new mine. Would you define for me -- I don’t think it’s defined any place in here -- what constitutes a new mine?

The thing that troubles me is the situation where there is a producing mine with a headframe and perhaps a couple of shafts and they drive a level and start a new shaft or a new ore body in a new zone within the mine. Would that constitute a new mine? Is this going to be a section of the Act where existing and flourishing mining companies are going to be able to take advantage of this tax loophole in order to gain the benefit of the provisions that are applied strictly to a new mine rather than an extension of an existing mine?

Hon. Mr. White: We understand the perils involved here, and we have established the following criteria for a new mine or for a disaggregation:

“A mining investment designed to increase ore production from a mine by 30 per cent over the previous high production;

“A mining investment of at least 25 per cent of the original cost of depreciable mining assets of a mine;

“Mines inactive on April 9, 1974, that are reopened or, if closed down after that date, remain closed for five years before reopening.

“Any other major mining investment is determined by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

We did feel compelled to provide the full range of tax rates for a new mine or for a major expansion of an existing mine. We were aware that in the past the federal corporations tax was very largely avoided by a number of mining companies which utilized the criteria existing at the time to claim investment as a new mine or a major expansion to a mine whereas in fact it was a part of their regular mining activities. This was accomplished in at least one case by drilling a new shaft, taking the equipment down through that new shaft into the old part of the mine and getting tax relief on the new equipment used in the old mine.

We thought we had to have this fourth approach, that is final determination by the Lieutenant Governor in Council -- a matter of public record, of course -- to guard against undue exploitation of these provisions.

As I say, we are fully cognizant of the complexities and difficulties involved. The alternative was not to disaggregate and to put the existing mining companies in a position inferior to either new mining companies or to existing manufacturing enterprises which go into the mining business. That didn’t seem equitable either. We think we have plugged the loopholes that were experienced with the federal legislation, and in so doing we think we have a better solution than imposing penalties on existing mining firms.

Mr. Chairman: Do any more members wish to take part? Section 2, the member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, section 2. It is a very long section, you will notice, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, it is.

Mr. Lawlor: Once we are over it, we’ve probably broken the back. I have three points under section 2; first of all congratulatory to a point, with reserve, with our minimal stance under subsection 4. The processing business, setting it up at the pits mouth, seems unascertainable. The mining assessor has to appraise its value according to a manual. The move forward here that I find palatable, and even laudatory, is the business of getting it under regulation and for the first time getting it out into the public view so that we over here and people interested in the rake-offs that take place in this at least know the extent of the undermining. You can’t be blackmailed as much as you normally are -- they do it with such grace -- by the mining interests through your mining assessors. At least, according to certain prevailing notions of British law, to the extent that we ought to know what it is, you’ve moved forward in that regard.

Under depreciation, there is an area I don’t understand. It is a lengthy section, where you give a 30 per cent cost to the operator on buildings and equipment etc., after April 9. I don’t want to read the whole section. It says:

“Where such proceeds exceed the cost of such additions the excess shall be applied to reduce the balance remaining to be depreciated of such assets acquired in previous years; and where no such balance remains to be depreciated, the excess shall be applied to reduce deductions otherwise allowable under this subsection.”

I’m not quite sure what that means and perhaps you could tell me. You are using a depreciation base, where the benefits no longer accrue in order to offset it against other taxes. It says: “and where any such disposal [or getting rid of the assets] is made after the close of mining operations, the tax for the last taxation year shall be reassessed for the purpose of depreciation recovery where applicable.”

I’m not quite sure what that final clause means and how it operates either. In these several regards, I would ask the minister for an explanation of how this depreciation is intended to be operated.

Hon. Mr. White: Sir, we have always allowed depreciation at a 15 per cent rate. It seemed to me and my officials to make sense to have parallel provisions of the capital costs allowance schedule published by the federal government, which is used for their corporation income tax and for our corporation income tax. So we moved up to the same rate, namely 30 per cent on a decreasing balance, commencing with the construction of the works rather than the beginning of production of the works, once again paralleling the capital cost allowance approach.

If an air compressor, let us say, costing $1,000 is acquired during the company’s fiscal year, $300 may be considered depreciation and an expense for tax purposes. That would increase the expenses of the company by $300 and pull its total tax down by, let’s say, $15 to make it easy. If the machine were sold for $800, the $100 excess to the depreciated value of $700 would have to be deducted from the depreciation being claimed by the company on other assets. In this respect, I am perfectly sure it is identical to provisions under our corporations income tax and the federal corporations income tax.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, depreciation; one type of thing is being offset over against here, and lowering their depreciation base because of the excess funds for the sale of the goods that have come in -- fine.

No. 3, on exploration and development expenditures. First of all, I don’t know why you have “at least 15 per cent.” I don’t know why there is any bottom to it. I can see there is no top to it obviously -- 100 per cent is infinity. I mean, they get the whole benefit of their exploration.

I have two remarks to make about it. The first one has to do with my understanding of Carter, which I shall never let this House forget. Because it was the first time in the history of this country -- and I think possibly the western world -- where a really sweeping, equitable, socially conscious piece of legislation was introduced, which was scuttled largely by this government.

I don’t blame you personally, but you were behind the scenes, hovering about in the corridors like some eminence gris. We had other people here who did a better job of scuttling that Graf Spee than anybody else that I have ever heard of.

