Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: You will be aware that the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment will be discussed in the standing committee on resources development after the Ministry of Transportation and Communications estimates are dealt with, which means some time at the end of next weak.

You will recall that the Premier (Mr. Davis) gave an undertaking that certain public opinion polls, including a $56,000 poll by Decima Research Limited, would be made available by individual ministers at the appropriate time. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) is here now and presumably he will wish to listen to this point of privilege.

As a matter of privilege, can we have assurance from you, Mr. Speaker, that you will seek from the minister this particular poll, which must be extensive to have cost $50,000, so that we can study it in time for our discussion of the estimates? Could we have assurance that this poll which, after all, the minister has and it having been paid for with public funds, will be given to us for our study in the opposition by the end of this weeks?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, on that point of privilege: I have said several times that we would be more than happy to release that poll, and will be doing so. It is a very extensive poll and a very important one. It has a lot of information in it. It is one that is very valuable and we will be releasing it. I cannot say to the Leader of the Opposition that we can do it by the end of this week, but I can certainly assure him it will be released in advance of the standing committee’s consideration of my ministry’s estimates.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection that the Workmen’s Compensation Board is to be heard in the resources development committee before the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment are considered and following those of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. I would have to check that but, that being the case, I think the minister would have time, even if he does not have that report before the end of this week, for that report to be considered by members before his estimates are considered by the committee.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There will be no problem.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, if I might, I was going from what is on the order paper. I am told by the House leader for the party that there might be the Workmen’s Compensation Board hearing, which he understood may be dealt with by subcommittee of that committee.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider how the privileges of members of the opposition are affected if we are being obstructed from access to information which the minister has had for some time, information which he can use to prepare himself for estimates and for other matters in the House and to which we in Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, are denied access until such time as the minister decides he will be nice enough to let us see it.

Could you kindly rule on that, Mr. Speaker? I ask you to consider, in your wisdom, whether we can carry on as members of an opposition when we are being obstructed by the government from access to information that we have all paid for?

Mr. Speaker: I will look into it and see whether there was a commitment made to table it as soon as possible.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of honourable members the presence in our gallery of five members of the Australian delegation to the Duke of Edinburgh’s Fifth Commonwealth Study Conference to Canada, led by Mr. Mal Bryce, MLA, Ascot, and deputy leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party in Western Australia. Will members please welcome them to our gallery?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EXPORT ’80

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce Export ’80, a new program under which my ministry will launch a revitalized, better financed and more comprehensive trade strategy for Ontario.

Mr. Breithaupt: More commercials.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are in the can. They will be out soon.

During the past year, we have been involved in an analysis of the exporting problems of Canadian firms. This analysis was conducted both in the context of our input into the Hatch review of federal export support measures and as a result of an intensive internal assessment of Ontario’s own activities.

Our review indicated a need for this government to expand and modify its export support activity, particularly in the areas of direct financial assistance, trade missions, foreign offices and general trade policy.

To ensure maximum benefits from our efforts, resources will be deliberately concentrated in support of both firms and markets which offer the greatest potential for increased and sustained export sales.

I would like to highlight the eight key elements of Export ’80.

2:10 p.m.

The first component involves increased financial assistance for exports. The Ontario Development Corporations will double their overall financial support in this area from $12 million to $25 million annually, and will double their line of export credit to individual firms from $500,000 to $1 million per firm.

This assistance will be available to finance production for export markets and export receivables. Further, the Ontario Development Corporations will provide specific support to co-ordinate access to the federal government’s Export Development Corporation and to private-sector lending institutions.

The second element of Export ’80 involves a substantial change in our trade mission activity. The current limit of three visits by a firm to the same market in five years will be removed. Firms showing a willingness to commit marketing and other resources to specific export markets will be encouraged to concentrate on and return to those markets. Further, businesses with a clearly identified potential for improved export sales now will be permitted to participate in an unlimited number of trade missions each year.

Export ’80 no longer will automatically subsidize the air fares of all participants in trade missions, but will support those business people showing a proven need for assistance and reasonable market prospects.

The third component of Export ’80 involves targeting participation in trade fairs and exhibitions. We will henceforth participate only in those trade fairs which are highly specialized and which have specific relevance to major Ontario industries and firms. Efforts also will be made to combine trade fairs with allied missions to maximize the results. Further, we will be emphasizing involvement in regional US trade fairs as effective avenues for increased export sales by smaller Canadian firms.

As a fourth component of Export ’80, we will be assigning responsibility for Ontario’s participation in technology missions to the Ontario Research Foundation. This will ensure that efforts to import technology are concentrated in fields that will support and complement domestic research and development activity.

The fifth initiative we are undertaking involves provincial government support for the development of full-service private and public trading houses. To encourage the most beneficial operation of trading houses in Ontario, we will be inviting them to participate in Export ’80 trade missions for the first time. We will also permit trading houses to gain access to export support credit through the Ontario Development Corporations.

Sixth, my ministry will be establishing an office of commercial policy. This office will be responsible for co-ordinating our efforts to encourage multinational companies to implement world mandating and specialization strategy in Ontario. The office also will be responsible for identifying specific foreign nontariff trade barriers which impede Ontario’s attempts to export, and will be involved in developing effective provincial responses to those barriers.

The seventh component of our trade action plan involves the establishment of new foreign offices to support marketing efforts in priority markets. Last month we opened two new offices in the United States. Our Dallas office will serve the expanding southwestern US market, and our Atlanta office will serve the southeast. Our network of foreign offices will be further expanded with the opening next month of a new Ministry of Industry and Tourism office in Hong Kong. From this location, we will serve China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, as well as the growing markets of the developing countries in the Pacific Rim.

Mr. Foulds: Do all those offices have revolving doors?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Behave yourselves; you might get the job one day. No, you won’t; you really won’t get the job.

Mr. Eakins: Is Marvin still on the payroll?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They should do it the way he did it. It’s the only way the members opposite will be able to do it.

The eighth element of Export ’80 involves a major drive to promote more effective export marketing by Ontario firms.

In order to develop improved professional expertise in trade, trade policy, customs, tariffs and export marketing, we have established an internship program in international business for Ontario university graduates. Interns will be sent to nine of our ministry’s 10 foreign offices for a period of two years. This program will assist the graduates in developing a high level of skilled and sophisticated knowledge about international trade which should be in considerable demand by the private sector when their internships are completed.

We also will be offering a three-year subsidy for the establishment of a chair of commercial law at an Ontario university. Further, my ministry will be retaining the services of experienced export managers to conduct marketing probes on behalf of small Canadian-owned firms.

We also will be committing $250,000 to a highly innovative and flexible program which will help small firms that have developed international marketing strategies meet the costs of initial export ventures. Through this program, assistance will be provided in such areas as consignment costs, warehousing or changes in products or packages for international markets.

What I have described represents a wide-ranging program of new initiatives being undertaken by our government to support and encourage the export activities of Ontario-based businesses.

I am confident these initiatives will enable Ontario firms to meet the challenges of export markets while contributing to the development of Ontario’s manufacturing base and generating new wealth for all Canadians.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SMALL BUSINESS LOANS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my first question to the Treasurer. He will recall the suggestion made by the Bank of Canada back in 1973, the policy adopted then, and a suggestion I have made in the House and which others have made as well, that banks introduce a favourable interest rate for small businesses, especially given the crunch that many of these small businesses are feeling with the current interest rate problem.

Is the Treasurer aware that in British Columbia, the Bank of British Columbia, a privately owned institution, since last fall has offered half of one per cent under prime as its interest rate for small businesses in that province, in view of the importance stressed with regard to small businesses in British Columbia? Why does the Treasurer not call in the heads of the commercial banks here in Ontario and ask them to do the very same thing?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, Ontario does offer lower-interest loans to small businesses through the Ontario Development Corporation. The current rate is in the range of 10.5 per cent to 11 per cent, I believe, on eligible loans through that route.

The question of asking the banks to do the same certainly deserves some consideration. But I suggest to the member that in the last two or three months financial intermediaries have been among the ones suffering from the cyclical movements of the interest rate in general. The quick movement upward of interest rates cuts the profit to the banks.

I am not being an apologist. I am trying to explain to the member that a bank works on a spread. I am sure he knows that. The spread is the difference between the price it pays for money that goes up as interest rates go up and down as they go down. That spread caught them short. They often make a commitment, as they made to me on my own house 10 years ago, and perhaps to other members, to lend money for a certain period of time. They are caught with that rate. In the meantime, of course, payments have gone up.

I have had great faith, perhaps misplaced, in the ability of the banks to assess the creditworthiness of the given applications before them and, in a very competitive time to do what they could to help small businesses. All lenders have to have a real concern about what is happening to their customers as these high costs go through.

I would like to end by saying I thought the action taken the other day, albeit a copy of Mr. Crosbie’s move, by the federal Finance Minister, Mr. MacEachen, to introduce the small business income debenture bond, was far more useful than the one the member has just touched upon. In the meantime, we have contacted the banks to find out whether they are going to see that action is put into place. The answer I get is, “Yes. As soon as federal legislation is introduced describing the rules.” I think then a very potent assistance for small businesses will become available through the banks.

Mr. S. Smith: Instead of coming to this House weeping for the fact that the banks’ record profits for the past several years might be somewhat lower this year, or perhaps not as big as they might otherwise be this year, instead of shedding tears for the banks, why does the Treasurer not call in the heads of the chartered banks who are just down the street here -- they are not that far away -- and tell them that in British Columbia the bank is able to give small businesses -- and I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that 80 per cent of small business loans in this country are from chartered banks -- a half a per cent under prime, and ask the Ontario banks to do the same thing?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the honourable member knows there are real problems with that approach, but it is very convenient to bring it up. I think the two steps I suggested are very positive. The one from Ontario, through ODC, in effect is about five or five and a half points under prime right now, and the second, the small business development bond, will be about half of prime.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I think we all know the Liberal leader wants the Treasurer to do a job which he cannot get his federal Minister of Finance to do. Could we have an assurance from the Treasurer that Ontario will bring in a plan to cushion home owners against very high interest rates when they renegotiate their mortgages, despite the statement by the federal Minister of Finance that the Liberal Party will not do so at the federal level?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I read the federal minister’s press release. The fact is, I do not think he said that. I hope he did not say that, because it is my understanding he made a firm commitment to offer assistance. I trust he is not withdrawing from that.

He still had some clauses or escape lines in his statement the other day, if it was reported accurately, stating that he did not rule out the need to help those people in real financial need. We are continuing on that assumption and, as I said, we are preparing our paper.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer realize that a great many of the small businessmen and farmers finance by demand notes and, therefore, the argument about spread is really not valid in this instance?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of that. I have a few demand loans myself, and they go up every time the interest rates go up and down every time they go down, and those are the safe ones. The member will also notice that whereas in the past one could make an agreement with a lending institution for four, five, 10, 15, even 20 years, one finds it very difficult to do that in a time of unstable rates. That has brought the floating rate syndrome into very common usage, one which I am sure protects the lender but leaves the borrower in a great deal of concern, because he never knows what next month’s costs are going to be. That is one of the biggest arguments I can see in favour of a relatively stable interest rate, as we had for many years.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the federal House will be amending the Bank Act shortly, will the minister get together with the Minister of National Revenue and ask that the Bank Act be amended so the Province of Ontario Savings Office can have the full powers of a chartered bank? In that way we would have some meaningful competition in the banking system, by using the powers of the POSO as a competitive tool in the economic process.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker.

DISPUTE AT AMR CENTRES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister undoubtedly is aware that we now are in the sixth week of a strike in Hamilton by workers who work among the mentally retarded in preschool services and family support services, and I believe the same type of strike now is going on in Toronto.

Is the minister able to tell us what he is doing about this matter, keeping in mind the fact that 49 of the 53 people in Hamilton, of whom about half have college degrees and are trained people with diplomas and degrees in the care of the retarded in their present contract are earning less than the receptionist in the minister’s office?

Under these circumstances, does the minister not believe it is time to put a little more money into that situation so that these people can get decent increases in salary to bring them at least close to what is a reasonable living wage, given their amount of training and the responsibilities they bear?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that situation. The staffs of both my ministry and the Ministry of Labour have been working with people in the area who are involved in the strike situation, attempting to assist in some resolution of that situation.

The honourable member made specific reference to certain salary differentials between some of the people in the funded agency and in my ministry. I cannot confirm his suggestion with respect to the receptionist in my office, because I honestly don’t know what she is receiving. However, it is true there is a gap. I think the problem is not that we do not recognize that; rather, it is the rate at which that gap might be closed. It is not a situation that is affecting only the association in Hamilton; it has a much broader impact than that. It also has impact on other agencies besides the associations for the mentally retarded.

I can assure the member that I and my staff are trying to assist the province-wide situation. At the moment I do not feel it is appropriate to address one specific situation in isolation from the broader context.

As far as the strike in Hamilton is concerned, I believe the association has made an offer which is consistent with the funding that is available to it at the present time. That is a rate of increase which I suggest is higher than the average rate of settlements across the province this year.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister is correct when he suggests that the rate of increase is greater than that of the average worker in the work force this year, but the minister is surely aware of the point from which these people are starting. An Ontario civil service receptionist’s maximum salary as of April this year is $10,473. Given that only four of the 53 people in the current wage schedule in Hamilton are paid more than that -- the highest, for an instructor, being the princely sum of $11,000 after 11.5 years of service, surely the schedule needs to be rectified everywhere, and not just in Hamilton. Will the minister, who can find money for his colleagues to put ads in every newspaper across Ontario to say what fine folks they are, find money to pay these people properly to take care of the retarded in our society?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would like to assure the honourable members opposite that never, to the best of my knowledge, has any money that has gone towards any advertising program in any other ministry come from the budget of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, it has.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the Leader of the Opposition is aware of something of which I am not, I wish he would give me that information, because I would not look kindly upon that kind of transfer.

In response to the serious part of his question, at this stage I can only assure him that I and the staff of my ministry will continue to work in co-operation with the Ministry of Labour in efforts to seek a solution to that strike.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, a percentage increase is not terribly relevant when one is talking about $8,000 to $9,000 a year for these people. Given the huge variation between what these people in Hamilton make as opposed to people working for like associations in other parts of the province and given the funding system for the association, would the minister not now agree that the only way to solve the strike so that the workers can get a decent living wage is for his ministry to commit more money to that association? Would he not admit that in the House?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would never be so naive as to agree that there is only one way to solve any problem.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister is also aware that not only is there a 35 per cent gap, with average wages of $8,500 or less in the Hamilton operation, but also some of the operations they are being compared to are currently in the process of negotiations as well? There is a double catch-up necessary in this situation.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there are many negotiations going on which these people are using for comparative purposes in the course of their negotiations. I don’t think that is an uncommon occurrence.

2:30 p.m.

AUTO INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question, for the Minister of Industry and Tourism, arising out of the announcement today that a further 850 jobs are going to be eliminated on an indefinite basis at the Chrysler Canada operations in Windsor.

In view of the fact he said yesterday that the expected employment of Chrysler would drop to around the 6,000 mark, was the minister aware that Chrysler was intending to move its car plant to a single shift and to eliminate another 850 jobs in the next month or so? Can the minister say what steps the government now intends to take to create short-term jobs for the automobile workers who are faced with further unemployment in Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Industry and Tourism, my responsibilities are to ensure the short-term, medium-term and long-term strength of the industries in that part of the province and in all parts of the province.

With regard to specific job-creation measures, most of the things my ministry is equipped to do are related to securing the strength of the industries which, in turn, create jobs. The overall job-creation responsibilities are shared; they are centred mostly in the hands of the Treasurer in terms of the economic climate and are reflected quite well in his budget.

