Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I have a message here from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, signed by her own hand.

Mr. Speaker: By her own hand, Pauline M. McGibbon, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1975, and recommends them to the legislative assembly, Toronto, April 27, 1974.

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to introduce to you and to the hon. members of this Legislature, grade 12 students of Mount Mary Immaculate Academy of Ancaster, sitting in the west gallery.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. members that we also have visiting us today, a group of students from the T. A. Blakelock High School in Oakville seated in the west gallery.

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a class of grade 7 students from St. Stanislaus School in the great city of Thunder Bay; they are sitting in the east gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

INQUIRY INTO HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES’ REMUNERATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, if he can give a report to the House on the status of the special negotiation with the hospital workers which the Premier (Mr. Davis) alluded to last Thursday; including any indication as to whether the government is going to make a policy statement that in some way will relieve the threat of yet another strike under these circumstances.

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): Yes, Mr. Speaker; as of last week it was obvious to us that the parties needed some assistance, perhaps technical assistance, from the Ministry of Labour. This assistance has been given; there were meetings held last week and other meetings are taking place today.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Would the minister not agree that as well as the technical assistance which he can undoubtedly offer, what is really needed is a clear statement of government policy that the funds will be available so the hospitals can enter into meaningful negotiations, so that the hospital workers can contemplate acceptance of a settlement that would be in their best interests, without being forced by government policy to go out on another illegal strike?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: As I say, Mr. Speaker, meetings are taking place at present, and I’m expecting a report from my staff.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I’m aware the minister does not want to say more, but can he give an assurance to the House that something other than the provision of some expert assistance in negotiation is taking place? Is there some specific commitment on the part of the government, either through the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), that funds are going to be able to be spent by the hospitals to reach a fair settlement?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is not shirking his responsibility. I’m very close to the situation; and as I say meetings are going on.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Another non-answer.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): By way of a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell me, for example, whether he has received the conciliation report in the dispute between the Riverdale Hospital and Local 79 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees? If not, when does he expect to get it, since it has been outstanding since some time in February?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: I cannot say for sure insofar as the Riverdale Hospital is concerned. I know that at one point last week conciliation services had been provided to three or four of the 12 hospitals.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a further supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary over here -- the hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Thank you. Is the minister aware that the provincial executive of the OSSTF reconfirmed their support for the hospital workers over the weekend and have recommended to their people that they support the hospital workers, including support on the picket lines if necessary? Doesn’t the minister think this escalation has gone far enough and that he should make some kind of statement as to the moneys that are going to be made available?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Well Mr. Speaker, once and for all, I want to assure the hon. members that if there is one member concerned in this Legislature today, it is the Minister of Labour; I hope that by next Wednesday I may have a statement to make.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): That is all the minister is saying, though. Let him give us some evidence.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a new question.

An hon. member: Oh, supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: I’ll permit one more supplementary.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a further supplementary question, will the minister make a definitive statement tomorrow about the exact state of negotiations between the Canadian Union of Public Employees and each of the hospitals in Metropolitan Toronto, so that we know exactly the state of the negotiations in each of those hospitals and can see what can be done to bring them to a successful conclusion?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, in this particular case and for the first time I think, the parties are trying to bargain on a regional basis, so I don’t know if I could give a report for every local. However, as I said earlier, I am planning to be in a position to make a statement in the middle of the week.

Mr. Renwick: The director of Riverdale Hospital is waiting for the conciliation report.

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Leader of the Opposition a new question?

POTATO SUPPLIERS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, further to a question a week ago based on an article in the Globe and Mail about potato pricing in the Metropolitan area which, it is alleged, comes under unnecessary and unfair restrictions, particularly the funding of the procedures whereby potato pricing does come under the unnatural controls which were referred to in that article. Is the minister now prepared to report to the House, either from the Food Council or from his independent research, whether there is a procedure whereby potato prices in the Toronto area are maintained at an unnaturally high level, and not to the benefit of the producers? Is there any indication that money from illegal sources is being channelled into the facilities that make this procedure possible?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, the matter is under investigation at the moment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: This is the second time the matter has been raised; it is something other than just a routine question. Can the minister indicate to me if it is being investigated by the police forces or if it is still being looked into by some assistant deputy minister in the agricultural ministry?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under investigation, and I have nothing more to add at this particular time. It is a very serious matter.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): By whom?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think the report as was printed in the press -- certainly there are many things about this that we want to look at very carefully and I can assure the member it is being done, and done in depth.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: By the OPP or by the agriculture officials?

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): It has been known for years. Why does it take the Globe to bring it to the minister s attention?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister: By the OPP or by the agricultural officials?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I have nothing further to add, Mr. Speaker. I can tell my hon. friend it’s under very definite, very close and indepth investigation.

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

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister says he has nothing further to add. Therefore there can be no more supplementaries. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Singer: He can be asked.

Mr. Shulman: Ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr).