In any event, in the federal legislation they have reduced it from 33½ down to 25 per cent. That reduction is the impact of Carter. In the second place, they have worked in an earned feature tied in with this exploration business, where you are giving outright carte blanche relief from that particular taxation.

In the case of a company that is brand new on the scene, or an individual, sure, I would be prepared to give them 100 per cent deduction for exploration expenses. But for a company already well entrenched in an operation, there isn’t a very great incentive if you cut back on their depletion base. In other words, you say: “You don’t get the depletion unless you use moneys derivable from the source in order to do further exploration, etc.” You drive them to it. Now you use the carrot. I’m using both carrot and stick, if it were possible.

In other words, it is the whole concept of earned depletion being earned in terms of exploration so that we get the maximum impact and effect upon the various organizations and companies.

Now, as you well know, I want the government at least to participate, and to avoid running up against that recalcitrance, which I think is fairly common in the mining industry, vis-à-vis taxation, to go its own way with respect to the exploration, to finding the new mines, and possibly even to developing them should their resources be sufficiently gratifying.

Imagine if you had come up with International Nickel 75 years ago. You would have had the bonanza that would have reduced the sales tax to 2.3 per cent.

Mr. Stokes: Or reduce income tax by 10 per cent like Lougheed.

Mr. Lawlor: Or any number of other things. To have kept in our own hands and developed it at that stage would have been a great relief to every citizen of this province. The same is true in the case of Texasgulf. Well, that is water under the bridge and one can only look back with regret because of the purblinded policies of past ministries and their whole approach to these matters. I think there is a greater openness now.

But on this one narrow point -- zeroing in on depletion being earned -- I would very much like to hear what the minister has to say about that.

Hon. Mr. White: All expenses can be charged against taxable profits, on the supposition that the incurring of such expenses is intended to lead to greater volumes, greater profits and, therefore, greater taxes. So the principle flows from age-old legislation at the federal level which accepts a wide variety, in fact all legitimate expenses against income for tax purposes. This principle remains inviolate in the bill we are offering to the House today.

I think the significant change is that we are allowing this kind of expense to be charged in the inauguration of a new mine, whereas previously it could be charged only against the second of the mines of a company. In so doing we hope to make a new mining venture by a new group, or a mining venture by an established company like Eaton’s of Canada, more attractive in a variety of ways, including this particular tax provision.

There are a number of criteria established to keep the matter well controlled within the hands of the authorities, and it might be interesting for some of the members to hear what some of these are.

Five conditions must be met in order to obtain this treatment:

1. The expense must not have been previously claimed.

2. The expenditure must be approved by the mine assessor.

3. The expenditure must not relate to the acquisition of an option to purchase a mine or an option to mine any deposit.

4. The expense must be borne by the operator of a mine liable to taxation.

5. Separate accounts of the expenditure must be kept and provided to the mine assessor in reasonable detail.

To deal with the other part of the hon. member’s question, we have introduced the minimum of 15 per cent to prevent a company from accumulating expenses to be charged against large-volume, otherwise high-taxation years so that they will not save up this kind of expense to be charged off against a highly profitable period.

Mr. Lawlor: That was a magnificent answer particularly the first part, but it did not address itself to my question. The question had to do with earned depletion and the principle of earned depletion. My objection is to granting outright and carte blanche benefits or expenses to be deducted with respect to exploration and development expenses of all kinds against the tax base.

I want them to earn those development and exploration benefits if the mine is already in existence. I don’t want it to sit in a single mine. I want to give it cause or motivation to expand and to go on with the exploration, and not simply to eat up the benefits already achieved, or to sit on them. I want to give an extra impetus to the corporation by way of saying, “You don’t get this carte blanche depletion allowance of 33½ per cent off your profits by sheer giveaway unless you do something to earn it. The only ground on which you get your deduction for exploration is if you explore. You can’t sit on the assets and take the gravy without doing something of the treadmill work of the Trojans at the same time.” This was the principle enunciated by Carter; it is also the principle largely incorporated into federal legislation -- and you talk very often of co-ordinating your legislation with federal legislation.

I don’t know why you don’t accept the sensibility and good sense of the earned depletion concept. You always shy away from it. I suppose your only answer could be, if I may supply you with one, that you think that is the kind of incentive that is gravely needed in the Province of Ontario in order to have them operate at all. I suggest to you that that is not the case, that if they are cut back or their depletion is completely wiped out unless they make these exploratory moves, then you are much further ahead and you’ve got an expanding, ongoing vital exploration industry operating the thing on the basis of earning those rights. Now, why don’t you do it?

Hon. Mr. White: As the hon. member said, it’s further incentive for mining industries to explore and develop northern resources, ones that I hope will benefit the member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Lawlor: That is not very imaginative.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): I just wondered, in connection with the original question put to you with respect to depreciation under clause 6, when you get down to the end there if you would help me. Is the minister following me? It says:

“And where no such balance remains to be depreciated, the excess shall be applied to reduce deductions otherwise allowable under this subsection, and when any such disposal is made at any time after the closing of mining operations, the tax for the last taxation year shall be reassessed for the purpose of depreciation recovery where applicable.”

Did you understand the minister’s response to you, when there were no further depreciable assets? I didn’t. Did you understand him?

Mr. Lawlor: Let him answer.