In fairness, we should understand that what is happening in the auto industry in the entire Windsor area is very much a function of the health of the automobile industry in North America. The only answer to the short-term job situation in that area is increased sales for North American vehicles.

As the companies currently are closing down and beginning to retool for the 1981 models, I think we are going to see a period of time in the short term where, to be fair, there are not going to be a great number of opportunities to put jobs back into that community until the new models are out and we see how they are selling.

Mr. Cassidy: Since in Chrysler’s case the shortfall of employment is not going to be a temporary thing until the fall, but is very likely to last over the next two or three years at the very minimum, is the government now prepared to establish a loan fund which the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association of Canada has been urging for years, in order to encourage domestic manufacturers to retool existing capacity or to create a new capacity with which they can create jobs and help to meet the needs of both the Big Three and offshore automobile producers?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think that is very important. The leader of the third party will recall that for some years, we have had an offer open to the federal government to participate in a specific automotive investment fund. At the time of the Ford deal two years ago we suggested to the federal government that they match us on a one-for-one basis. To create that automotive fund we were prepared to put up $50 million and asked the federal government to match it with $100 million. The federal government turned that down at the time. We would hope the federal government would show some interest in that sort of program in view of what has happened, in which case I think this government would respond positively.

In any case, the Employment Development Fund continues to be available, and in my remarks to the automotive parts manufacturers association last week I indicated to them that availability of funds was not a problem; what we needed was more applications. In fact, it is lack of applications that is the problem. We are willing to spend the money on any good proposition. We need some proposals and we are looking for them.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, the minister may recall the fiasco caused by his Employment Development Fund, which put 200 people out of work in my riding through a direct grant given to a Windsor company. Will the minister now use his influence over the $10 million he is going to give Chrysler for the research centre, to have that located in the town of Kingsville to make up in some small way to all the people he has put out of work in that area?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as the member has been informed, we did not cause the loss of any jobs in the community to which he is referring. To clarify the situation, there were two firms in his area which were involved in making approximately the same kind of product. I do not want to be unfair or to get into specific details about the operation, but the firm in the member’s area was about to lose its place in the market because it had been unable to keep up technologically to the demands of its customers. Another firm came along and was able to keep that business for Ontario, rather than losing it to an American firm, which had a great opportunity to take over the business the firm in the community was about to lose.

Having carefully looked at that situation, the Employment Development Fund was able to support an alternative firm, which was able to keep that business for Ontario rather than losing it to an American jurisdiction. I am sure the people in the member’s community, in the member’s area at large, much appreciate the fact that the Employment Development Fund kept jobs here which otherwise were slipping away to the United States. I think the member, knows that to be the case, having talked with the firms.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, now that today’s announced layoff by Chrysler in Windsor, particularly of the second shift at the automobile assembly plant, confirms the minister’s prediction of yesterday that Chrysler employment will be decreased to 6,000 in Windsor, what additional pressure is the minister putting on the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration, Mr. Axworthy, to bring in a proper transitional assistance benefits program for all those auto workers in Windsor and across Ontario? How long must these workers wait in dire need of help for this proper kind of assistance?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I can only assure the House that those discussions are being led appropriately by my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) and that together we are continuing to keep all sorts of pressure on the federal government. I repeat what I said the other day: We have seen no sign from Mr. Gray or Mr. Axworthy that they intend to withdraw from their undertaking to ensure that there will be sufficient funds available for those workers, but the pressure is being kept on.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, have there been any discussions lately with regard to the possibility of a Massey-Ferguson engine plant in Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There have been discussions with a great number of firms, Mr. Speaker. I would not like to indicate which ones were involved, but I can assure the member that there are two or three quite substantial firms of the size of Massey-Ferguson which are actively looking at some opportunities in his area of the province.

HARBOURFRONT PROJECT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier about creating jobs in Metropolitan Toronto. Will the government of Ontario intervene with the government of Canada to see that construction of the $200-million Harbourfront housing project is begun without delay and is not further delayed because of the objections of half a dozen Liberal MPs who are blocking the project up in Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that half a dozen MPs were holding up the project.

Mr. Worton: Single handedly!

Mr. Swart: It takes a half a dozen to do anything.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am doing my best to behave myself and here we have all these interjections.

I read certain news reports about it yesterday. I am having the matter looked into, and I will have a reply for the member for Ottawa Centre later on in the week.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact that the unemployment rate in the construction industry now exceeds 30 per cent in Metropolitan Toronto, and in view of the desperate need for affordable housing in this area, will the Premier make an unequivocal statement that, as far as Ontario is concerned, his government supports the Harbourfront project? Will it say the government supports the project because it will create needed housing and will make more access available to parkland along the waterfront? Will the government undertake to do everything in its power to get the federal government off of its butt and get the go-aheads for this needed project?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would never quarrel with the anatomical descriptions the leader of the New Democratic Party uses but, with respect, I would say this government always has been prepared to move ahead with proper projects that would create activity in Metropolitan Toronto, or anywhere else for that matter. In fact, we are prepared to go ahead with the courthouse in Ottawa; that would provide construction activity there.

We are prepared to do a number of things that the NDP have traditionally opposed. We were in favour of Metro Centre, and I can recall the rhetoric from that particular party saying we should not go ahead with Metro Centre. I am delighted to see that at long last they know there are jobs in the construction industry, and that we have to build buildings, although sometimes those buildings are controversial. I am delighted to have their support at long last for a certain amount of activity in the construction field.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, does the Premier mean by his response that he is in favour of public housing in Toronto, or is he going to continue to stop good plans, as he calls them, like the east-of-Bay plan proposed by the city of Toronto, which now is going to become a massive home for the bureaucracy of the provincial government? Is the Premier going to allow that to come back too?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, thinking of some things the honourable member’s colleague said, I tell him that we are in favour of the convention centre. It took the NDP a long time to get around to support that. We are in favour of that and we have been. We are prepared to support it. The NDP have been negative day after day after day.

With respect to leasing Bay Street, the members opposite should understand what they are talking about. We have not delayed that. We just want to see that what is done, is right.

MILK QUOTAS

Hon. Ms. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my absence, which my honourable colleague explained, it is my understanding that a representative of the Liberal Party, the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), asked a question about the milk situation in Canada. I sat here for more than a month waiting for agriculture to get to be a priority in that party and was not asked a question. So I regret I was not here when they did ask one.

Mr. Speaker: You have the answer to a specific question?

Hon. Ms. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer here in response to the question by the member for Huron-Middlesex.

The Canadian milk supply management committee is composed of the signatories to the national comprehensive milk marketing plan. The participating parties are the Canadian Dairy Commission, the provincial commissions and boards, and producer boards. Ontario is represented by the chairman of the Milk Commission of Ontario, the chairman of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, and the chairman of the Ontario Cream Producers’ Marketing Board. In 1971, the above-mentioned chairmen were signatories to the initial agreement.

Each province’s share was based on the amount of industrial milk produced in the year from April 1, 1969 to March 31, 1970, Under an interprovincial adjustment formula, Ontario lost some quota to other provinces in 1974, and 1975, owing to low production in the preceding years. To encourage more production and protect our share of the national market, the Industrial Milk Production Incentive Program was introduced in 1973.

At the moment, the national plan is being redrafted by a subcommittee of the Canadian milk supply management committee. Its report will be reviewed shortly by the full supply management committee, and it will be carefully examined by this province prior to signing.

All the provinces are determined to protect their share of the national market share quota. In Ontario’s case, we have repeatedly asked that the new agreement provide some recognition of market conditions. We are also concerned that the question of adjusting quota among provinces be resolved.

I might also remind the honourable member that Ontario has received a five per cent increase in its quota allocation in this present quota year, which runs from August 1, 1979 to July 31, 1980. Discussions about the allocation for the year beginning August 1, 1980 will begin next week. I can say, however, that no interprovincial adjustment will occur in the coming year. It is the same allocation as the current year.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Peterson: A question to the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. The Treasurer no doubt is aware of the resignation of Mr. Eric Kierans from the Quebec pension agency, the Caisse de depôt et placement du Québec over a dispute of principle. He objected very much to the provincial government’s borrowing $1.5 billion from that fund to finance its deficit this year.

In view of the fact that the province of Ontario now owes the pension funds about $13.5 billion, money used only to finance deficits of the government over the last decade or so, is the Treasurer now prepared to reconsider his policy and put all that available pension money -- internally generated funds at below market rates, I hasten to point out -- into productive stock, productive capital to build investment in this province to create jobs, rather than just running it down the pipe on his deficits year after year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows full well that Quebec had a deficit this year of something in the order of $2 billion for six million people. We had a deficit last year of $650 million for 8.5 million people. That puts it in perspective.

It was my understanding that Mr. Kierans’ resignation related to the rate of interest paid on those loans relative to the market price of money for the government of Quebec. I don’t have the exact differentials, because that was not published. We pay on a formula related to federal money, and have for a long time. Studies of the rates of interest we paid year by year have shown those rates to be comparable to those we could get in the open market. In fact, studies of things like the teachers’ superannuation fund show that the returns within the government in some cases have exceeded the returns they might have got in the free market.

Last of all, this province is managing its money so well that we have $500 million to release this year from those moneys for Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Peterson: Certainly people applaud putting that money into productive capital, but why has the government not been doing it over the past 10 years? I hasten to point out to the Treasurer that the difference between the $1.5 billion they owe and the $13.5 billion the Ontario government owes to the pension fund, which is going to have to be repaid, surely deserves a serious rethinking of government policy about how that capital is to be deployed to create jobs in this country.

I am asking whether the Treasurer will reconsider his policy of consuming almost every available dollar of internally generated funds to fuel deficits and instead, put it into the productive marketplace? Almost every study says that, had that been done, we would be in a far better economic position today than we are.

I hasten to point out one other thing: the Treasurer’s figures are wrong. We have been paying, on average, below-market rates. The Treasurer has used those preferential rates to take advantage of those funds contributed by pensioners and seriously jeopardized the strength of those pension plans, when people like the Treasurer are going to be collecting those funds. Is the Treasurer prepared to reconsider his policy today?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My cash requirements last year were in the order of $659 million, and the member accused me of inflating that by $217 million. He said it was only $442 million. That was true. We never tried to hide that fact.

We simply prepaid certain expenses. We brought it before this House, got the approval of the House, explained it and did it, because of good management. I have to point out that was roughly less than one third --

Mr. S. Smith: Because you got more from the feds than you expected.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Be quiet.

Mr. S. Smith: When you got less, you blamed the feds.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would like to say one thing, Mr. Speaker -- I don’t know whether the provincial Liberals are different from the Liberals in Ottawa -- my deficit is costing roughly 10 per cent of the budget in interest; theirs is costing roughly 20 per cent in interest. My budget deficit is roughly five per cent of my spending; their budget deficit is roughly 25 per cent of their spending. That’s the difference between us.

Mr. Roy: Why were you so critical of Joe Clark?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you for that intervention, Mr. Speaker.

Rather than having the pensioners of Ontario subsidize the private sector, which has allowed our industrial machine to run down, would the Treasurer direct the province’s resources into rebuilding particular sectors in Ontario so that we could have a healthy mining machinery industry in northern Ontario, for example?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, one of the things I missed in the previous question and which relates to the question the member for Nickel Belt just asked, was the matter of putting money into productive things. I wonder when in fact a government investment is productive. Is a new university productive? Is a new hospital productive? Is a new highway productive?

I would argue that in terms of the economy that is so. In fact, over the years if one takes the sum total of our deficits in the last few years and compares it to the year-by-year investments in capital in this province, I believe there is only one year in the last 10 where the annual cash requirement exceeded the investment in this province. Last year it far exceeded the investment.

We are guaranteeing the benefits to people in those pension plans; the member knows that. In the teachers’ plan, for example, we guarantee the benefits, and when there are actuarial deficits we make them up.

2:50 p.m.

DEATH OF ALBERT JOHNSON

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General, who was here, but in his absence, and as it is a matter I want taken under advisement, I will put it to the Premier. Perhaps he will draw it to the attention of the Attorney General.

As there continues to be deep concern and unrest in the community about the death of Albert Cecil Johnson on August 26, 1979, will the Attorney General now take under advisement, and in due course report back to this House, the matter of the exercise by him of the authority conferred upon him by section 508 of the Criminal Code? In accordance therewith, would he direct that the proceedings against Constables William Inglis and Walter Cargnelli on the indictments now found be stayed, so that he may immediately retain as special counsel on his behalf, Mr. John Robinette, QC, and Mr. Morris Manning, QC?

They could be instructed to review for him jointly the report of the investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police and all other information and material relative to the death of Albert Cecil Johnson. They would also give him their joint opinion whether the indictments now found against Constables William Inglis and Walter Cargnelli are the appropriate indictments or whether other indictments should be preferred against them, or either of them, or any other person, or whether the proceedings under the present indictment should proceed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will communicate that question to the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Attorney General I think has a response to the previous question.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I was outside conferring with staff. I heard the question and I want to make it quite clear that I have no intention of following the suggestion that was made by the member for Riverdale. This matter has been reviewed by very senior law officers of the crown. I certainly have no intention of bringing in lawyers from the private sector to advise the Attorney General as to his responsibilities.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question: I regret the response of the Attorney General and the hasty reply to a well-considered question asking him to take a matter under advisement. Will he please take the question under advisement and report to this assembly as to the course of action I have suggested to him? If not, will he then give us his considered reasons rather than his off-the-cuff response?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think it is very unlikely that I will have anything further to add. This matter is before the courts. Quite frankly, I think it is insulting to the senior officers of the crown who have been consulted and who have considered this matter very carefully to suggest that they require assistance from the private sector. The matter is before the courts and I certainly do not anticipate that I will have anything more to say about it.

CALEDON VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday the member for Scarborough West asked me about the application of the Condominium Act to the Caledon Village Condominium Development. I said at that time I would table the history of the project. However, on going into the matter I have determined there are many matters related and unrelated to the Condominium Act that are the subject of ongoing litigation.

This litigation appears to cover everything that could possibly be litigated. In view of this litigation, it would not be proper to table a history, as to do so may inadvertently take a position in a matter that is now before the courts. I tried to develop a history that would even get in the context of inadvertently, but there is no possible way.

In respect to the condominium board, I am advised that the court approved the holding of a special meeting of owners and that, as a result, a new board has been put into place. I am further advised that by the same court order this board has been restricted to the carrying on of routine business only until the full issue of the board’s makeup and related problems is heard by the court on June 18. This hearing, which will give all concerned parties an opportunity to be heard, will certainly help to clear the air.

I have also had discussions with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) considering the request by the borough of North York for a further investigation into the matter.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister be willing to confide in the House the nature of his conversation with the Attorney General, in terms of how he is going to proceed with the matter, from this point on, in pursuing it to see whether a judicial inquiry is necessary?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member misunderstood. I will provide the Attorney General with as much information as we have. The decision as to whether there will be an investigation, which would be in the nature of possible violations of the Criminal Code, will be up to the Attorney General.

The difficulty in this entire situation, and I want to weigh my words very carefully, is that there is a great deal of confusion. This particular development, from day one, has been in litigation of one form or another with virtually everybody, from the developer right on through almost every board.

The other day the member said there were 120 building deficiencies there. That, once again, is not correct. There is an original lawsuit which has been going on for some years about the construction deficiencies in the building. What the member is referring to, and it is very difficult to discern these things, is the fact that North York visited there and found that maintenance was not up to standard -- in respect to doors, lights and so forth. There is no connection with the original litigation which is still before the courts.

Mr. Breithaupt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister be represented at these hearings, or at least have a staff person available to learn from the unwinding of this whole problem whether there are certain changes or other matters that should be made with respect to condominium legislation, or other protections for consumers in this area?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly watch the events of June 18.

The Condominium Act, which would have dealt with some of the long-standing situations, was changed. But, and I am going to be very frank with the House, I don’t know what kind of act or improvement in the present act one could produce that would deal with the internal controversy or, indeed, the internal warfare in a condominium unit that has successfully eroded board after board to the extent that there are libel and slander suits involved. I really don’t know of a piece of legislation that would tell the residents of a condominium after they have elected a board, whether they voted for those particular people or not, that it is in their best interests to support it rather than getting into difficulty.

I want to make it very plain, I am not talking about any of the events from March 9 onward, which are involved in yet another court case; I am talking about the whole history of the enterprise there.

SHORTAGE OF SKILLED WORKERS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. What are the Minister of Labour and his colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities doing about the shortage of skilled workers in Ottawa, pertaining to the high technology industry that is booming in the Ottawa area and at present is short of about 800 workers?

Would the minister advise whether he, or his colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities, has been in touch with this industry in Ottawa, and what steps they are going to take in view of the fact that apparently the supply far outstrips the demand for this type of worker?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the demand outstrips the supply.

I am sure the Minister of Colleges and Universities can respond directly on the involvement of that ministry with regard to employer-sponsored training and with regard to the apprenticeship program.

In a general way, however, I can tell the member that we expect there will be something in the neighbourhood of 5,000 people enrolled this year in the employer-sponsored training program. It is expanding, it is working, and I think the reports I have seen in the press as recently as yesterday, indicate there is a feeling in the business community that there is a turn-around point in that the private sector is getting the message that there is a need to step up the industrial training base and broaden it.

Mr. Roy: By way of supplementary: Has the minister been in touch with the technology industry in the Ottawa area, or has his colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities been in touch with that industry? In view of their comments of last week in the local press, to the effect that they want the provincial officials to start giving this matter some priority, and that they have some concern about the fact there are so many young people across this province who are graduating from our colleges and universities looking for work, while on the other hand we have all of these openings in that industry, is the minister taking some special interest to satisfy the needs of that one industry, the high technology industry that is booming in Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I will refer that question to my colleague. I am sure the community industrial training council would be the proper avenue for that, but if there is any specific comment she wishes to make she can do so.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member for Ottawa East has left an unfortunate impression. He has suggested there are thousands of graduates of the college system and the university system looking for employment. That is not true. The employment record of graduates of community colleges and the universities of this province is excellent. The employment record for university graduates is approximately 94 per cent for 1979 and for community college graduates somewhat over 90 per cent. There are not thousands of graduates of those institutions looking for employment.

There are, however, graduates and non- graduates of the secondary school program who have not completed skills training and who do require employment, and we have made contact with many technologically advanced industries in order to attempt to provide a better training relationship between the community college and the industry. There is a provincial advisory committee for most industries at most community colleges.

Indeed, the industry has a responsibility, as does the community college, to meet with one another in order to ensure that the requirements of industry and the requirements of young people are co-ordinated within that area.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the prospects of establishing in Ottawa an electronics industry which will rival Silicon Valley south of San Francisco, around Route 100, is the Ministry of Labour, in conjunction with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, prepared to join with civic officials in Ottawa in establishing a task force to turn that potential in the Ottawa area into a reality?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that question would be properly directed to the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the mechanism is there, in place and ready to go, if the people in Ottawa wish to make use of it. The community industrial training committee is the mechanism that has been properly, appropriately and very effectively used in many areas of this province and does indeed address the specific problems of new industry and industry that is already in place.

DEATH OF STEVEN YUZ

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health with respect to the MacGregor committee of inquiry, which the minister announced on May 9 and which is pursuing the recommendations of the coroner’s jury following the inquest into the death of Steven Yuz. Could the minister give us an unequivocal assurance today that the report of the MacGregor committee will be made public?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you. By way of supplementary: I think the minister is aware that many people were both disturbed and repelled that as a result of a psychogenic diagnosis Steven Yuz was required to clean up his own vomit at the Hospital for Sick Children. I want to ask the minister whether the terms of reference of the MacGregor committee inquiry include an investigation into the use of behaviour modification therapy and so-called aversive therapy techniques at the Hospital for Sick Children. If not, I want to ask the minister to broaden the terms of reference of the MacGregor committee to deal with this question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the second or third recommendation of the coroner’s jury had to do with the question of psychogenic diagnosis. The recommendation was to the effect that where a physician felt that was the appropriate diagnosis, it should be checked with a second physician.

Mr. McClellan: It is not the same thing.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, I think it is because it gets into the whole question of psychogenic diagnoses and the treatment of those diagnosed. I would say yes, that would form part of the review.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH ADVERTISING

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was in southwestern Ontario, visiting Sarnia, Fergus, Mount Bridges and Newbury in honour of Hospital Day in Canada. The reason I couldn’t be here to answer the question from the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) was that I was opening a hospital at that very time in Fergus, the $4-million addition to the Groves Memorial Community Hospital.

In my absence, my leader the Premier (Mr. Davis) took as notice a question from the Leader of the Opposition about an ad that appeared yesterday in newspapers across the province. The ad in question concerned our $360-million capital construction program. Very simply, we feel on this side of the House that the public of Ontario has a right to know that the hospitals in this province are benefiting from Super-Loto and our other programs to ensure we continue to have the best health-care system in the world.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: For the record, the ad was intended to meet the following objectives: to draw public attention to Hospital Day; to set out the extent of hospital construction planned over the next three years; to encourage support for the lottery because community hospitals across Ontario do benefit from Super-Loto, and to support efforts towards energy conservation.

I also think the ads act as a signal to the private sector, indicating the scope of construction projects to be undertaken through the program, particularly given the interest shown today by the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) in the productive application of government funds, which I can only assume also motivated the federal government to run the ad it did this morning regarding the F-18 aircraft.

HOG STABILIZATION PROGRAM

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Can we hear from the member for Grey?

Mr. McKessock: In view of the fact that it is reported in today’s Globe and Mail Report on Business section, page B3, that the Alberta government is setting up a one-year stabilization program for the hog industry in that province, does the minister intend to do the same to give Ontario farmers the same competitive opportunity?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the honourable member is well aware, the government of Canada announced a stabilization program about two weeks ago this Thursday. For each hog produced, up to a maximum of 5,000, producers would receive a little over $4 per pig. This covers 90 per cent of the five-year average of the cost of the hog.

I have spoken to the Ontario Swine Breeders’ Association. The machinery is in place. If we get a request from them, we are ready to consider it. But at this moment, as I am sure the member is aware, under our legislation there is a premium associated with it. Farmers who want to be covered must apply for the coverage.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. McKessock: A supplementary question: In view of the fact the Alberta government is also aware of what the federal government is doing and is giving this as a straight assistance program, paying $35 per hog over feed cost, would the minister consider giving at least one tenth of this, as he has become accustomed to doing in his recent program in interest assistance?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I believe I answered the honourable member's question. I told him about two weeks ago I met with the Ontario hog producers. I pointed out to them the machinery is in place, there is a premium involved, if the hog producers themselves are ready to take part in it, we did not object. We are ready to take the necessary action.

BOILERS AND PRESSURE VESSELS INSPECTION

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with reference to the inspection service supplied by the boilers and pressure vessels branch of the ministry. Is it the minister’s intention to privatize this service or is he going to continue with the inspection branch?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, shortly after assuming this portfolio in the fall of 1978 I said we were going to continue. I made that very plain -- as a matter of fact, so plain I was criticized for it.

Mr. Germa: A supplementary: If such is the minister’s intention, why has he not hired the six more inspectors as recommended by the advisory committee chaired by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) which reported to the minister January 23, 1979? Also, why has he neglected to enter into an agreement with the federal Treasury Board to carry out the inspections for the federal government?

Ms. Gigantes: Let the insurance companies do it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not “let the insurance companies do it.” As usual the member is wrong.

In the whole review of the boilers and pressure vessels, which began before I was the minister and continued on, there were recommendations made by the present Minister without Portfolio, who was the parliamentary assistant at the time. Part of the negotiations with the federal government involved other matters, particularly elevators. We came to a conclusion. Neither we nor the industry accepted all of the recommendations put forward in the report by the Minister without Portfolio.

I can assure the House we are not going to privatize. The insurance companies are not going to take it over. We are in the process of continuing with the review to provide the best possible service to the boiler industry because our inspections, and the plate that goes on, are very essential to employment and to sales. At the same time, we are looking towards the most efficient manner of doing so within the parameters of the public service.

GENERAL BAKERIES PLANT SHUTDOWN

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member for Hamilton Centre raised a question with the Premier (Mr. Davis) in connection with the announcement by General Bakeries of the closure of its Sanford Avenue plant in Hamilton on June 27, 1980.

It is my understanding that of the 205 people now on the payroll of that plant, 95 will continue to be employed in the Hamilton area in sales, distribution, accounting and shipping activities. The 110 in production and other related activities will be offered first option on 65 openings at other company plants in Ontario on the basis of seniority.

I have also been informed that the company is willing to participate with my ministry and Canada Employment and Immigration in establishing a manpower adjustment committee to assist those workers who might not wish to transfer to other plants. I believe the company has indicated a willingness to provide voluntary additional severance payments to workers remaining with the firm until the closing, tied to their length of service with the company.

Finally, I understand the member has discussed the plant closure with company officials and if he feels it would be helpful if I met with them, I would be pleased to do so.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, I have already read the corporate rationale and explanation, and that was the reason I raised the question in the assembly with the Premier. I have met with Mr. Wygant and found him not to be the world’s most sensitive person.

I would go back to the question I put to the Premier: Does the minister not think such profitable companies, in such cases where they close down a plant after owning it for only 12 years, have a responsibility to provide more in the way of income maintenance and job retraining rather than throwing the expense of looking after these workers on the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to get into whether or not it was a wise business decision. Surely that is a decision individuals have to make if they decide to leave a company and the companies have to make if they decide to close or move. I think the fact they are involving 95 people in their Hamilton area sales staff and offering a move to other parts of the province to 65 others with seniority, is evidence of good faith.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) has expressed his dissatisfaction with the answer to a question posed of the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) about grants to the automobile industry. This matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

WEDDING ANNIVERSARY

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, before presenting reports I would like to report to the House that the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and his wife are today celebrating 30 years of conjugal bliss.

Mr. Speaker: Are you going to table the report?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I think we should ask him to table the report.

Mr. Peterson: A motion expressing our sympathy and understanding should go forward from here to Mrs. Miller, for the long number of years she has suffered.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs be authorized to sit concurrently with the House Thursday afternoon, May 15.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved first reading of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, the bill amends the Condominium Act, 1978, to clarify that a condominium unit may consist of vacant land. The bill also adds mobile homes to the definition of buildings in the act. The effect of the amendment is to enable mobile home parks to be registered as condominium projects. The bill consequently permits the development of mobile home condominium projects by enabling a developer to choose between designating a mobile home as a unit in itself or alternately designating a vacant lot as a unit upon which a mobile home may be placed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTATE BILLS REFERRAL

Hon. Mr. Wells moved resolution 9:

That standing order 71 be revoked and the following substituted therefor:

71 -- (a) Every estate bill or part of a bill that contains an estate bill provision stands referred to the commissioners of estate bills after first reading.

(b) The commissioners of estate bills, or any two of them, shall report their opinion on the bill or the part thereof that has been submitted to them, and whether, presuming the allegations contained in the preamble to be proven to the satisfaction of the House, it is reasonable for the bill or the part thereof to pass and what, if any, alterations are necessary.

(c) A report of the commissioners of estate bills shall be transmitted to the Clerk of the House.

(d) Where the commissioners of estate bills report that, in their opinion, it is not reasonable that the bill or the part thereof submitted to them pass into law, the bill or the part thereof shall not be further considered.

(e) Where the bill or the part thereof submitted to the commissioners of estate bills is reported favourably by the commissioners, the bill and the report shall stand referred to the appropriate standing committee, and where only part of a bill is submitted to the commissioners and the commissioners report that, in their opinion, it is not reasonable that the part pass into law, the bill, except for the part to which the report applies, shall stand referred to the appropriate standing committee.

Further, that standing order 74 be revoked and the following substituted therefor:

74. Private bills when reported by standing committees shall be placed on the Order Paper for second reading.

Further, that paragraph 7 of standing order 101 be revoked and the following substituted therefor:

7. Report to the Clerk of the House any bill or part thereof that should be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board or the commissioners of estate bills under standing orders 70 and 71.

Motion agreed to.

BASIN-JIB MINES LIMITED ACT

Mr. Lawlor, on behalf of Mr. Renwick, moved second reading of Bill Pr1, An Act to revive Basin-Jib Mines Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

3:20 p.m.

CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH OF WALLACEBURG ACT

Mr. Watson moved second reading of Bill Pr2, An Act to revive Christian Reformed Church of Wallaceburg.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MILANI LATHING LIMITED ACT

Mr. Di Santo moved second reading of Bill Pr5, An Act to revive Milani Lathing Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF ST. CATHARINES ACT

Mr. Bradley moved second reading of Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the City of St. Catharines.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

JOHN MADRONICH LIMITED ACT

Mr. Kerr moved second reading of Bill Pr9, An Act to revive John Madronich Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWNSHIPS OF CUMBERLAND AND GLOUCESTER ACT

Mr. Belanger moved second reading of Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the Township of Cumberland and the Township of Gloucester.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT

Mr. Warner, on behalf of Mr. Makarchuk, moved second reading of Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

GOLDEN HOPE MINES LIMITED ACT

Mr. Williams moved second reading of Bill Pr15, An Act to revive Golden Hope Mines Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CO-OPERATIVE HEALTH SERVICES OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Eaton, on behalf of Mr. McCaffrey, moved second reading of Bill Pr16, An Act respecting Co-operative Health Services of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

FARGO DISPOSAL COMPANY LIMITED ACT

Mr. Philip moved second reading of Bill Pr20, An Act to revive Fargo Disposal Company Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CROSSROADS CHRISTIAN COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED ACT

Mr. Lawlor moved second reading of Bill Pr22, An Act respecting Crossroads Communications Incorporated.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

BOROUGH OF SCARBOROUGH ACT

Mr. Williams moved second reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Borough of Scarborough.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the principle of this bill on second reading.

This bill introduces a new principle that I believe is very important in terms of the development of municipal government in this province. It is for that reason that I rise today to speak on the principle of the bill.

I want to say that while I commend the borough of Scarborough for bringing this bill forward, and I commend it for its initiative in taking this particular approach to the development of the community and to the setting up of procedures for community improvement, I strongly resent, as a spokesman for this caucus on municipal affairs and as the representative of a riding that contains two municipalities and part of a third, the fact that the government is permitting this privilege to a single borough in Ontario.

The principle of the bill is that a borough can raise funds for the purpose of community improvement and can lend or expend those funds for community improvement projects either by the borough or by private individuals. I think that is a good mechanism, but it concerns me greatly that the other 800 municipalities in this province, the other 600 organized municipalities in this province, are being denied the privilege that this bill is giving to the borough of Scarborough.

I very much hope the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), who I note is in his seat, will take a look at the principle this bill is putting in place and will give very serious consideration to extending this particular principle to other organized municipalities, particularly those municipalities that lie within regions and are therefore well structured and well organized to take advantage of this particular principle.