Hon. Mr. White: Again, I gave the illustration of an ongoing company which sold an asset at more than the depreciated value and the recapture of that depreciation for tax purposes. This further sentence in the section deals with a company which has had profits and which has had depreciation allowances chargeable against those profits, and which winds up its affairs and disposes of its assets in a year when there are no taxable profits. The excess of the sale -- values received over the depreciated values of the assets -- would thereupon have to be charged against a previous profitable period, the tax reassessed and the tax differential paid to the consolidated revenue fund. I know that my answer on depletion allowance wasn’t very satisfactory and I am indebted to the member for Lakeshore for providing an answer of sorts. In fact, the depletion allowance comes under the Corporations Tax Act. It is not part of this bill and --

Mr. Lawlor: That’s true, I agree. But I just tied it in, that’s all.

Hon. Mr. White: -- I am not well briefed on the pros and cons.

Mr. Bullbrook: I wanted to make one further comment, more personal and philosophical. Notwithstanding the obligation to collect just taxes, I must say I don’t like sections like section 2(b), where the minister is given the power to come to a unilateral decision as to whether the taxpayers is trying to do something to absolve himself of a tax burden. I don’t like that type of legislation.

Basically, we would like to operate without any taxation of any kind, but surely there’s nothing reprehensible about tax avoidance. I don’t like to see such an almost universal power vested in government to designate almost unilaterally and unequivocally -- notwithstanding you have given some provisions for appeal to the courts, but I just don’t like, as a matter of philosophy, either the Minister of National Revenue or any other minister to be able to say: “You owe this tax, because I say you owe this tax.”

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, just one word. The associated person concept is rife in contemporary taxation law, generally speaking, as long as it is spelled out and appeal procedures permitted so that arbitrary impositions of the determination of the ministry, that people are associated when they are not, are carried through, then I can’t see any harm in it. The other way around it may even be tax evasion by utilizing, bringing two mines together under one name and playing games with the taxpayers.

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, it would be tax evasion. All right, my colleague from Lakeshore wants to talk about this for a moment.

It goes to the court. What has the court got to do with it? That’s about as innocuous a section as you would ever find in any statute giving a taxpayer relief to the courts.

What does a court do when it is asked to say whether the minister has been arbitrary or not? It asks what powers he has to exercise. I will read you what power he has to exercise. He comes to his conclusion based on the fact that he decides that one of the reasons for their separate existence is to reduce the amount of taxes that would he otherwise payable under this section.

I continue to say I don’t like that kind of law. I don’t like that kind of law. We should pass laws with objective criteria that impose a taxpaying obligation upon the citizen and we should say to the citizen: “You must pay those taxes.” If the citizen finds it within the statute to avoid the taxes legally, more power to the citizen, I say. I honestly don’t like sections that put into some ministerial official a very, very subjective judgement based on such things as, “You’ve got to pay the tax because we have come to the conclusion that you are separated for the purpose of avoiding the tax.”

That’s a 360 degree, almost infamous, obligation placed upon the taxpayer and the citizen.

Mr. Chairman: The hon member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, the point is partially well taken from the hon. member’s point of view.

We all agree that simply setting up subsidiary companies in order to escape taxation is a most lamentable enterprise. Simply because a fellow starts another mine over here and he’s got an already existing one here, or uses fictitious names or any other thing, it’s reasonable for the ministry to come along and say: “No, you’re one person and that is your gross profits.”

Or he has several mines operating under one company and then splits them up into a diversity of companies in order to minimize his taxes. While that may be a perfectly legitimate thing under the law, it ceases to be a perfectly legitimate thing when you say it’s not legitimate any longer to do so. I think it’s perfectly reasonable in terms of social policy so to do.

I haven’t got the full text of the Mining Tax Act in front of me -- I didn’t think it was necessary today -- but I daresay that it doesn’t contain the definition of associated persons,” as the Business Corporations Act does. Any number of Acts contain the definition nowadays, including some of your own taxation legislation, and I think it is a deficiency in the legislation we have before us if it doesn’t. Therefore at the next closest opportunity you should insert it into your thing, so that the arbitrariness that my friend finds is no longer present, so that the courts will know. Am I wrong about that?

Hon. Mr. White: We have adopted the federal criteria, and the section being debated is the same as that in the federal Income Tax Act.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, but they’ve got a definition of “associated persons” in that Act.

Hon. Mr. White: That’s what we will be using too. In the regulations the federal income tax criteria apply.

Mr. Lawlor: It is incorporation by reference of the federal legislation. Your intent is to bring it into line, but you haven’t brought it wholly into line.

Hon. Mr. White: We do plan on using the federal income tax criteria for arm’s-length companies. Somebody has to make that determination, in this case the minister. There is an appeal as a matter of right, no leave is required, to the Supreme Court and to the Court of Appeal. The regulations, which I have in front of me now, provide the same definition as contained in the Corporations Tax Act.

Mr. Lawlor: That solves it then.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 2 carry?

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

On section 4:

Hon. Mr. White: On this section there’s a minor typographical error. It may not be absolutely essential, but to be on the safe side, I have an amendment.

Hon. Mr. White moves that section 4 of the bill be amended by striking out “4” and “5” in the fourth line, and inserting in lieu thereof, “7” and “8” respectively.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s because of the new subsections, eh?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments or questions on section 4?

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

Hon Mr. White: Before that’s carried, Mr. Chairman, while I fully anticipate having other occasions, just to be on the safe side I want to spend 30 seconds to say what an absolute delight it has been to have some association with my consultant-philosopher, the member for Lakeshore, since, the long hot summer of 1968. It seems too bad, in a way, that we didn’t have an enormous fight on this occasion just in case it is the last one. At any rate, he brings some acuity of mind and dedication of purpose to the matter of business before us and I should like to offer him this modest salute, and at the same time say how much I benefit from our personal friendship. He is probably the only socialist in the world that I have ever liked at all.

Bill 111, as amended, agreed to.

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

House in committee on Bill 179, an Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

Mr. Chairman: I understand we have some stacked amendments and we are on section 9. Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

On section 9:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just at this point we are dealing with what are management rights and what are not management rights. This section of the bill is closely tied in with section 6 of the original bill and section 3 of this particular amendment Act.

There is something I would like the minister to make clear to the House as to what the position is. It seems unless the minister can indicate otherwise, that payment and negotiations with respect to travel allowance have become a part of management rights now. I wonder if the minister could clear this up?

In the House debate yesterday, in reply to the member for Thunder Bay, the minister indicated that an offer had been made on mileage allowance and that offer had not been accepted by the CSAO.

I believe the situation is that the CSAO was offered retroactive mileage allowance back to April and another mileage allowance to take place thereafter, provided that it was agreed that mileage allowance was no longer negotiable. The old section 6 of the Act, and the present section 3 in this Act, clearly states as one of the examples of what is negotiable “the rate payable to an employee for miles travelled when he is required to use his own automobile.” That’s an example of what is negotiable. Whether or not he is required to use his own automobile, one should be able to negotiate the rate when he does use his own automobile and when he is also obviously required to use his own automobile.

I think during the negotiations you got to a point where in fact you did send out a bulletin saying that employees are no longer required to use their own automobiles, therefore the mileage rate is no longer negotiable because you have lifted the requirement that they use their own automobile. I think the government has to clear this up very clearly and directly.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I will get clarification for you on this point.

Mr. Bounsall: Will we be standing this down until you get it?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, we might as well.

Mr. Bounsall: This section will be stood down to another point in the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on section 9?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: We will come back to it.

Mr. Bounsall: We’ll come back to this part of section 9. I would just like the minister’s comments on the record concerning 18a of section 9. In clauses 2 and 3, in terms of the Lieutenant Governor in Council appointing the chairman and the vice-chairman and members of the Grievance Settlement Board, the phrase that appears is, “after requesting and considering the views, if any, of each bargaining agent,” -- in this case the Civil Service Association, and whatever other bargaining agents represent portions of the workers. Will they, in fact, agree to accept those persons the various bargaining agents have agreed upon?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Oh, yes.

Mr. Bounsall: It isn’t just a consultation with those bargaining agents, whose views and names once submitted would then be disregarded?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I thought we understood in committee that the list that was provided would be used in the selection.

Mr. Bounsall: This list provided from the various bargaining agents would be those lists used in the selection of people for these appointments. That’s fine.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments, questions or amendments on section 9? Would the minister like to answer on that deferred section?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, I am going to get him that answer.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments on section 10?

On section 10:

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, my only comments on section 10 are to ask whether the same answer which the minister gave on section 9 with regard to requesting and considering the views pertains in this section, that the names taken will be from the list provided by the bargaining agents. I assume there is no problem with section 10 as the minister answered on section 9.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I think we understand one another there perfectly.

Mr. Bounsall: That’s fine.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 10 carry?

Sections 10 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 13:

Mr. Bounsall: Just one other point on section 13 dealing with section 36 of the Act referred to there. I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the tribunal appointed under this section and referred to in this section is given a lot of discretionary power. I refer to subsection 11 of section 13 that says the tribunal may decide to sit in one or more divisions. The tribunal in subsection 13 of this section may make rules governing its practice and procedure and so forth.

I would just like to point out that it’s at this point where the tribunal is given large doses of discretion, and ways in which it can make up its own mind as a tribunal in a newly constituted and better form. When we get to another section, Mr. Chairman, I’ll refer back to this very good discretionary power that has been given to the tribunal in this particular section.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Okay, fine.

Mr. Bounsall moves that a new subsection he added to section 13 as follows: “Section 25 of the original Act is deleted.”

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I know that the minister is very eager to get into the debate at this time, to lay out his view on whether there shall be a strike or a lockout.

The effect of this amendment that I have would be to delete section 25 under the prohibition section. This section states that the employer shall not cause a lockout and the employee shall not strike. This strikes at the very heart of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, Mr. Chairman, those clauses and that viewpoint which said “the employees shall not strike.”

We believe in this party that the Crown employees should have that right to strike. We feel they should have that right to strike because it is a basic right. It’s a right which should not be denied anyone. And for those very few people in the Province of Ontario -- none of them Crown employees, in my mind -- who do have very good cause for the right to strike to be withdrawn, the viewpoint of Chief Justice McRuer in his report should be followed; that being that if that right is taken because those persons are so necessary to the public good of this province, that there be more than better compensatory clauses built into that Act governing them.

This by and large has not taken place in Ontario. Where that right to strike is taken away, we believe those compensatory measures should be built into that legislation.

But more important in terms of this Act, we are not saying build in very adequate compensatory measures, we are saying the right to strike should be clearly given to the employees. We say so not just because it’s a basic civil right, which McRuer commented upon at some length; we say so for two very basic reasons.

Number one, in the whole psychology of the collective bargaining process it is better to have that right so that the employees focus their attention upon the issues in dispute between the two parties and do not get themselves sidetracked into thinking that all their problems result from not having that right to strike. So that meetings don’t always keep bringing up, with rhetoric being heard upon, the point that the employees do not have the right to strike.