I also want to suggest there are a couple of provisions contained in the 14 articles of this bill that I see as being little more than a game. I hope the minister’s staff has taken a look at those very seriously and that when the minister comes forward with proposals to implement this on a province-wide basis, he will ensure that the provisions I regard as a game are not included in a province-wide application.

Those particular provisions relate to the matter of a five-year limit on the period during which the loans that are granted under this act are to be repaid, yet there is no limit at all specified in this bill on the amount of interest that the municipality is to charge on the loans it gives to individuals and to corporations. I regard it as very strange indeed that the government is allowing a bill to proceed that has such a strict control in one area and yet absolutely no control in the other area.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the honourable member that the government, as he puts it, has had nothing at all to do with this bill. It went before the private bills committee, and all municipalities could ask for the same privileges through the same avenue.

Mr. Isaacs: Thank you for reminding me, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, there have been other bills that have come before the private bills committee and the government has made it very clear it will not allow them to proceed. Therefore, with great respect, I suggest that the fact that this bill is here today is an indication that the government is supporting the principle of the bill and --

Mr. Gregory: That is nonsense. It went through committee.

Mr. Isaacs: I am being told it is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. There are other bills that have been on the Order Paper in this session that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has indicated he will not allow to proceed. Therefore, if a bill is here before us today for second reading, and is being given the support of the government in that second reading that I assume this bill is going to receive, then I have to assume the principle of this bill is supported by the government of the day.

If that is not the case, then I hope when we get to second reading the government will indicate its intention and will rise and oppose this bill so that it does not proceed if it is not the wish of the government that it proceed. We have had requests in private bills for substantial changes to the legislation under which various municipalities operate. Those bills have been stopped in private bills committee, or at some other stage, by the government.

I am not objecting to, nor am I opposing, the principle of the bill. I am speaking to the principle of the bill because I consider it an important principle, one which should not be allowed to remain solely with the borough of Scarborough but should be extended to every other organized municipality in this province.

If it were the intention of the minister to bring forward legislation to allow this to happen in every other municipality, then I assume we would not be giving this power today to the borough of Scarborough. I assume that, instead, the minister would have introduced blanket legislation to give this power to every municipality in the province.

I am using the opportunity to speak to the principle to encourage the minister to bring forward the legislation needed to allow this provision to be used not just by the borough of Scarborough but also by the three municipalities I represent and by the other 600 or so organized municipalities across the province.

While speaking to that principle, I am urging the minister, when he brings forward that legislation, to exclude from it a couple of the strange provisions that are included in this particular bill. In my mind, they weaken the principle of the bill. I am not going to vote against it. I will be very interested to see, given the comments from the members opposite, exactly what the government members are going to do in a few minutes when we vote on this bill.

To wrap up my comments, having spoken to the matter of the five-year limit on the repayment period, the fact that the borough of Scarborough is all of a sudden in the business of setting interest rates, and can set interest rates anywhere from zero per cent to a usurious 100 per cent because it is not covered under the Small Loans Act, which does not apply to this bill, I would also like to draw the minister’s attention to section 10. It puts in place a peculiar provision whereby there cannot be any funds left at the end of the year, because the amount of money spent under the bill has to match the estimates for that year that are approved by the municipal council. If there is money left at the end of the year, it is to be applied to the general rate. In my mind, that weakens entirely the principle of the bill and means that the community improvement fund the bill is setting up is no longer really a separate fund within the borough of Scarborough, as the bill so obviously intends. It is just another way of raising money which could become part of the general operations of the borough of Scarborough if a future municipal council so decided, and it concerns me somewhat that the ability of the council to weaken the entire concept is retained in the bill when it is a bill specific to the borough of Scarborough.

My colleagues and I will be supporting this bill but, because it is a bold new principle, I thought it important to make those remarks on second reading here today.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Wentworth is entirely correct in his remarks on the section of the bill dealing with community improvement. It is a departure and it might very well have become general legislation, giving all municipalities the right to enter into this program if they choose.

Frankly, I see no reason why it cannot come into practice to begin with as private legislation. If we see how it works, it might very well be extended. But I do say that the government does have a responsibility in these bills. They should not be confused in the mind of anybody, even the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea), with private members’ bills.

These are the municipalities which come to the Legislature for authority to do certain things that they see as appropriate, and I would say the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has a very high responsibility, deeply embedded in the historic traditions of this House, to come to the committee and express his views.

I have felt very strongly that we should have a minister of municipal affairs, and the fact that our minister is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs means that his responsibilities are so diluted and directed in so many fields -- the fact that he is government House leader simply adds to this -- is an indication, in my view, that he and to some extent his staff are not following up on these bills as carefully as they should.

Mr. Speaker, I know you and the other members of the House have read this section very carefully, as I have, but it really is a departure which may be a great success in Scarborough and may be copied by all other municipalities. About the time that another two or three come for similar legislation, we would expect that it would become permissive legislation applying to all municipalities.

I well remember the minister’s predecessor’s predecessor, back about five generations, sainted Wilfrid Spooner, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, never missed a meeting of the private bills committee, and he always expressed the government’s view on the applications from the various municipalities.

I would urge the present minister to pick up that tradition, because when there are a couple of officials from his ministry -- who I am sure are very capable people indeed; although I find as I get older they get younger every year -- and they sit at the head table perusing the bill, as some members of the committee are, for the very first time, not giving any indication at all as to where the ministry stands, that is not good enough.

I am very glad it was raised by the member for Wentworth. I thought it was an important point. I had the same feeling when the bill was presented to the committee, that in fact this was a departure that merited either support or at least comment from the ministry. I think this is something that is very properly brought to the attention of the whole House at this time.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, just before the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs responds, certainly on the principle of this bill Scarborough should not be penalized for initiative. The borough of Scarborough gave considerable thought to this particular application for legislation before the private bills committee. The reason I know that is they came to me and I arranged for its introduction through my colleague.

Regarding a municipality having some initiative, in the past it used to be that whenever a municipality had some initiative it was always told, “Why don’t you wait a couple of years and then the government will bring in general legislation?” That was before the various committees of this House considered private public bills. I am very grateful that attitude has disappeared. It is certainly a --

Mr. Conway: You are being irrelevant. Speak to the point.

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am speaking to the point and I would appreciate it if the member would let me continue. One of the difficulties with the Liberal Party is it has very little presence in Scarborough. I can understand their concern about anything that is in a Scarborough bill. They are third-place finishers in all five ridings.

Surely a municipality, even if it is on a point of departure -- and I recall such significant points of departure as the application by the city of Toronto regarding rent control in 1975 -- can feel encouraged to take the initiative. I can understand some applications by the city of Hamilton. In those days these bills were handled by the justice committee on Wednesday. Quite often municipalities were deliberately inhibited.

I am very pleased to see that with the revamping of the House rules we have a great many committees handling the private public bills, and municipalities can feel encouraged to take the initiative, rather than having to sit back and wait for a consensus among the rest of the municipalities. I certainly have no qualms when there is an overwhelming consensus among the municipalities. I give the member credit for this, because he has stated some specifics in terms of the benefits this would provide for municipalities within a region which because of their structure will particularly benefit from this.

I don’t want it to be left that a municipality should wait until there is a broad consensus among other municipalities and until there is an attitude by the government that this type of legislation will be favoured.

I think this bill is to the credit of the borough of Scarborough. In the past, the borough of Scarborough has put in applications for private municipal bills that have been turned down, quite frankly, for a very good reason. It was not because they were ahead of their time or because they were on a new departure but because in their structure and their contents they met neither the needs nor the requirements of the borough. There should be no confusion.

Obviously, the government members are going to support this bill. My only concern is that it has been rather traditional that the concerns of the individual private members are expressed in the committee where the municipality which is bringing forward the legislation, albeit with a member of the House to introduce it, can explain fully and change the particular wording in the legislation. That purpose surely would better be served in the committee.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Is the minister afraid of the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Am I what? The members opposite are the ones who raised it. I am standing here four-square saying the borough of Scarborough worked hard on it. The borough of Scarborough brought it to me. I arranged for my colleague the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) to introduce it. It went before the committee. I must say, the reason I am speaking today is that the borough of Scarborough is going to be absolutely amazed that there was actually a debate on the bill. I want to make very plain the way that it was done and that there should not be any remarks, there should not be any inhibitions, towards a municipality that recognizes its duty towards its citizens and comes forward and introduces such a bill.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the honourable member who has just spoken has not said that anything that has been said on second reading was out of order, because there is a motion before the House. The debate that has ensued is perfectly in order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the principle of this bill and in response to some of the comments that have been made by the various members who have spoken. I certainly do not think there is anything out of order in discussing the principle of a private bill that establishes a new municipal principle.

Also, however, there is nothing out of the ordinary in establishing that principle in a private bill rather than having it brought in as an amendment to the Municipal Act. My friend the member for Wentworth is right in suggesting that perhaps the other municipalities of this province would like to have the principle and the procedures laid out in this bill. He knows, as I know, that this bill will be carefully scrutinized by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, by the Municipal Liaison Committee and by other municipalities. Indeed, it may turn up very shortly as general legislation under the Municipal Act. Scarborough developed the idea, as my colleague from Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) has said, pioneered it and brought it forward to this House, as have many other municipalities brought forward ideas over the years.

My friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is perfectly right in remembering that Wilf Spooner used to attend all the meetings. I guess in those days a lot of ministers and members had time to attend many more meetings than they do today. In those days, I recall, as he will recall, we had a private bills committee of this Legislature and all the private bills went there. Now the bills go to different committees, and it is even possible to have bills on at the same time perhaps in committees.

I want to assure him that the underlying principle of the government and of the government ministry responsible for municipal affairs in looking at private bills has not changed. All the private bills that come into this government are scrutinized by our ministry and are circulated by our ministry to all other ministries in the government so that comments from the government side on those private bills can be ascertained. They are then presented at the various committees, either by staff or mainly by my parliamentary assistant whose main responsibility is in the municipal area.

In regard to this bill, we scrutinized the bill and there were no objections or comments on the bill. In other words, as far as the staff of this ministry and the minister are concerned, we are content with the provisions as laid out in this bill for the operation of this new principle in the borough of Scarborough. That does not mean that if we brought in the principle in general legislation we would not look at or make certain changes in it. But as far as this bill is concerned, it was scrutinized. If we had had any objections to it, they would have been presented, rightly I think, at the time the committee was hearing the bill and at the time when the municipal solicitors and municipal people who were putting forward the bill were there to bring their input for our benefit and our knowledge. As my friend knows, these are bills that municipalities bring forward, and we need to have the people who are sponsoring the bills present when we are discussing amendments and changes. That incidentally, is why we practise the reverse procedure to normal bills. These bills, as members of this House know, go to committee first before they come here for second reading and approval in principle.

With those few remarks, as far as this ministry is concerned, I am certainly happy to support the principle of this private bill from the borough of Scarborough.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak? The member for Oriole.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, as the member who had the privilege of sponsoring the bill, I want to conclude the remarks this afternoon by pointing out, as my colleague from Scarborough Centre stated, that the borough of Scarborough had certain specific needs that were identified in the legislation; the very purpose for bringing it before the committee was so that these particular needs could be dealt with at this time on their individual merits.

The matter was carefully considered before the committee. I certainly know the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk took the lead in questioning some of the sections of the bill and in questioning the staff from the ministry when it was before committee. My recollection is that the ministry staff did indicate they had given consideration to the bill and had no objection to the bill’s going forward.

I do not recall that the member for Wentworth did have the opportunity to appear before the committee to raise the points he has raised today. I will not debate the merits of the objections he has raised to the bill. However, I feel the opportunity should have been taken at that time if he felt as strongly as he did about the bill, assuming he was aware it was in process before committee so that it could have been debated at that time.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: The criticism was directed at the government. There wasn’t anyone there from the government.

Mr. Williams: With respect, for the record, there were two representatives there from the ministry to answer questions.

Mr. Nixon: They said they didn’t have any comment. I had the feeling they hadn’t looked at it before.

Mr. Williams: In fact, the member who is now speaking directed questions specifically to the staff, who did respond.

Mr. Nixon: There was no one from the government; there was no minister there.

Mr. Williams: There is no question but that there was representation from the ministry there to answer any questions that were posed. I think the matter was fully aired in the committee. While there is no objection to debating again a private bill in the House before it receives second reading, I hope this will not establish some sort of precedent when the committee procedure and opportunity is the place where we should try to give full vent to any concerns over a private member’s bill, rather than taking up further time in the Legislature to do so.

Mr. Speaker: I want to assure the honourable member that no dangerous precedent has been established this afternoon.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member who sponsored it closed the debate. I asked if there were any other members who wished to speak to it.

Mr. Warner: And I rose in my place.

Mr. Speaker: I would have recognized you had you stood prior to the member sponsoring the bill.

Mr. Warner: I thought out of courtesy I would allow him to go first.

Mr. Speaker: That is very generous of you.

Mr. Warner: And this is the reward for my generosity?

Mr. Speaker: That is right.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Williams moved third reading of Bill P24, An Act respecting the Borough of Scarborough.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, being courteous didn’t get me anywhere; so I have to try something else. There are a couple of matters I want to raise. I would hope the member for Oriole would reconsider some of his remarks. What has occurred in the short while here this afternoon reconfirms a very important principle about the operation of this assembly; that is, committee work is very important. Committees report back to the House. At that time, there is an opportunity for all members of the House to take a look at what has gone on in committee. That is a very firm principle we have held to quite strictly in this assembly. I would not want to see that altered.

As several members have indicated, the borough of Scarborough is to be commended on the initiative it has taken and the deep commitment it has to community improvement in Scarborough. That borough, its council and community groups have expressed an interest in community improvement. The bill will assist in that.

I would also re-emphasize remarks made by my colleague from Wentworth that the principle, being a sound one, should be aired in some debate with respect to all municipalities, and certainly the organized ones in the province. If the government is not prepared to bring forward an amendment to the Municipal Act, perhaps it would bring forward a white paper or discussion paper to see whether we could get some feedback from other organized municipalities so that some change to the Municipal Act might be considered.

Having said that, I wholeheartedly give my approval to this important bill, which will assist the good council of Scarborough in attempting to improve our community in every way it can find.

Motion agreed to.

MIDLAND YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Mr. G. E. Smith, moved second reading of Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the Midland Young Men’s Christian Association.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved third reading of Bill 202, An Act respecting Occupiers’ Liability.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, we have been through the throes of this bill. My remarks have been repeated a number of times, but I think one final quip might not do any harm to the human ear. It was taken up last week in estimates; so I can shorten my remarks today. This bill has sat acquiescent on the Order Paper for some period of time, and I had always wondered why the ministry was not more anxious to get on with it.

As I understand it, there are possibly a couple of amendments on the government’s side, with respect, and they well may be very thorough-going amendments at the same time -- perhaps a total deletion. Do you know what that does, Mr. Speaker? It opens the whole legislation again if it goes into committee of the whole House. We, including the parliamentary assistant, were negligent on the opening day of this House or the first full day in that it slipped through and now arrives in our demesne as a third reading on this particular occasion -- not that I was anxious to rehearse the iniquities therein contained.

The legislation in question here was generated by the ministry itself, and that speaks for it in part. Sometimes good politics makes bad law. This is a case in point, although the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) disputes that somewhat vigorously and has absented himself today with respect to further locking of horns.