In point of fact if they have that right, that right will be very carefully exercised, if at all. In the negotiating, and the public meetings with employees, the focus will be on the matters in principle which divide the parties and not beclouded from time to time by the point that they don’t have the right to strike which sometimes becomes the overriding issue in negotiations. So it actually helps in reaching the collective agreement if that right to strike is given to employees, and you trust employees to use that provision wisely and not where it is not reasonable to be used.

A strike is a failure of the collective bargaining process to operate effectively. If there is good faith between two sides proceeding to reach a collective decision, then the actual resort to strike will very seldom occur. It need never occur as both sides get to know each other, and bargaining proceeds in good faith on both sides, and both sides aren’t trying to score points, one against the other, or be cute and wiggle around some particular wording which allows them to do something which is not what they would ordinarily do if they were engaged in good faith bargaining.

So if it occurs it represents a failure of collective bargaining. But that right to take that action, should that occur, is a basic right which people should have.

In fact it helps the collective bargaining process. It helps the good faith bargaining. It prevents one side from bargaining in bad faith by simply postponing to get into compulsory arbitration on the issues in dispute when there is some other solution which would solve it, or rather that can be arrived at. They are simply postponing the decision by forcing it to compulsory arbitration.

Secondly, and the minister has heard me hold forth on this before, if one does not have the right to strike, unfortunately this does not solve a strike situation. You simply have a wildcat strike in its place. And that wildcat strike can occur at any time.

If you do not have the right to strike, you have no orderly procedures leading up to the attaining of a position in which you can strike, You then have a wildcat strike in place of what one can call a legal strike, but those wildcat strikes can take place anytime.

The minister knows I have cited as an example in committee the position in England and in Australia where all strikes are wildcat strikes. You have a lot of them. It’s a bad system of labour relations which simply allows wildcat strikes to occur, rather than a very set, orderly procedure which leads up to, if necessary, the taking of a strike vote and beyond that, if necessary, a legal strike.

I refer, of course, to the example of the Ford plant in Dagenham, England, during 1963. Out of 260 normal working days, only 83 of those days were strike-free. Not all of those strikes, of course, resulted in plant shutdowns, because you had small groups of employees wildcatting, who didn’t shut down the plant. But many of the strikes did. And you only had 83 days which were strike-free out of the 260 normal working days.

Therefore, in my mind any system that does not provide for the right to strike and an orderly procedure leading up to the position where you can strike, is a system which at some point or another will lead to a wildcat strike. When you once have wildcat strikes occurring, it is easier for those wildcat strikes to occur again. You reach a system, as they have in England, where you simply have a series of wildcat strikes which can occur at any time. It is the world’s worst situation, in my mind, to proper labour relations and for proper collective bargaining that should be occurring between the employer and the employee.

I would hope the minister would take my amendment in this case.

Mr. Chairman: I would have to state at this time, that the amendment introduces a new principle, and therefore I would have to declare it out of order because the principle of the bill has already been defeated.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have some words with you on that matter. In the committee discussions of Tuesday when this came up, there was both a deletion and an addition to another section of this bill. We covered this point with the chairman at the time.

I spoke on it, hoping that he would allow the amendment to stand. In my remarks I said to him I remembered other bills in which deletions were made in those bills that would have substantially affected the principle. He pointed out to me that in his opinion those were in order. It was a deletion and an amendment. Now if a deletion is in order to a bill, then an addition is in order to a bill.

What I have done here, Mr. Chairman, is to move that a section be deleted. Therefore, I have not substituted anything, which was the point in issue on Tuesday. I have moved that an additional clause be added and that clause in itself contains only a deletion.

I would say, Mr. Chairman, that in terms of what we have done in the House previously, I think that is very much in order. I am sure the minister himself would appreciate an opportunity to get into the debate on this particular point as well.

Mr. Chairman: The minister may want to say something, but I have to declare it out of order.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’d like to respond very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the way you’ve put the situation to the committee is correct. I know what the hon. member is endeavouring to achieve. I believe that on previous occasions we’ve all made our philosophical positions quite clear. It is, in fact, quite a substantial change, as far as principle is concerned, and I would abide by your ruling.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, it does introduce a new principle into the bill, and I would have to stand by my decision that the amendment is out of order.

Mr. Bounsall: Before we get to section 13 of the bill, Mr. Chairman. The minister will recall that in committee I moved an addition to the bill at this point. It centred on amendments to section 30(i)(c) and section 30(4)(c) of the present Act, which comes before the present section 36, as set out in section 13 of this amendment Act. In this way it would be very clear under the enforcement provisions for individuals that the tribunal would appoint an investigator to inquire into not just the situation where an employee organization acts in a manner that is not best representative of the employee; that’s covered by section 28 of the present Act, which also already includes section 35, allowing the tribunal to investigate the situation where a witness’s rights have not been protected.

I was very keen that reference also be made to section 27 -- at least section 27(2) -- to make it clear that the employer cannot interfere with employees’ rights as laid out in section 27. At that time, Mr. Chairman, I wasn’t altogether convinced that the protections for the individual in section 27(2) were adequately covered under section 37 of the Act, which deals with the wide jurisdictional powers of the tribunal to make inquiries, or section 42(5), which deals with the offences under the Act.

If that is the case, I want it very clear for the purpose of the record that rather than make a reference here to section 27 or section 27(2), those same protections in fact are afforded to the employee under the Act through the broad jurisdictional protection of the tribunal under section 37 and the offences section 42(5) in the old Act. I won’t place an amendment provided the minister can say and assure the House as he did in committee, that section 27 does not need to be added to section 30 of the Act because there are adequate protections under section 37 and 42(5) that cover all those points in section 27.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, that’s what I said and that’s what I meant.

Sections 13 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 16?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Section 16.

Mr. Bounsall: Section 16.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

On section 16:

Mr. Bounsall moves that section 16 be amended by (1) deleting in line seven of section 49b(1) the word “for” and in the same line, after the word “tribunal,” deleting the word “to” and substituting therefor the word “may” and (2) by adding in line two of section 49b(3) the words “grant or” before the word “dismiss.”

Mr. Deacon: I also have an amendment, Mr. Chairman. My own motion, I think, would achieve the same thing but perhaps a little more simply. I don’t know whether I can get the agreement of the mover to reconsider.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we can deal with them separately.

Mr. Deacon: Maybe the amendment is not quite the same. I thought it was.

Mr. Deacon moves that all the words following “tribunal” in line 7 be deleted and the following substituted therefor: “to hold such representation votes as it considers appropriate.”

Mr. Deacon: I am not sure whether the member for Windsor West was trying to get the same objective.

Mr. Chairman: Then could we hear the member for Windsor West first?

Mr. Deacon: I will get a copy to him. In effect, what we want to do is to put the Crown employees in the same position as other employees under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. This would give the tribunal the discretion to hear all the evidence and, if it felt that a vote was unnecessary, it would not have to have a vote. I think the minister was going to give some thought to this idea, as he thought it was worthy of consideration.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: The Clerk has just pointed out I am using the unamended bill. The section to which I am speaking, Mr. Chairman, is 19 rather than 16.

Mr. Chairman: We will change that to section 19, then.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes. I see the amendment to 49b(1) we are achieving the same thing. I think maybe his addition is a little less wordy.

The effect of my amendment would be to make the section read: “. . . make application to the tribunal for recognition as the successor bargaining agent, and the tribunal may conduct a vote of employees to determine if they are in favour of the employee organization being granted representation rights as the successor bargaining agent for the bargaining unit concerned.” That latter part of it has been replaced with: “To hold such representation votes as it considers appropriate.”

That’s fine. I think his wording, in essence, makes it a little less wordy than mine and would be acceptable -- certainly, acceptable to me -- but in the second part, subsection 3, it’s important that subsection 3 read: “That the tribunal may grant or dismiss the application or direct that a vote be taken.” It’s important that that be added as well; that the tribunal, in fact, be given that discretionary power which it must get in both subsection 1, the way I have worded it and the member for York Centre has worded it, and that clearly in subsection 3 it may grant or dismiss the application. In support of this position, Mr. Chairman, we have gone through very carefully a set-up of a new tribunal. I think the way the new tribunal is set up and the way in which the members will be chosen for that tribunal is an acceptable method for both parties.

In previous sections in the bill we have given this tribunal a fair measure of discretion. Using the correct section numbers, Mr. Chairman, in section 13(11) we give the tribunal the discretion into how many divisions it sets and in section 13(13) we give the tribunal complete discretion in making rules governing the practices and procedures and the exercise of power.

Should the matter of successor rights -- I am referring now to this section -- come before the tribunal, it should also at this point have the discretionary power, first of all, to deny or grant the application, and, having seen the evidence, decide whether or not in their determination, a vote needs to be taken. That’s the normal discretionary powers given to the Ontario Labour Relations Board in matters of this sort. I don’t trust the tribunal any less than I trust the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It looks to be a well set-up tribunal. I would say to the minister that I would hope he would grant this further discretionary power to the tribunal, as it seems fairly reasonable for them to have such, and in the matter of whether or not a vote should be taken they in their wisdom will decide whether they will or will not grant that vote.

The minister knows all the background as to why this will be necessary. I don’t need to go through it here in the House. Let the tribunal decide whether or not they need another vote to be taken, should the corporation form of the CSAO at some time disappear and another form result. Let the board decide whether or not a whole vote of the membership be taken. Let it be to the discretion of the tribunal.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, you’re amending the first subsection of 49b, in section 19 of the bill, with the wording that I have and in the following one we’re using your wording?

Mr. Bounsall: It’s perfectly acceptable to me that we take the amendment of the member for York Centre in place of my first motion and let stand the second half of my motion.

Mr. Chairman: You withdraw the first part of your motion?

Mr. Bounsall: And substitute therein the motion of the member for York Centre.

Mr. Chairman: All right. Mr. Bounsall has withdrawn the first part of his motion and accepted Mr. Deacon’s motion for the first part.

Mr. Deacon moves to amend section 19 of Bill 179, section 49b(1), by deleting all the words following “tribunal” in line 7 and by adding the words “to hold such representation votes as it considers appropriate.”

Mr. Bounsall moves to add in line 2 of section 49b(3), the words “grant or” before the word “dismissing.”

Mr. Chairman: We will stack those. Any further comments on section 19?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I must respond to the hon. member for Windsor West and say that in my humble opinion the government wants to retain within the terms of the Act in this particular subsection the principle that there shall be a vote in the first instance in any event, and we want to retain that principle throughout the balance of the considerations. Further, I would say that I know what he’s saying to me. I believe, in any event, where an employee organization feels that they do have that sort of majority to carry them, that I can see no reason why they wouldn’t be very pleased to have a vote and indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are the representative organization. The government believes that that principle should remain.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, does the minister feel the Ontario Labour Relations Act should be so amended, so that all the employees in the province in any organization would have that requirement as well? Surely we shouldn’t be treating Crown employees different from employees under the Labour Relations Act, with regard to this matter.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No. There is a difference and we recognize that difference.