Originally in 1973, the Ontario Law Reform Commission came forward with such legislation. It has been done in many jurisdictions throughout the world but in no way in any parallel with what has been produced before us today. The law reform commission was quite diverse. I had produced a private member’s bill at an earlier time, taken from some Scottish legislation in this particular regard. That should have been done in order to get good law or the advancing law which goes by inches through the courts and takes several centuries in order to crawl snail-like towards some consummation. That is what it did, but this legislation reverses a great deal of that, as I see it. It ought to have been sent back to the law reform commission for further study in order to have them come forward, as they had done in earlier times, with draft legislation, having fed them in with all the political exigencies that went into the warp in the woof in this particular situation.

Mr. Nixon: Could you run that past us again?

Mr. Lawlor: I couldn’t do it again. There are a couple of instances in the bill which I will touch on. In the course of the committee's consideration, they introduced a clause having to do with police pursuit and arrest of individuals which, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will stay up late tonight puzzling over, as I have had to do. It runs directly counter to legislation passed through this House a year ago with respect to the Provincial Offences Act where the basic principle was that the laws of the province must be decriminalized. We went to great lengths on this with breast-beating and numerous headlines just to add a little accolade to the whole damned thing. In the first major piece of legislation we get before us, he reverses his principle and sticks it in. I would be very interested to hear the apologia pro vita sua of his life, of what it all means to him and how they manage such machinations, with their own legislation and betray their basic principle.

4 p.m.

The second area, and there are many -- the whole thing is ragtag and tatters of special pleading and vested interests of all kinds, running adverse to the overall development of the law. I am a purist to that extent; to see it undermined in this particular fashion does raise hackles.

In the Middle Ages they used to have cathedrals, and not only did they have sanctuaries but they also were sanctuaries. In contemporary, commercial civilization we have shopping malls.

This legislation protects, builds a fence around, where one may worship Mammon without anybody stepping on one’s toes, in perfect quietude, et cetera. I suppose that’s the general philosophy around here, so Mammon will be worshipped in peace and no people will come on to the plaza to distribute their wretched, provoking and disturbing leaflets at election time or at any other time.

Those commercial centres, unlike the rest of the commercial community on the main thoroughfares of things, will be a special little preserve et cetera protected from the true facts of life and the various irritations which our flesh has grown heir to. It is dreadful legislation.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see these two bills finally coming in for third reading. As a land owner and a person who lives in the Niagara Escarpment area, where these two bills have quite an effect, I know the urban people have been becoming increasingly aware of the benefits and the beauty of the rural areas in Ontario and like to wander and trespass across many properties.

It was becoming a case where land owners also were becoming aware of the responsibility or the duties of care that might be laid upon them if somebody happened to hurt himself while picking wildflowers or what have you. They decided it was much easier to keep these people off their property than to take the risk of being liable for any accidents.

With Bill 202 relieving them of that duty of care, I am sure there will be many more land owners who now will be agreeable to let people on to their property, which they have not minded doing in the past except for the liability problems they could be faced with.

The previous trespass bill was very ineffective, because it did not provide for fines of any substantial amount; now, if somebody is trespassing against the property owner’s will, he can be prosecuted and the property rights of the people are fully protected.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, for the Tory party it may be good politics in rural Ontario, but it is bad law and they know it. We know precisely why the bill was brought forward, and we attempted in the committee to present reasonable and rational arguments based on this government’s own work and through the Ontario Law Reform Commission. For a while we had some assistance from a reasonable member, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan), a lawyer, until it became apparent that he was making so much good sense and reason that the Liberals removed him from the committee and replaced him with another spokesman from the farm community.

I understand full well, as we pointed out in the committee, the concerns raised by the member for Grey and other members who are concerned about the farm community. I still say those concerns could be met without taking away certain protections for individuals, the most vulnerable of whom are children. They will now have less protection under the law than they have enjoyed to date.

The other irritation was watching as per usual around this building, Inco Limited come in, make its demands and walk out with what it wanted. That’s normal around here. It was no surprise to me when they were able to get what they wanted out of the Tories and Liberals.

It was a very disturbing kind of event for me. Like my good colleague the member for Lakeshore, I too am profoundly disturbed by the way in which this government has now enshrined in law the protection for the commercial cathedrals. It is very distasteful, quite frankly.

Again, the government had arguments presented to it from learned professors in the law as to how it could accommodate a more democratic operation for the shopping malls and at the same time protect the individual from being harassed.

We had model legislation -- legislation, I remind the minister, from Manitoba which, while introduced by a New Democratic Party government, was maintained and protected by the Conservative government when it took over. From them there has been a report of no problems with the legislation.

As the government bows to the wishes of Inco, so it bows to the wishes of Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited. Whatever Cadillac Fairview wants, that’s fine with the government.

I have a greater interest in democracy. I will pursue the issue of how we open up the shopping malls to the public in a far more public way than we have now.

I listened very closely, and appreciatively, when the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) informed us that because of this government’s opposition to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, Russian vodka was being removed from the shelves of the liquor stores. I remember a couple of months prior to that, in the committee, raising the same issue and suggesting that if we made the amendment in the bill people who were concerned about protesting the Russian invasion of Afghanistan would be allowed to bring their concerns to the notice of the public, asking them not to purchase Russian vodka. Does the minister remember that?

That was what I brought forward. The government did not see fit to add that to the bill, but the minister then stood and announced that the government had responded to the situation by removing Russian vodka from the shelves of the liquor stores. I do not understand that kind of change of heart. We are used to flip-flops from the Liberals, not from the Conservatives. However, that’s their business.

All I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that I intend to pursue the issue of democratizing the shopping malls so that the public has a better opportunity to make its voice heard and to attempt to persuade others in matters of conscience, whether it is the Russian invasion of Afghanistan or the Radio Shack situation that existed, or whatever the situation is.

4:10 p.m.

For example, when the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations made his statement on Russian vodka, I am sure many of us were wishing that at the same time he would have said something about removing Chilean wines from the liquor store shelves until a democratic government is returned to Chile.

Since he is not going to do that, would it not be an improvement in these bills if we had my suggested amendment, which would allow the public to bring their views about Chilean wines and Chilean products to the attention of the public as they are going through the commercial cathedrals?

All I can do is register my dismay at the behaviour of the government, because I understand what they were about. I understand that had they been true to the kind of course they pursued, both through the Provincial Offences Act and the Ontario Law Reform Commission, we would have seen a much different bill from the one we got. But I guess there are days when partisan political concerns rise above having good legislation.

Mr. J. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of Bills 202 and 203 and I resent the remarks made by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. They were political posturing.

He talks about commercial cathedrals. I think that is the only thing they understand over there. He threw in the remark that Inco contributed towards these bills. These bills were presented long before Inco had any concern whatsoever about the principles.

If the member knew anything about rural Ontario, he would know that it affects it much more than it does the likes of Inco.

Mr. Warner: Inco came in and got what they wanted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the honourable member would address his remarks through the chair.

Mr. J. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, it is as much a waste of time to try to talk to the honourable member today as it was in committee. If he recalls, in the committee hearings only two groups opposed either Bill 202 or Bill 203. Nearly every group that presented a case was in favour of these bills. Certainly, the people who want to make use of rural Ontario are in favour of them.

Mr. Lawlor: Anybody who knew anything about law was against them.

Mr. J. Johnson: Apparently, if we do not agree with the member for Lakeshore, we know nothing about law. I find that offensive too.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, the university professors showed up and the member did not agree with them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. J. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that this Legislature tried to present legislation that was held in esteem and favoured by the majority of people whom we try to represent. This type of legislation has been requested by rural Ontario for many years. To delay it any longer is unreasonable and unnecessary. As I mentioned earlier, the member is doing it for strictly political means and he accuses us of the same thing. I hope we can soon resolve this and get on with the third reading of these two bills and have them passed into legislation.

Mr. Nixon: I congratulate you on the latitude you are permitting in this third reading debate, Mr. Speaker. I will attempt to be brief.

I have been stimulated, however, by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere who, having been transported from some great social studies class, finds himself a reincarnation of Judge Learned Hand here in this Legislature telling us what is good law. I am used to lawyers retiring to the robing room and running their fingers over the tablets and coming out and telling us what we should be doing. We take the responsibility in this party for supporting the bill because we believe it is a good and necessary one.

They are talking about amendments. I do not know very many statutes that we have passed that have not required an occasional amendment in the future. We do not expect to be perfect every time. But if we listen to law professors from universities, we are going to make more mistakes than if we use our common sense.

Mr. Speaker, you know of the occasion that prompted the original introduction of the resolution leading to these bills by my honourable friend the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell). You remember the occasion where somebody, probably from Scarborough, loaded his snowmobile on a trailer, went out into the rural areas, probably with about 15 mickeys of booze along, and went zooming into some farmer’s property and injured himself by running into a fence, then sued the farmer for having his fence there and, by God, he won his case. If my friend calls that good law, then he can stick with it. I believe that these bills, which are going to give the kind of protection we need to the land owners, are not only necessary now, but also have been unduly delayed.

Frankly, I resent the fact that when interested people have inquired from certain government offices as to why they were delayed, certain people who are unmentionable -- in fact, unspeakable -- have indicated that it is the Liberals who have been holding this up. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. We believe this legislation is needed, and I resent this tight-halo approach by the spokesman in legal matters from Scarborough-Ellesmere, indicating that we don’t know anything about what is needed in the community. I don’t know about good law or bad law; he has been the critic of the Ministry of the Solicitor General for four or five weeks now, so he stands up and preaches to us.

We make the laws and we make them in respect of what we believe is right and what the community needs, and I believe these two bills qualify on both counts.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say it is a great day to see these bills coming forward for third reading in the House. Certainly Bill 202, which is the one before us -- we have talked a lot about Bill 203 in here too, mostly about it -- opens up the possibility for a much better relationship between the property owners in this province and the people who want to use their property for recreational purposes.

Those people who want to go out and use the property now know that, if they ask for and get permission, they can go on that property and use it at their own risk. The property owners know they are not taking the risk of being sued for the actions of someone carrying out recreational activities on their property. As the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk said, the legislation is long overdue and should have been out much sooner.

I think I should refer also to Bill 203, as everyone else has, and we will not have to discuss it again when it is moved for third reading in a minute. I think that particular bill restores some of the property rights that have been taken away from land owners in this province. It gives them an opportunity to protect their property, to protect their rights and to get restitution for things that are damaged when people come on their property and have no regard whatsoever for it.

It is a little different from the legal matters that the NDP member for Scarborough-Ellesmere brought before the committee, letting on he is an expert. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk said he could stick with his opinions; I think he can just stick his opinions.

We argued about it many times in the committee, and the way some of the supposedly expert lawyers who came before that committee would have had the law, as I pointed out to them once there, would be such that if I went snowmobiling or something on my neighbour’s property, I would have been much better off under their terms because, if I happened to get hurt, I could have sued him.

With this legislation, one is responsible for one’s own actions; one is responsible for himself. I just hope that a good deal of advertising will be done by the ministry to see that the information is made available to the urban people so they will know that when they go out on property in rural Ontario they are going on someone else’s property and must respect those property rights, they must get permission or they are trespassing on other people’s property. It is good so see this legislation carried through, and I hope it gets royal assent very quickly when we get through third reading.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, to speak only briefly, I want to say I think we do have good legislation. I was one of the members on the committee which sat for many hours when the various presentations were being made; so I am not going to reiterate all the good things I think there are about the bill.

4:20 p.m.

However, I want to comment on the two concerns expressed by my good friend the member for Lakeshore. I am surprised that he would suggest there should not be police apprehension of a trespasser, considering that criminal acts seem to be on the increase year after year, particularly in our urban centres. We may be suspicious of a trespasser or someone who seems to be hanging around schoolyards waiting for an opportunity to conduct some kind of an act, whatever it may be. I cannot understand why the member for Lakeshore would want to stop a policeman from going out and apprehending that person and asking some questions and trying to find out what he is about and why he is loitering around schoolyards and things of that nature. If he could explain it to me, I would be prepared to listen.

The other matter of concern was the demonstrations in the shopping plazas. I can see what the NDP is up to. They would dearly like to see secondary boycotting in places like that. If people want to demonstrate, if when they run their next election they want to do some politicking, then I think it is only a matter of courtesy to go in and ask permission from the business people who have their money invested there. The NDP doesn’t have any money invested in these businesses in the shopping plazas. As a matter of courtesy, they should ask the businessmen if they would mind a demonstration outside on the parking lot. If they want to distribute their material at election time, they should get that permission from the business people. What is the problem? It is just a matter of courtesy. I fail to really understand the concerns on the part of the member for Lakeshore. If he thinks it over, I think he will agree it is good legislation. If it needs amending, then in a year or two, if things aren’t working, we can always amend it. But let’s give it a try now and see how it works.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had been at the meetings when Inco made their appearance and said they were expressing fears that they might be held liable if somebody were to fall down a couple of thousand feet and all they had done wrong was to forget to put a fence around the hole. It would be a bit much to witness Inco carrying on that kind of argument.

When I read the bill I saw expressions like. “The occupier owes a duty to the person not to create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm or damage to the person or his property and to not act with reckless disregard of the presence of a person and his property.” It probably wouldn’t be Inco, quite frankly. It would probably be a smaller operation where there wouldn’t be the proper follow-up on an abandoned mine site. I wonder where one draws that line as to what is “reckless disregard,” what is just negligence and what is just forgetfulness. Where are we going to draw that line?

Surely in that case, the responsibility is on the property owner to put proper protection around an area that has been abandoned. I must say the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere knows his law extremely well, particularly in regard to rural properties.

Mr. Ruston: He doesn’t even know what it is.

Mr. Laughren: When we have the combination of knowledge of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere regarding farming and the law, I say we have someone whose opinion we had better listen to.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I resent the reference made by the member for Nickel Belt that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has any knowledge of the law.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the time for the final passage of these bills, which are long overdue in this Legislature. They are an attempt to restate the value we place on the ownership of private property. One of the difficulties we experience in the riding I represent, which is on the periphery of a large metropolitan area, is the weight of sheer numbers of people who come to the country, who will trespass and use private property, perhaps either without any knowledge of the laws regarding trespass or simply ignoring the laws regarding trespass. Now that we have come this far and created a set of standards which we hope will have very positive repercussions, in the rural areas particularly, I would like to challenge the government to get the message out. I would like them to communicate with all of the citizens of Ontario so that they fully understand their rights, so that they fully understand the law and so that they fully understand their responsibilities in this matter.

I fully appreciate that ignorance of the law is no excuse in any circumstance. But when we are dealing with situations that these bills apply to on a day-to-day basis, as many of us here who live in rural areas are, the one thing that comes home to us very quickly is that the person we are dealing with very often has no knowledge of the law whatsoever, or that knowledge is not in keeping with the statutes at all. So, while I speak in support of the bill, I would like also to encourage the government to take it one step further and make it physically workable.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, one has the impression that not owning land is about the equivalent of having leprosy. Speaking on behalf of the bootless and the unhorsed, if I might, I am sorry that we so upset some members, that we so worry some members and that we so scare some members of the assembly.

The major land owners, the patricians of Ontario, have no need yet to fear us so intensely that they should shake in their boots in this House as they have done all through this entire debate.

Mr. Worton: What about your dad out there in the quiet place of Hillsburgh?

Mr. M. N. Davison: With his giant acre and a half? It is not big enough to be trespassed upon.

We really do have to have some perspective when we enter these debates in the assembly. It is as if private property had been threatened with extinction because some members of the New Democratic Party caucus spoke against some of the worst parts of these two bills. That is a little excessive. Parliaments in our system have spent a thousand years protecting the rights of property.

I think I can give my assurance anyway to members of the assembly that those among us who are wealthy land owners and property owners have no need for fear from the criticisms put forward. Private property is not threatened with extinction in Ontario. Those members don’t need to be so worried.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I want to state briefly my support of Bills 202 and 203. I had the pleasure of serving on the committee. I know there has been a lot of concern in many parts of Ontario, especially the riding I represent. I know many people want to make their property available for recreational activities, and I believe these two bills, 202 and 203, are going to take care of most of the problem.

I don’t know whether it has been mentioned or not, but during the hearings I was very impressed by one presentation which was made by the headmasters’ council in regard to the problems of trespass on school property. I believe this is becoming a very serious problem. I was quite impressed with the presentation which was made, and this is one reason that these bills should receive passage and full support. It is going to give the headmasters, principals and our people in the schools greater opportunity to deal with the problems which they are facing today and which are certainly increasing. I want to go on record as fully supporting Bills 202 and 203.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be at the committee hearings because of competing hearings; so I am pleased to rise at this time in support of both these bills.

From a philosophical point of view, I can understand why members of the third party would be against private property. But I would like to point out to them, on behalf of the consumers of this world, that since 1917 the Socialist countries have been exhorting their farmers to produce more food. Since somewhere in the 1930s in the United States, and on the odd occasion in Canada, governments have been exhorting their farmers to produce less food. Neither has been successful. I think it is notable that under our private ownership system we are able to produce great amounts of food for the sustenance of not only our own people, but also people in other countries.

Interjection.

Mr. McGuigan: I think the member would find that even in Saskatchewan, when the farmers’ union opted for social ownership of the land something like five or six years ago, that was the end of the farmers’ union in Canada being an effective spokesman for farmers. Check that out. It happened in Saskatchewan.

Mr. M. N. Davison: What kind of government did they have?

Interjections.

Mr. McGuigan: But it is still under the private ownership system that we have that huge amount of production out there.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Did they abolish private ownership in Saskatchewan?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. McGuigan: One other point, Mr. Speaker. The real concern about those marketing cathedrals is the matter of secondary boycotts. I would point out that secondary boycotts are illegal in the United States; they are legal in Britain. It is partly the secondary boycott that has brought Britain to its knees in economic terms. It is the interest of that party in the secondary boycott that I think is the real reason for them railing against those cathedrals.

In labour relations, I support having pickets and having strikes -- but at the first level, not at the second level. If you want to stop my production as a farmer, I support your right to picket my farm, to organize my people and to stop the production at that point. But I don’t support your right --

Mr. Lawlor: What are you talking about?

It has nothing to do with secondary boycotts. We are talking about Radio Shack.

Mr. Philip: Why are you defending fascism?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. McGuigan: I am talking about Canada. I support your right to stop production at my farm, but not after I have produced the product and sent it to market. That is the real issue involved in this matter of shopping malls.

I haven’t anything further to add. I just wish to support the two bills.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t realize that on third reading we were allowed to enter into so many areas of debate. We kind of expanded it a little.

I want to indicate to the members that the reason the bill was not brought forward in the past month and a half related to a decision on my part to hold it back until I had an opportunity to write to everyone who had made a previous submission to the Attorney General -- more than 200 in number. I wanted to forward to them a copy of the legislation as amended by the committee.

There were a number of amendments in the committee and I thought it hardly fair to bring forward these two pieces of legislation to the third reading stage without first allowing those people to react in terms of the amendments that had been made at that time.

The other area of concern that I had, and the Attorney General had, was in relation to the advertising. It was brought up by the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed) and the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton). They felt it was necessary to try to get in place a fairly extensive advertising program to let the people know what the new Petty Trespass Act and the Occupier’s Liability Act will mean to them.

Going back to my first point, we did have some reaction from some of the trail groups. I met with them and they were satisfied with the answers I provided for them. It was not necessary to amend the bill in the area they were concerned with at this time.

With regard to the other areas that have been brought forward by the members, I think they were debated at length in the committee. If one wants to review the Instant Hansards which were produced as a result of that committee, I think they will see on the record the reasons for the government’s opposition to the amendments proposed by the NDP in particular.

Finally, I think these bills will answer the understanding that I believe the government has of the farming community in Ontario. A farmer, who works very hard all his life to acquire his property, lives in mortal fear of the day that someone will come upon his property and hurt himself. The farmer thereby would incur a tremendous liability for that accident that has occurred on his land.

This piece of legislation will take away that fear. It is our hope that it will achieve its intended effect; that is, to open a lot more private land to public use in Ontario. I believe that effect will carry forward as soon as we bring this legislation forward.

Motion agreed to.

TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved third reading of Bill 203, An Act to protect against Trespass to Property.

Mr. Lawlor: This will not be a prolonged comment Mr. Speaker; so let us rest peacefully in our various seats.

Have members seen the correspondence that came in recently from one of the major law firms in Toronto? I have it in front of me; it’s a five- or six-page document. It belatedly criticizes both this and the previous legislation with respect to the onus of proof and standard of care. I wanted to mention it because it tickled my ribs.

The contention made in that document is that far from alleviating certain sectors of the community in this regard, the legislation has made matters infinitely worse. On their interpretation there has been a raising, not a lowering, of the standard of care. I suppose, if fairly astute people reading this legislation come to that conclusion, it’s open to the judiciary to reach a similar conclusion. The afternoon that happens in the Supreme Court of Ontario, some members will probably jump on hot griddles.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself briefly to this bill as well, particularly with regard to the provision concerning a police officer’s power of arrest. That provision is contained in this bill but was not in the other bill.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There has been a fair amount of latitude given on third reading. I must remind the member that at the time of third reading the purpose, if any member wishes to speak, is to give the reasons why the bill should or should not be given third reading. That is really the question before the House.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, and I accept your ruling. I want to suggest that this is an incredibly important section in this bill which was not in the bill at the time it was given second reading and therefore, which, has not been given an airing before in this House.

As you indicated, Mr. Speaker, you gave latitude under the previous bill to discuss this section, which was not contained in the previous bill but which is contained in the bill that is before us now. I would ask your indulgence to entertain very brief debate on the matter of a police officer’s right to arrest, which is contained in this bill and which I believe should be considered very carefully by all members of this House before the bill is given third reading.

Indeed, I would like to go further and suggest that the parliamentary assistant, who was dealing with this bill on behalf of the minister, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), said in committee, in regard to this matter, “I don’t know whether I want to support you.” And he had previously indicated his opinion that the Attorney General might not support this particular section. So it was with great concern that I found we were launched into third reading of this bill without the Attorney-General’s bringing forward amendments to deal with something the committee had done which I feel to be a very negative step, because it will cause problems for our police force and for citizens in their dealings with that police force.

I would like to put to the members of this House a scenario that relates to this bill, one that I believe will come back to haunt us.

The bill now permits a police officer to pursue and arrest a person who is suspected of trespassing if that person refuses to give his or her name and address or if the police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the name and address given is false. I suggest that the owner of property, be it a city lot, a shopping mall, a rural property or an industrial property, will use this section at some time in the future to call the police to identify a person and to say to the police officer, “Arrest that person, because he has been trespassing on my property.”

With that request, the police officer is faced with two alternatives. He can either say that the matter is not sufficiently important to warrant his taking time to pursue and possibly arrest the individual -- and if he does that, it will breed contempt in the minds of our citizens for the police force and possibly cause those citizens to take the law into their own hands, and we have seen a very unfortunate example of that recently -- or the police officer can pursue the suspected trespasser and catch up with him and the guy will respond, as anybody might, in a not particularly friendly way. He may refuse to give his name and address because he doesn’t believe he has committed an offence, or in a worse situation he may even become involved in an altercation with the police officer.

I would suggest that this section was designed to deal with a problem that goes far beyond trespass. If a person is suspected of a criminal activity, if he is suspected of a drug or alcohol offence, if he is suspected of having a firearm or of having caused any kind of damage, there are plenty of provisions in our Criminal Code to allow that person to be arrested. But to allow pursuit and possible arrest simply for trespass is going too far. I hope the parliamentary assistant or the Attorney General, who is not here, will indicate that there will be a directive going to police forces to enable them to make clear decisions rather than leaving them to the discretion of individual police officers. The latter in the long run can only cause problems for themselves or for our citizens by attempting to deal with this matter of pursuit and arrest of suspects for trespass.

I want to suggest, with respect to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, that although I share his concern about having lawyers involved deeply in the matters of drafting and reviewing legislation, while I would prefer that common sense at all times be applied to bringing laws forward, it is lawyers at present who are involved in our court system. Unless we take note of what lawyers say at the time legislation is drafted, we are at some time going to put some individual land owner or some individual trespassing suspect in the position of having to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to court to fight these smart lawyers, who take the time of our courts and the money of our citizens to try to reinterpret the legislation we pass. Unless legislation is clear, unless this House takes into account the concerns of lawyers, at least until such time as our system is changed, we are causing more and more problems for our citizens.

Having said that, I hope there will be a response from the ministry. The bill is better than nothing, but it is not perfect, and we should not assume that it is.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to say a word on this bill until I heard the remarks of the member for Wentworth. One has to assume that he, unfortunately, has never had anything to do with the ownership of property or has never been confronted with any of the real situations these bills address.

For the benefit of the members, let me paint a very common situation regarding trespass. A farmer is on his farm and he confronts a trespasser carrying a rifle. He asks the trespasser to leave, and the trespasser refuses. Then the farmer says that under the powers of the act the trespasser is under arrest, and he asks him what his name is. The owner of the rifle refuses to give his name, to hand over the rifle or to submit to arrest. What is the owner to do?

The owner has no choice in the matter but to turn around, walk away and call the police. In every case, by the time an officer of the law arrives on the property, the trespasser who has committed the offence -- and in some cases, it may be a serious offence -- has gone. That act can be repeated time and time again, with the same confrontation and the same property owner, who is helpless to act. In terms of what the member for Wentworth would like to see, there would be no way of prosecuting in those circumstances. I wonder how the honourable member would deal with a situation like that.

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the honourable member, we will work with the same trespasser who is committing an offence time and time again but does not have a firearm. If there are going to be any teeth in this act whatsoever, the landowner has to be physically protected to a certain extent and has to be able to call the police. The police have to be able to act on his behalf. Anyone with any common sense knows the practicality of having to call an officer of the law to report trespassers and expecting the trespassers still to be there committing the offence by the time the policeman arrives.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Attorney General or any other member of this Legislature thinks this act is a panacea for all of the answers related to trespass and liability in relation to urban, farm or any other kind of property. I do think, though, it is a recognition that the existing law is not satisfactory to the situation that exists in Ontario.

These acts have been given careful consideration by the Attorney General and his staff. I would like to mention the name of Stephen Fram, who is with the ministry and who has given these acts a tremendous amount of thought before bringing them forward in an attempt to reach a delicate balance between competing interests that these acts represent. But I think they have come to a final stage. We may need amendments to these acts some time in the future, but it is my opinion that they have reached a position where they can become law. The balance is a good balance that we, as a government, can be proud of.

Motion agreed to.

TERRITORIAL DIVISION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 56, An Act to amend the Territorial Division Act.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill was aptly described by the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) on April 24 in his opening remarks on first reading.

The bill basically creates a new judicial district in the northern part of York county. This new area will be called the judicial district of York region. That name was chosen after lengthy consultations with municipal and regional officials.

The courthouse in Newmarket is in operation at present, and the area will become a judicial district upon the proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor. That is expected to happen very soon should this bill receive the approval of the House. The bill provides for interim measures to make the flow from the present judicial district of York to the two new judicial districts as smooth as possible.

I have a very minor amendment to move; so I would ask that the bill go to committee of the whole House after second reading.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, from our point of view there is no opposition to this bill. Perhaps the only criticism we have is that it is long overdue. Therefore, we do support the bill.

Mr. Warner: Similarly, Mr. Speaker, this party will be supporting the bill and would echo the comment by the learned member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) that the bill is overdue. We appreciate its presence here today and we will support it.

Mr. Hodgson: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I, too, support the bill. I would ask the members to deal with this bill today, to give it second reading and then to go on to third reading. If there is an amendment, we can get along and administer justice in the region of York legally. We are doing it legally now, more or less, but it is long overdue. This has been before the Attorney General’s ministry for many years, as far back as 20 years ago.

I do not think the region of York, or the new York county created by Bill 84 at that time, was mature enough to have a judicial district, but today it has a population of 300,000. If we had had a courthouse at that time, it would not have been nearly as good as the one today. I ask the members to give this bill their approval as quickly as possible.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I want to say I am glad this bill is coming forward. For the last number of weeks we have been hearing about this darned bill and what was holding it up. I sometimes wonder what goes on with all the highly paid assistants for the various ministers and the ministries. It seems to me tougher and tougher for the government to get a legislative program together.

A very simple bill like this is long overdue. We could have dealt with it; we were anxious to deal with it. I understand the members opposite want to give it third reading right now. We say, “Fine.” We are co-operative. But we just cannot get the old Tory inertia moving over there to accomplish even a very simple thing like establishing a judicial district.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the members of the Legislature for their support for this bill. I also would indicate that any delay has not been as a result of either my intervention or the intervention by the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson).

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

TERRITORIAL DIVISION AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 56, An Act to amend the Territorial Division Act.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Hodgson moves that subsection 5 of section 2 of the bill be amended by inserting after “the Bail Act” in the first line, “or a lien for an agreed contribution toward the cost of legal aid under the Legal Aid Act.”

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, this is just to correct an omission in the drafting of the legislation which resulted in it not being included in the original part. Including this as part of subsection 5 is expected to make the transition from the one jurisdiction to the two jurisdictions occur more smoothly.

Mrs. Campbell: We are not in opposition to that amendment.

Mr. Warner: We will support the amendment.

5 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

Bill 56, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendment.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Maeck moved second reading of Bill 52, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, this bill to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act contains those amendments required to implement the budget proposals with respect to furthering energy conservation, assisting farmers in the construction of new grain facilities as well as the assistance extended to small businesses.

First, consistent with this government’s commitment to energy conservation, which is already costing $25 million per year in revenues, the budget further extends exemptions in this area to include chillers, weather-stripping and caulking materials. This bill contains those provisions necessary to effect this expansion in exemptions.

Second, in recognizing the vital role farmers play in the economic and social wellbeing in this province, much-needed relief from tax for the purchase or construction of new grain storage bins and dryers is proposed. This bill contains the necessary provisions enabling farmers to obtain tax relief from these purchases.

In addition, the Treasurer in recognition of the increased costs incurred by retailers collecting retail sales tax, which costs are becoming particularly onerous for the small business sector, has proposed in his budget (1) increasing the maximum compensation allowable in any one fiscal year by $300 to the new maximum of $1,000, and (2) increasing the minimum compensation allowable for those reporting less than $400 tax per return from $3 to $16. Changes to the compensation will beneficially affect approximately 35,000 small businesses.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I understand that at the present rate of revenue from the sales tax, we take in approximately $1 million a day; it may not be quite that much, but it is a very important source of revenue for us and, therefore, an important instrument of government policy. The Minister of Revenue simply reflects government policy. I have urged him more than once to take a stronger position with his colleagues in the cabinet and not simply be the errand boy for the Treasurer. He is capable of much more. I have often felt that he probably doesn’t appreciate the respect he commands in the cabinet, and probably in this House, at least with a good many of us, and he might take a stronger position.

The bill itself is relatively insignificant. As a matter of fact, to take the sales tax off ethyl and methyl alcohol used for fuel and the engines that burn it in automobiles is a very small matter indeed. Perhaps five or 10 years from now, if the Liberal policy to encourage the production of wood and grain alcohol becomes the policy of the government of the day, as it will be when we are elected, it will be certainly significant, but right now it is not going to cost very much. It is a small bow in the direction of moving away from petroleum-based fuels for automobile transportation.