Mr. Deacon: What is the difference?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The difference is that the Labour Relations Board has other discretionary powers in the event of application for certification, which differs substantially from this particular situation. We just believe that this principle should be retained, and I can see no reason why anybody would object to it. Even if I were in the employee organization, I wouldn’t object to it.

Mr. Deacon: Then you should change the rest of the Act. Change the Labour Relations Act, if that’s the government’s view.

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

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I find it a little difficult to follow the reasoning of the minister on this point. He has been reasonable in most other sections and in committee insofar as every other matter except compulsory arbitration and the right to strike is concerned. He has been reasonable outside of those other sections, and I cannot see why in this section the minister appears to be taking a stubborn position -- or worse, a paternalistic one.

Here you’ve set up your own tribunal -- I think all parties agree this is a good tribunal setup -- and you give it discretion. Why do you mistrust that tribunal’s making up its mind with respect to whether or not a vote be taken of the entire membership having heard an application?

By not agreeing with the amendment placed, this is what the minister is, in fact, saying: “We set it up properly. We give you discretion in a whole bunch of areas, but when it comes to deciding whether or not a vote should be taken of the membership you cannot have that discretion. You can do nothing but order a vote.” I find that rather an unusual posture for you to find yourself in.

What is it about your tribunal that you don’t like? What is it about the tribunal setup that you would say at this point, “We are not going to give you that discretion. We mistrust you in making a decision of that nature”? Because that is really what the minister is saying if he says he won’t accept these amendments.

And if you want to get to the real meat of the matter, I don’t know why you are making life difficult for the 60,000 Crown employees over which you have jurisdiction. What you are saying is that the organization working on their behalf, if they wish to go through a de-incorporation or whatever you call it, must take two votes of its membership, one to de-incorporate, or whatever procedure they have to go through there. By not giving the tribunal discretion, the group having de-incorporated and no longer being a group with which you can talk at all -- although I presume you would talk informally over those weeks or perhaps months before yet another vote can be organized -- you have to say to that group, “You must go back and you must get a ballot in from those 60,000 workers right across the province.”

The tribunal might instead look at the unincorporated entity which had represented them in a corporate structure fashion the day before, it having gone though whatever procedures they need to de-incorporate, and say to them: “Look, you are the same group. We believe a vote doesn’t need to be taken.” Or that tribunal could say to them: “Look, even though it might take a few weeks; even though this is yet another opportunity for you to contact all your members in the province and stir them up against the government of Ontario in other matters at the same time you are contacting them, we feel you should, in fact, go ahead and take that vote.”

Why can’t you leave that decision to them? Why must you make that employee representative go through the taking of 60,000 ballots or so across the province when the tribunal could well say, “We believe it isn’t necessary and that’s going to take some time”?

I could be wrong, because I am not a lawyer, Mr. Chairman, but I don’t think the two issues can be decided by one ballot. I don’t think they can be canvassed at the same time. The CSAO, if it wishes to de-incorporate, can have a ballot for its members to vote on whether or not to de-incorporate, and another part of the ballot saying, “If we do de-incorporate, do you wish to become a member of this organization under its second name?”

I think there would have to be the two different ballots, or at least, a ballot of its entire membership in the second instance. That’s an awful lot of energy and time wasted on behalf of the organization representing the civil servants and some energy and time spent by the civil servants deciding just what they will do in that second instance.

I just can’t see, Mr. Minister, why you are being stubborn on this point in seeming to want to make it a little bit difficult for the civil servants in the Province of Ontario on the one hand, and also, on the other hand pretty profoundly not trusting your own tribunal.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, we haven’t taken issue with one another yet in this whole debate and the hon. member is going a little far off the deep end by calling me stubborn. As a matter of fact, our communication has, in fact, been extremely good. I think that if there is any stubbornness being shown, the member for Windsor West is being a little bit difficult on this particular point. We’ve gone over it before. He knows where we stand.

The legalistic aspect, as he said, is not always clear to all of us who are laymen. But I would like to put it this way. As I said before, if I were a member of that organization or if I were a member of the executive of that organization, whether I were sitting here now or sitting over there, in the case in point. I think I would rather have that vote. I disagree with you; in my humble opinion, it could be taken in one ballot. That’s not so difficult these days, as we know, from the procedures that were followed all through the fall.

I just simply say to you that it’s a principle that we want to retain. I believe it indicates to all concerned that that is their desire, and there is no questioning of that desire if you have that vote and that vote is taken. I agree, as was said in committee, that indeed it is not difficult. They are sure of where they stand with their members. That’s great and that’s the way it should be, and this will prove it for them.

I say to the hon. member that if I were in that position I would be desirous, at this point in time, of following that course. Certainly, in due course, that might change. I won’t stand here and be stubborn; no, I won’t. I simply say it’s an ameliorating position and I think not a bad one.

Mr. Stokes: You are just going to stand there.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Now, don’t you get into it.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Chairman, I must point out, in all fairness to the minister and to the House, this is one of the things he was going to think about between the committee meetings outside the House and the committee meetings here. To use the term “stubborn” perhaps was a little strong at this particular point, that is true. He thought about it and he’s come back and kept the original wording in.