I find it quite interesting, and I would hope that the policy of the government would become more widespread. The problems of encouraging the production of ethyl and methyl alcohol are obvious. In some of the southern states they do this in a big way. They have high-quality stuff they put out in jars which is run all over several states. The minister probably is concerned, and the last thing he wants to do is to stimulate that sort of activity here, but they tell me in some parts of eastern Ontario it is already a booming industry and growing with high-quality, home-grown material.

I should point out to any members who are not as well versed in organic chemistry as are the minister and I, that ethyl is the good stuff and methyl will make you go blind. Actually, they are both intoxicants -- that means poisons -- but with the one, it is possible to build up a certain tolerance, they tell me, and we have to consider these matters.

Also, manufactured gas, as designated in the statute, is going to be exempt from tax. That is very interesting, since a good many farmers are looking rather carefully at the possibility of manufacturing gaseous fuel from readily available raw materials for the fuelling of their tractors and for heat, naturally. While that is interesting, I don’t think it is going to do very much to adjust the gross revenues of the tax.

I was quite interested in the reference to chillers, because it may be that they are referring to what we would normally call a heat pump; and if a heat pump is going to be tax-free, I think that is a good idea. As it is described here, it is very difficult to know what they are going to do with the heat that is saved by the operation of the chiller, which is air-conditioning. I don’t know whether one can save it for the winter, or what. I would like to know whether the machine might be referred to less technically as a heat pump. I am not awfully interested in that.

We think weather-stripping and things like that should be exempt from sales tax, but they hardly constitute a real thrust by the government of this very powerful instrument of policy to encourage the kinds of conservation practices we would all favour. There are many more important and imaginative procedures whereby the sales tax could be used to encourage the conservation of energy.

The removal of sales tax on materials used for research is obviously commendable. I think there is a small loophole open here, in that a fairly large platoon of inspectors might be needed to examine the applications that might be forthcoming from people who will claim that what they are buying is for research purposes. It may seem quite obvious and specific for us as we establish this amendment, but in the minds of businessmen many things can be associated with research.

As a matter of fact, for people who are used to avoiding provisions of tax laws -- I, of course, do not refer to evasion, but to avoidance -- I would think this might be a section they would look at rather carefully when they come to the point of buying materials for their manufacturing operation.

The increase of the payout to the tax collectors is something we have been talking about on this side a good deal. This is the second major increase in, I guess, the last four or five years, and I think it is a very proper one indeed. I have often felt that, with $7 million a day coming in, the payback to the people who collect the taxes, whether they are running a car agency or a candy store, probably has been insufficient for a good long time. They are subject to audit and careful inspection, and I think there are many retailers who have found that by not paying careful enough attention to the nickels and dimes, if not the thousands of dollars, they collect, they run a real risk of running afoul of the minions of the minister who, I guess, are not the kinds of people one would want descending on one with some kind of a subpoena or other order to inspect the books. So I think it is very wise that we recognize the role played by the tax collectors in this situation.

I have not heard from any retailers specifically in the last number of years. When the tax was first brought in, there were many complaints that people were being forced into almost slave labour in the interests of the Treasury and the consolidated revenue fund.

The part that does interest me is the removal of sales tax on grain bins. It should never have been there in the first instance, I am sure members are aware. Anyone who has anything to do with fanning knows that, very properly, the machinery and the instruments of production are exempt from sales tax. If there is any question, such as when one goes to Canadian Tire, Sears or some place like that to buy a small motor, one has to sign an affidavit that it is being used in farm production and that it is not just being put on a pump down in the cellar or something like that. On the basis of such an affidavit and, I am sure, certain inspections on occasion, the tax is refunded.

5:10 p.m.

A grain bin is obviously a part of the business of farming and should be treated just like any other farm machinery, such as a tractor, a bale elevator or anything else. It really is unreasonable that the tax has been payable even for this long. In this instance, the revenue that will be forgone is only a bit more than $1.5 million. I believe that is the figure mentioned in the budget. It is interesting to note that in a $16-billion budget this was the only significant indication that the ministry was concerned about the welfare of the farm community.

There was a promise of some action to be taken in support of the farmers by way of interest which has now been announced by the government but, when we compare it with the programs that are readily available in every other province, it is obvious the priorities given to the farm communities, in spite of what is said by the members from Scarborough from time to time, is very low indeed.

While they are prepared to approve legislation having to do with trespassers’ liability and so on, still the Ministry of Agriculture and Food here commands less than one per cent of the budget of $16 billion. A good deal of that is probably spent in trundling the minister around the province so he can make these fine speeches that he makes from time to time, assuring everybody that the Tories of the province are deeply interested in the welfare of the farmers.

In many of the farming areas the farmers are not buying that stuff any more, and they believe the Conservative government is not interested in their welfare, except by way of a little window dressing from time to time.

The classic case in point, of course, was when the farmers came here to protest the lack of initiative by the government based on the resolution from my colleague the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock). That day the Premier stood up and said, “Oh, by the way, I have directed Ontario Hydro to equalize rural and urban rates.” It kind of got lost in the shuffle. It was a very important statement indeed. Ever since then Ontario Hydro has been flapping around making statements ranging from “It is impossible” on the one extreme, to “There will have to be subsidies from the government” on the other extreme.

Once again, here is an instance where Ontario, with all the cheap power we have produced over these many years from Niagara Falls and other hydraulic sources, and now from our marvellous Candu reactors, still has the highest rates for people out of the urban areas of any jurisdiction in Canada west of New Brunswick. It is a very bad record.

When we look at the money the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has to spend, I say again, it is less than one per cent of the budget of the province. When we look to Quebec, which is what we are doing daily around here, we can see why the agricultural economy of that province has moved forward much more rapidly than we have here. They have taken over markets which were traditionally our own and they have moved into markets which we have shared, having a larger and larger percentage, far beyond the utilization of the products within their own jurisdiction. That is just one example.

When the government talks about a program to assist farmers by way of paying a small part of their interest, it is paying peanuts compared with our agricultural competitors in the other provinces. It is fine for the members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, sitting up in the gallery applauding the minister, to say: “That’s fine. Now all we need is for the government of Canada to do the same thing.” If this provincial government were going to give us a program half as good as the one in Quebec, we would be overjoyed. We would be delighted.

This is a very small gesture indeed, and one that doesn’t become the government. It should never have been taxed in the first place. For the Treasurer to come forward in his only significant pronouncement in the budget of Ontario and say, “By the way, we are taking the sales tax off grain bins,” is just a joke up our way.

Obviously, we are going to support all these things, but I don’t think the bill, taken as a whole, is any kind of significant use of this tremendous engine for the extraction of tax revenues from the populace into the consolidated revenue fund. It is not an imaginative use by way of policy to improve the community.

I would say to the minister that he should start exerting himself, tell the Treasurer some of the things we need in this tax bill and stop just following his orders.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk in his comments made some reference to the fact that, as a result of policies this government has involved itself in, the farmers in some areas of the province are no longer supporting the government. He implied they now are supporting the Liberal Party. I would like to suggest that part of the reason for that is that many of the farmers in this province are converting back from using chemical fertilizers as proposed by the government to using natural fertilizers. The only place in Ontario where natural fertilizers are produced in any significant quantities is the Liberal caucus.

Interjections.

Mr. Charlton: I agree with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk when he says this bill is a rather insignificant bill. Unfortunately, I think the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) has unwittingly become the focus of the joke of this government’s commitment to nothing very much at all in the area of conservation.

The Minister of Revenue is put in a position of coming in with a bill like this when one would seem to think, in terms of looking at Ontario and where Ontario’s consumption of oil and oil petroleum products go in the transportation industry, the most significant sections of this bill should be in the sections exempting methyl and ethyl alcohol from retail sales tax and exempting the purchase of vehicles which would use those products, natural gas, electricity and other such things for transport around this province.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk mentioned what might be significant in 10 years. I would not necessarily agree with his perception that he will be part of a government within this province within 10 years -- perhaps in 40. We cannot wait 10 years, even if his party is the government. The technology for the kinds of things these exemptions deal with already exists. It is the responsibility of us in this House, the government across the way and the opposition here to force the government across the way, to see that this kind of technology exists and to see that the people of Ontario can take advantage of these exemptions.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is correct right down the line. It is going to cost this government very little, because we cannot get these products in this province right now. They should be available but they are not. It makes a joke out of the Ministry of Energy, out of the Treasurer and out of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. I urge the Minister of Revenue, now that he has had to bring this joke into the House, to have a chat with his colleagues about doing something serious -- and quickly -- about seeing that these sections in this bill have some relevance within the next two or three years in this province.

We are glad to see all of the little things in this bill, such as the exemption for materials used for grain bins and dryers. But the minister well knows, and we have discussed this a number of times, that many of these things which are a part of the very nature of this province should never have been taxed in the first place. We also have the exemptions for research and development of goods and manufacturing processes. All of these little things are nice, but they are not very significant.

There is another thing that bothers me about this bill this year. This is the second or third year in a row where the government has come in with a new list of exemptions. That is all very well and good in the name of conservation or in the name of assisting farmers or in a number of other areas, but none of them is a very significant exemption in the overall sense in Ontario. We discussed this last year when I mentioned a number of areas where more significant and more economically and socially beneficial exemptions could have been allowed.

5:20 p.m.

We have raised with the minister a number of times the problem with the exemption on children’s clothing, an exemption which we have no way of calculating all the people it affects. One family gets an exemption on children’s clothing because its child happens to be the same age as somebody else’s child but is smaller; but another child, still of tender years, who happens to be large in size and can no longer wear the sixes that the garment industry says are children’s sixes -- its parents have to pay retail sales tax on the clothing.

That kind of amendment in this bill this year should be there. That kind of amendment would make social and economic sense in this province, to assist people at the place where the problems are most real: for consumers in a society where prices are rising continually.

The same thing applies -- and this has been raised with the minister a number of times -- to the exemption on children’s shoes, or shoes in general. The exemption is $30, and it has been $30 through a period when the price of shoes has doubled, if not more than doubled.

I have a two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, and I pay $27 for her shoes. When her size is increased just a little bit over what it is now, her shoes will cost more than $30. The parents of almost every child in this province who has a decent pair of shoes that are structurally sound to deal with its feet in a medically useful way are paying more than $30 for that child’s shoes. The only thing they can buy for less than $30 is a pair of sneakers that the kid wears at recess.

That’s the kind of exemption this minister should be prepared to deal with every year in this House. People whose incomes have changed very little, even though they have gone up -- their real incomes have changed very little -- should be able to buy shoes for their family and buy the same shoes that they bought last year and the year before, even though the prices have gone up, and still have the same quality of shoes, sales tax exempt. But that doesn’t happen from one year to the next.

These are the kinds of things the Minister of Revenue fails to get across to his colleague the Treasurer in terms of the social and economic things that are going on in this province.

We are going to support this bill, but it is very insignificant and it makes a joke out of the way this government operates. It makes a joke out of the way this government deals with energy conservation, when there are amendments like this that provide exemptions that cannot be taken advantage of by more than a mere smattering of people.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the honourable minister in regard to ethyl and methyl alcohol. The section seems to indicate that such alcohol will be exempt only when it is delivered by the vendor into the fuel tank. It would almost indicate we are talking about pure ethyl or methyl alcohol. I am concerned because one of the things we have been pushing for is a blended situation. We would not want to see it just when delivered, particularly when the vendor is a service station operator.

If we can get some of the things we hope to see in effect, it would be delivered to a farm, not particularly for farm purposes, but even for running one’s own trucks or cars. I wonder whether this would be covered. I would hope the minister could clarify that and that it would cover that kind of situation. I think we have some potential in that field, and I would hope that we would be looking towards that. I would also compliment the minister on the exemption of grain-drying equipment, storage bins and so on. We should have done that 12 years ago, when we brought in the capital grants program. We have been after that for so long. When the capital grants program was in place, many people were putting in grain storage bins et cetera, and we asked and asked for the exemption. Finally, that has just about gone, and we finally get it through. I am glad to see it through, but I wish they had listened to us a long time ago.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I too wanted to raise the subject of the actual wording of the exemption of ethyl and methyl alcohol. The statement says, “such alcohol is delivered by the vendor thereof into the engine’s fuel tank.” In fairness, we need some clarification as to how that is interpreted regarding on-farm purchasing of the alcohols and on-farm use of what will initially be blends of alcohols and gasoline. It does not appear to be clear in the legislation.

As energy critic, I feel the exemptions mentioned in subsections (1) and (2) are steps in the right direction, albeit modest and albeit in recognition of the fact that to this point there has not been a concurrent effort on the part of the Ministry of Energy to bring some of these technologies on-line.

It might be interesting for the House to know that as far as we understand, for instance, in the use of natural gas for transportation vehicles, the manufacturers of carburation equipment are in the United States, and they are manufacturing flat out for domestic consumption. The opportunity at the present time to purchase hardware to convert a vehicle to natural gas is very difficult, if not impossible. A lot of this legislation will be meaningless until the nuts and bolts come into place. At the same time, we are encouraged by the thrust and by the move in that direction.

I want to point out one other thing; that is, the ad hockery of this kind of bill. Three years ago, I believe it was, the Treasurer of Ontario, at that time the Honourable Darcy McKeough, announced very proudly that sales tax would be eliminated from the retail sale of wood stoves. A list of energy-saving devices was included in those exemptions. To this day -- I ask the minister to go back and, if I am wrong, to correct me -- as far as I know, the tax is still on stovepipes. How the devil can you buy a wood stove, take it home, set it up and make it go without a stovepipe?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, because my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) wants to speak, and he is very knowledgeable on farm matters. As a matter of fact, if the members put his knowledge together with that of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) on farming matters, they really have a tour de force in this chamber.

I should not joke about that. The member for Etobicoke has spent some number of years working with the farming community and does, indeed, have some knowledge of it.

5:30 p.m.

Speaking of farmers, I have been surprised at the emphasis on the farming community during this debate so far and the claims by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. As a former resident of Caledonia, I should not be stumbling over those words.

Mr. Nixon: Caledonia is not in Norfolk.

Mr. Laughren: I know the area well. I should say to him that the farmers of Ontario have flirted with the Tories, they have had an affair with the Liberals on occasion, but they are finally bedding down with the New Democrats and agrarian socialism is going to come to Ontario.

Mr. Eaton: That’s a laugh.

Mr. Laughren: That is very true, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Eaton: Gordon Hill found out a little differently last time around.

Mr. Laughren: No, that is not true.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Does the member intend to reach the principle of the bill at some time?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

Whenever we debate a sales tax bill in this chamber, whether it is removing a sales tax or whether it is adding one on, which this government has been known to do on occasion --

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Not too often.

Mr. Laughren: Oh yes, they have. They have increased the sales tax in our short time here. The minister knows the sales tax has been increased. It is very difficult for New Democrats, because we view any kind of sales tax as a regressive tax. Obviously, any time they remove a sales tax it is something we applaud. Even though it might not be as much as we would like, certainly any time they remove a sales tax I cannot imagine that we would oppose it because, by definition, we feel that sales taxes are regressive.

I know too that sales taxes this year are going to bring in more than $2.5 billion. That is a lot of money. If we added on top of that other taxes, which basically are sales taxes -- they can call them other names if they like -- there is going to be much more than $3 billion in revenue for the province. If we are going to talk about sales taxes and abolishing them, then we are talking about a very significant change in the whole principle of taxation in the province. I do not expect the Minister of Revenue to take it upon himself to make Ontario an egalitarian place to live. Far be it for the boy from South River to take that upon himself. That has to be a decision by not only his caucus, but also his party. Of course, his caucus and his party do not stand for that kind of thing.

We are not going to oppose this bill. We are going to support it. But I think the Minister of Revenue should know that when it comes to any kind of sales tax we are opposed to it, because it bears no relationship whatsoever to the ability to pay.

I can picture people with a lot of money who virtually buy nothing. They may have reached a point in their life where they have all the worldly goods they need and they buy virtually nothing out there. Those people, despite a very high income and a very high level of accumulated wealth, are not penalized by a sales tax, whereas a struggling young family on low income pays a very high proportion, not only of their income, but also of their assets, on sales taxes.

That, surely, is fundamentally wrong. That is why we are so opposed to any kind of sales tax. It is a sneaky kind of tax. Because they take it in little bits and pieces it does not seem much, even to the people who are paying it. There is no storming of the ramparts out there because of a sales tax, even by those people who are being clobbered by it. We understand that, because it is a sneaky tax. I have deliberately used the word “sneaky.” When I was thinking about what I should say I decided not to use the word “sleazy.”

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Why?

Mr. Laughren: For any number of reasons. The word “sleazy” just does not apply to the boy from South River. But I want to say that the whole sales tax is a sneaky tax.

Mr. Nixon: Sneaky?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, it nickels and dimes people. That is what we find sneaky about it. It is a nickel and dime. For every dollar one spends, it is seven cents. I say nickel and dime, but that is basically what it is and that is why we are so opposed to the sales tax. Fundamentally, it is because it bears no relationship whatsoever to the bill one is paying. I guess if we were not democratic Socialists here, we would not be so opposed to having our constituents nickelled and dimed, which is what the minister is doing to them.

In inflationary times, sales tax has become ever more regressive. As prices go up, people are contributing higher amounts in absolute terms to sales tax revenues to the province. If there is ever a tendency or a temptation on the part of this government to raise revenues by increasing the sales tax, I would hope the Minister of Revenue would mightily resist.

Look at the riding the Minister of Revenue represents. It is not the kind of riding that should have any more regressive taxes imposed on it.

Mr. Roy: If we could only elect the NDP as in Saskatchewan, we would do away with the sales tax.

Mr. Laughren: You say if only we could. Make no mistake about it. Not only could we, we will.

Mr. Roy: Is there a sales tax in Saskatchewan?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, there is, a small sales tax. As a matter of fact, not only is there a sales tax in Saskatchewan, there is a succession duty tax.

Mr. Swart: There is no succession duty tax there.

Mr. Laughren: I am sorry; there is no succession duty tax in Saskatchewan. I think there should be succession duty taxes in every jurisdiction, but I don’t run the province of Saskatchewan.

However, in place of succession duty taxes in Saskatchewan, they have the most progressive tax system anywhere in the country. Do members know what province has the most regressive taxes anywhere? The province of Ontario. How could the Liberal Party disagree with me?

Mr. Roy: We want to kick these guys out. We agree with you, but we need your support.

Mr. Laughren: We want to kick the Tories out of office too.

Mr. Nixon: Why don’t you vote with us then?

Mr. Laughren: That is an excellent idea. Why does the member not put forward the kind of amendment right now that would allow us to do that?

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of quick comments to the minister to urge that a greater exemption be placed on children’s shoes. I feel that $30 is not sufficient today. Many people who have contacted me have been very concerned about this. Especially when special shoes are required for children today, I don’t think the exemption at this time is very realistic. I would ask the minister to give this consideration.

I would also like to bring to the minister’s attention a letter I wrote to him some time ago. I want to reinforce it at this time in connection with Millard Carpets in Lindsay, a retail business. Mr. Millard sold some carpeting to a builder. The builder went bankrupt and Mr. Millard was left to pay the tax. It was considered, as I understand it, a real property transaction and, since the retailer was considered a consumer, he had to pay the tax. Therefore, when all of this happened it was not rebated to him.

I recall the minister saying at the time that should the principal default in paying the contractor, the latter cannot claim a rebate on the tax which he has paid, because it was paid on his awn behalf as a consumer and not on behalf of the principal. The minister did mention he would be reviewing from time to time the retail section of the act and would take a look at this.

I would like to urge him again to give some consideration to who is considered the consumer. I am sure there are probably ways in which the retailer could get around this if he wanted to be dishonest about it. In this case, Mr. Millard did not want to do this. He was very honest about it but, because he supplied the carpeting and put it down himself, he was considered the consumer. Therefore, when the other gentleman went bankrupt, he still was stuck with the tax and could not get a rebate. I would like to urge the minister to give some consideration in the act to assist people in cases such as this one.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, we welcome many of the small exemptions the minister has outlined, particularly the ones that relate to energy, innovation and action in the farm community. I noted with interest some of the comments by the Liberal members. While this may involve piecemeal, nickel-and-dime matters, it is better to have nickels and dimes from this government than the zero cents we have received from their federal cousins in Ottawa.

Mr. O’Neil: Here we go, blaming the feds again.

Mr. Philip: There would not be a chance of getting the Liberal party in here.

Mr. Conway: The member has a mortgage on two cottages, I know.

Mr. Philip: I have more than two cottages. It really is none of the member’s business.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the initial statement the minister made concerning how this particular bill is of assistance to small business. I suggest to the minister that he has shown no comprehensive approach to assisting small business through his taxation system.

I bring to him particularly the problem of the small Canadian manufacturers competing with foreign manufacturers. One specific example already mentioned is the matter I raised with the minister some time ago -- indeed, he and I have had some conversations about it, and it has been mentioned earlier by some members who have spoken -- namely, the problem of the exemption on shoes.

In 1974, the provincial government decided that only shoes priced at less than $30 would escape sales tax. At that time the figure was realistic. Consumers could buy women’s dress shoes for slightly less than that price and children’s shoes for considerably less. However, Mr. McCunsey, the manager of the Foster’s Children’s Shoes store in my riding, claims many of the good-quality children’s shoes now made in Ontario come in at just over the $30 mark. That is why his store and stores throughout the province have been collecting signatures on a petition that has been sent to the Treasurer and no doubt the minister has seen.

Mr. McCunsey told me many people tend to opt for poorer-quality, foreign-made shoes that come just under the $30 mark. The sales tax cost means they simply cannot afford the difference. He feels this is not in the best interests of the children. A number of retailers across the province have been collecting signatures.

An example brought to me was the case of a constituent who went to buy shoes for her 11-year-old daughter. She was informed that Claire happened to have wide feet but did not require a medical prescription for shoes. Unfortunately, the shoes for her daughter came in at $33 if she wanted to buy Canadian-made or Ontario-made shoes. It was fortunate in her case that she could afford the additional amount and would pay the sales tax and, therefore, would not be influenced by that particular problem. But many people in ridings such as mine simply cannot afford the difference and are enticed and encouraged to go for foreign-made shoes.

The city of Windsor circulated to all municipalities a resolution, dated December 17, petitioning for the current ceilings on exemptions on footwear to be raised. The borough of Etobicoke referred the resolution to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, anti it was passed at a committee stage by the association.

The city of Windsor pointed out that its cost for shoes for municipal employees -- that is, firemen, policemen, et cetera -- had increased by more than 200 per cent since the $30 exemption level was passed in 1974. Windsor’s calculations are in line with the information I have obtained from Statistics Canada which shows that leather goods have risen 142 points in less than four years; in other words, the price of leather goods has increased by approximately 87 per cent from April 1974 to November 1978.

Pat MacLean, who is the editor of Footwear Forum, claims the $30 level of tax exemption is creating a disadvantage for Canadian manufacturers. She points out that the cheaper shoes from the Far East, from the Soviet countries and from Brazil are in competition with the Canadian-made shoes, and these shoes made in countries with low labour costs often sell for just below the $30 level.

Mr. Speaker: Is the honourable member talking about something that is not in the bill?

Mr. Philip: I am doing what every other honourable member has done on this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the honourable member knows he can speak and address himself only to something that is contained in the bill. He could spend the rest of the day talking about something that is not in the bill.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, the bill deals with exemptions. I am speaking about exemptions.

Mr. Speaker: You are talking about exemptions that are not mentioned in the bill. You will have to confine your remarks to those that are in the bill.

Mr. Philip: The bill does deal with a number of exemptions to small business. I have just discussed on exemption to small business that should be in the bill. I know that the minister --

Mr. Speaker: That is out of order. That is the point I am trying to make.

Mr. Philip: You have made the point, and if I ware in the chair, Mr. Speaker, I would make the same ruling. I probably would have made it at the beginning of the debate in dealing with the minister’s original remarks. I respect your --

Mr. Speaker: My tardiness.

Mr. Philip: Fine. I had another exemption that I wanted to speak on. I realize the Speaker, in his wisdom, will rule me out of order, but I hope the minister will deal with the problem of the small beverage companies that are discriminated against by his sales tax system.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I will try to address my remarks to matters contained in the bill.

As the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) indicated, those of us who represent rural ridings have been waiting a long time for some kind of program to be implemented whereby sales tax would be eliminated or rebated to farmers in the purchase of material for the construction of grain bins and for grain-drying equipment. I brought this to the attention of ministry officials shortly after I was elected. Farmers just couldn’t understand why they were paying a sales tax on something that was almost as necessary on a farm as the farm equipment. So finally we have got around to the point where we are going to rebate them that tax.

Will the day come when we will completely eliminate that sales tax -- or after we get the election over with, whether it be this year or next year, or next month -- the tax be put back on materials used for the construction of storage bins? Why not eliminate the tax rather than simply implement a program of rebating the tax to the farmers?

I always marvel at the way the government capitalizes on programs that are initiated by the Liberal government in Ottawa. Despite what the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) says, he doesn’t know. I wonder if he knows that grants were given to farmers to build storage elevators from money that was originally devoted to the old feed freight assistance program. Most of the farmers have already built their grain bins and have bought their grain-drying equipment. The government comes along now -- big deal -- and says it will rebate them --

Mr. Nixon: It doesn’t cost them anything.

Mr. Riddell: That’s right. It is probably going to cost very little. It is not that we don’t welcome the good news that is contained in this bill, but the fact of the matter is, they are late and it took the federal government to come to the assistance of the farmers in order to get their grain bins built. I just had to work that in to show that these members on the left don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to agriculture.

5:50 p.m.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a number of new exemptions; most of them are exemptions that we welcome, although we think they perhaps don’t go far enough. Tax experts say the best retail sales tax is one that has the fewest exemptions. Their arguments are ease of administration, maximizing revenues and avoiding inequities between those who might qualify for the exemption and those who are just unable to qualify, but are very close in their circumstances.

However, exemptions from retail sales taxes have been adopted by most provinces for two main reasons. One is to make a regressive tax less regressive. That is a very important reason for exemptions. Some of the exemptions the minister is bringing in do achieve that, but to a very limited degree. We would like to see the sales tax made much less regressive by taking out children’s clothing and things like that, as my colleague has mentioned.

The second reason exemptions are adopted, despite the tax experts’ dislike of them, is that they can be used to encourage people to undertake certain activities. I think the minister’s exemption for the energy programs are in that category. Once again, I think they are mainly designed for the small amount of revenue that may be lost rather than for the effect they will have on our energy needs. I would like to have seen the minister give more aid to things like the promotion of solar energy.

However, there is the whole question of whether our retail sales tax is still regressive. I think the evidence is that, despite the exemptions we have on the books, it is still a regressive tax. It symbolizes the thinking of the government that they prefer a regressive tax to making our tax system progressive. This is why I think we should be urging the minister in future bills, or in amendments to this bill, to bring in more exemptions that will increase the progressivity of the tax.

One particular exemption I would like to see is child-restraint devices. This would encourage safety as well as making the tax less regressive. It seems to me this is an area that he should be considering, because the two tests of a good tax are met by this; it encourages activities that are desirable and it makes it less regressive. I would urge the minister to look at the philosophy behind his retail sales tax and consider further exemptions to make it more progressive.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we support the bill. In the few minutes left, I would ask the minister for some clarification regarding the matter of vehicles that are dual-fuel vehicles. The Pacific Natural Gas Company of California developed a system many years ago of powering vehicles with natural gas and with gasoline. The reason they kept the gasoline option was that the vehicle always has to return to home base to get a new charge of compressed gas. For that reason, they kept the dual-fuel system.

Union Gas Company of Chatham, a company I am sure the minister is familiar with, has been operating a test fleet for a number of years. I would like to ask the minister whether he has given consideration to exempting natural gas from the sales tax, or from the road tax, when it’s used to power a vehicle, and to exempting from the retail sales tax the vehicle when it’s purchased as long as it has that dual capacity.

As I read it, the minister has not, and I would suggest that should be changed because we have a great opportunity here in Ontario to move to natural-gas-propelled vehicles. They tell us we have gas for 150 years. We are selling it to the United States because we have such an excess. It has another great advantage in the matter of pollution. The pollution from using natural gas is a hundredth or so of using liquefied petroleum. I would ask the minister, when he responds, if he would give us some answers to those questions.

Mr. Laughren: I wonder when the minister --

Hon. Mr. Maeck: The member has already spoken.

Mr. Speaker: Has the honourable member already participated on second reading?

Mr. Laughren: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member knows he can only speak once.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I think I have to bring to the attention of the minister the position of the federal government concerning certain exemptions. I wonder whether the minister would consider adopting their exemptions, maybe selectively, as called for in the resolution originally passed by various municipalities, so that the federal and provincial exemptions would be uniform in Ontario.

The federal government, by order in council PC 1974-164, has exempted municipalities from excise tax on certain designated items. For the sake of uniformity, doesn’t the minister think it would be a good idea for his ministry to follow and do exactly the same thing?

Hon. Mr Maeck: Mr. Speaker, it won’t take long to answer this, since I have only about two and a half minutes by the look of things.

Mr. Peterson: Take your time.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: It’s okay; we can go beyond six.

Dealing first of all with the remarks of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk --

Mr. Peterson: Deal with licence plates.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Maybe I will talk about that a little bit and tell the members how nice it is to live in the riding of Parry Sound where you can buy licence plates for $10.

To get down to the matter at hand, I want to give a little detail on chillers, because I think there is some confusion as to what they are. I have some notes here somewhere, because I didn’t know anything about chillers either until all of this came up. To give an idea of what they do, I will use as an illustration a building with 48,000 square feet of total space, which would be occupied 10 hours a day, five days a week, and located in a climate that would range from 95 degrees Fahrenheit to zero degrees Fahrenheit. Studies of this model building revealed that a heat-reclaim chiller, which is what we are talking about here, with a storage tank, would be capable of saving 231,684 kilowatt-hours of energy each year. This amounts to about 35 per cent of the total energy bill; so it really is an energy-saving device.

For those who have not ever seen what a chiller looks like, it is not a heat pump, The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk mentioned -- all members have mentioned -- the farm storage bins and so on, and have said it is insignificant. But I don’t think its insignificant to the farmers out there. I will grant that it’s perhaps a little late, but it’s better late than never. Sometimes, somewhere, some way, we find some extra dollars, and this year we have found ways and means of exempting the grain bins for the farmers.

Mr. Riddell: Will you be eliminating the tax on the material?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: No, I don’t think we will, because of the administration problems involved. The member has to remember that, when it comes to construction of these grain bins, the material that goes into them has to be identified. If we were to do it the other way around, who would decide which material was exempt when the purchase was being made? It would be an administrative nightmare to the suppliers of the kind of material that would be needed to build the buildings.

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister have any more remarks on this? It is six o’clock.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Some questions were asked and I should answer them.

The House recessed at 6:01.