Even if one did apply the word “stubborn,” I’m not so sure that it’s the minister who is being stubborn and it isn’t some of his advisers who are being stubborn. In all fairness, I certainly did not want to say that the minister is being stubborn about this point.

But look, here’s another point. If you give this discretionary power to the tribunal, and the tribunal, in its wisdom in hearing the arguments -- whatever arguments accrue; I suppose it would be only an argument from the employee organization, unless there was an input from the Management Board of Cabinet saying you would hope they would be more democratic, and unless there was that type of other input you would be hearing only one side -- let’s say the tribunal did decide a vote was not necessary. This does not mean the executive of the Civil Service Association could not say, and would not, in fact, say, “In spite of the fact that we don’t have to take a vote, we’re going to take this opportunity because it’s appropriate, in fact, to find out the feelings of our 60,000 members.”

What you’re saying is, they have no opportunity to decide that one way or the other. This way they are required to do that. The tribunal can do no other than order the vote; the CSAO has no alternative other than to take it. What I’m saying is, give the tribunal discretion as to whether or not the vote should be held, and then the CSAO can decide, at that point, if they’re not required to take it, whether or not they would still take it. It seems that’s the sort of decision you would want the tribunal to be involved in.

Even if the tribunal says, “No, you don’t have to take a vote,” the ball is squarely in the court of the CSAO executive where, for the very reasons that you’ve outlined, they then have to decide whether or not they would take one anyway. That’s not a bad position for them to find themselves in.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: In reply to that, Mr. Chairman, there is some validity to what you are saying; I don’t disagree totally with you. But then, I believe this is a huge organization and surely on the question of major changes, major changes within that organization, the public servants themselves should have that right to say, “We get here the same way; you don’t get here if you don’t have a majority vote,” and maybe that’s what’s in my mind at the moment. All I can say to you is, it’s a principle we want to retain and, therefore, I’m asking that the clause be left as is.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment as read will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack the vote on the amendments?

Are there any further comments, criticisms or amendments to any further sections of the bill?

Shall the bill be reported?

Mr. Stokes: No, we had a commitment from the minister that he would give some justification for the answer that he gave to me.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, that is right. You are right. Okay, the fact that the use of a personal automobile is no longer a condition of employment raises a question as to whether or not mileage rates are negotiable. We have not made this a major issue as far as the current situation stands. As a matter of fact, they will be referred to in collective agreements, therefore I can say to you that as far as I’m concerned they will be negotiable to that degree.

Mr. Stokes: They will be negotiable?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes.

Mr. Stokes: All right then, if they will be negotiable, when the job content or the job description requires the use of their own personal car, you are prepared to go back and give them the same rates as those outside of the bargaining unit, as outlined in the manual of administration?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Oh yes, that is correct.

Mr. Stokes: All right, we have that on the record then; that it is a negotiable item.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, I indicated to you the other evening that those rates that we offered were exactly the same as are being paid -- the ones you referred to -- and are retroactive to April 1, 1974, and I think Aug. 1, 1974. Yes, that’s correct.

Mr. Stokes: And they will be negotiable in the future?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes.

Mr. Stokes: Fine.

Mr. Bounsall: Just on this point, I think we are very clear on it now, but I think in your remarks you said it wasn’t accepted by the CSAO. That’s correct. Their reason for not accepting it is that they are under the impression that by accepting it, as well as accepting it at the moment, they would no longer be able to negotiate it, not just for those groups of employees who are required to use their automobiles from time to time but those groups of employees who, in fact, use their automobiles for government business. They want to be able to negotiate the rate for both those groups of employees and it’s clear that that right has not been taken away.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: As long as they are using their own cars.

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: There are several questions before the committee, and it was agreed by the committee that the vote would be taken at the conclusion of the discussions on Bill 179.

We are considering several amendments to Bill 179. The first was moved by Mr. Reid of Rainy River, to amend section 3 by adding in the third line of section 6 of the Act, after the words “terms and conditions of employment,” the words “including pensions and superannuation.”

There was an amendment to the amendment moved by Mr. Bounsall that all the words following “employer” in the second line be deleted.

The committee divided on Mr. Bounsall’s amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 25, the “nays” are 46.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): If at this point you would wish to place all of the other amendments, we are content to have the same vote.

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: I’ll read them all:

Mr. Reid moves an amendment to Mr. Bounsall’s amendment, to delete from section 9, subsection 17(1b) the word “superannuation.”

Mr. Deacon moves to amend section 16 of Bill 179 section 49b(1), to delete all the words following “tribunal” in line 7 and by adding the words, “to hold such representation votes as it considers appropriate.”

Mr. Bounsall moves a sub-amendment adding, in line 2 of section 49b(3), the words “grant or” before the word “dismiss.”

Mr. Deacon: Section 19.

Mr. Chairman: I’m sorry, section 19.

I declare the amendments lost.

Bill 179 reported.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with no amendments and two bills with amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I would like permission at this time to table the answer to question No. 32 standing on the order paper. I must admit that I missed doing it on the orders of the day.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Let’s have unanimous consent.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Oh, surely not.

Mr. Singer: The minister didn’t ask for unanimous consent.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have that consent

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nipissing was about to complete his remarks. Can you do it in two minutes?

Mr. R. S. S. Smith (Nipissing): I will move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.

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