LAND PURCHASES IN HALDIMAND-NORFOLK

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Treasurer: Has any action been taken to examine the possibility of making a purchase of land, in Haldimand-Norfolk, in the area which the minister knows very well, amounting to 12,000 acres in the former Townsend township -- that is, mostly in Townsend township -- which would evidently still be available at the option price of $1,600 per acre? Is the minister either negotiating himself, or prepared to turn over to the newly elected regional council, the responsibility for making decisions on the possible acquisition of this land?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there have been proposals made from time to time by a representative of the consortium with respect to these lands. The early proposals were not acceptable to me because they involved a form of joint venture which I thought was not appropriate. The most recent proposal, which followed a conversation with the representative of the consortium, offers the lands for sale unconditionally at their cost plus certain expenses, plus an acquisition fee.

On receipt of that proposal, I sent it to the Minister of Government Services whose experts have been asked to evaluate it. More recently, in fact, I think last Friday, the Clarkson Gordon company has been asked to vet certain of the information contained in the proposal and that accounting firm will have a reply for us, an evaluation for us, about seven days hence.

I had a conversation this morning with the chairman of Haldimand-Norfolk. The executive committee is meeting on Wednesday and will get an expression of opinion from the members of the executive committee. The council proper will meet on Thursday and each member of the regional council will be asked to express his opinion about the suit- ability of the alternative townsites available to us. When we have that input from the region, the government will have to make a decision as to whether or not the consortium lands are suitable and whether the financial proposal or some modification therefore is acceptable.

GO-URBAN SYSTEM

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question, finally Mr. Speaker, with your permission, of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. With reference to the report that was made available from his office, entitled “Preliminary Report on Station Configurations and Dimensions for the GO-Urban Transit System”, it now appears this preliminary report indicates that the stations tor the GO-Urban system may very well be something less than what the Premier described in November, 1972. It does not appear, from the aesthetic point of view, that they will fit very well into the modern city, since their lengths will run up to 1,000 feet and more and their widths up to 50 to 60 feet. Can the minister indicate whether the policy group over which he has jurisdiction has considered this preliminary report, and if they are still intent on going forward with the expenditures associated with the GO-Urban programme since these reports, one after the other, indicate the concept is not fitting into the needs of the modern cities?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe the policy committee has, in fact, seen that particular report.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Well what have they seen?

Mr. Roy: Has the minister seen it?

Mr. Singer: Maybe that’s because the report is labelled December, 1974.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The particular report being referred to was one that was made available to the study group that was looking into the Scarborough Expressway and other transportation studies that were going on. It was an internal report made available to them for their information.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that some of the points that have been made in the article to which the hon. Leader of the Opposition is referring really are not that accurate as to the size, because the figures that were used in the report indicate the total length of the station, including the switching area required. In fact, the stations themselves would not be at all in excess of 1,000 feet as referred to in the article.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Considering my leader’s previous question, and considering the fact that the minister’s officials now estimate the total cost of the experiment at the CNE is increased by 40 per cent, does the minister intend to live up to the promise made by his predecessor that: “There will be $17.5 million spent in total on the Toronto demonstration system and not a dime spent further until that is, in fact, successful”?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s what he said.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I cannot --

Mr. Singer: Be bound!

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- be bound if you will, by previous comments that have been made.

Mr. Reid: The minister won’t last long. After making his promises they’ll be putting him back.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members, I think, will appreciate that a figure of $17 million as was quoted at that time, obviously is subject to the inflationary factors that we are living with in this country.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): So long ago!

Mr. Givens: Supplementary.

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

Mr. Givens: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Scarborough West.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): What’s the matter with the member for Scarborough West? Can’t he hear?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Now that the estimates are verging on an increase in excess of 50 per cent of the first figure calculated, when is the minister going to have, for the Legislature, his set of predictions, presumably for his successor then to deal with? When will he have that?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: When will he repudiate it?

Mr. Breithaupt: In the last two minutes it has gone from 40 to 50 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I said to the House last week I would get the figures that were asked for and I will bring them before the House. I’m in the process of doing that.

Mrs. Campbell: This year?

Mr. Givens: This year?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, this year they’ll be here.

Mr. Reid: Even if he isn’t the minister?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t intend, as I said last week, to bring them in piece by piece. I’ll bring in what the members asked for and present it to them at that time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We’ll keep asking.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may: Will the minister not agree the figures that are now being used have very little to do with inflationary factors but have a great deal to do with the underestimate which was originally contained in the government’s analysis? Is there a ceiling beyond which the government will not go? Can the minister indicate that publicly?

Mr. Givens: It is $17.5 million.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I still feel that most of the cost figures -- and again these will be brought here -- indicate there is, a very very real factor involving the inflationary problem in this country today that’s, adding to these costs. Members will have a chance to see it.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): It’s all inflation?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well do the members not recognize that?

Mr. Lewis: It’s not inflation. Ten per cent is inflation, but not 50 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member will have to revise his figures then, because he has been talking over the last four years at 10 per cent a year.

Mr. Lewis: Not in the months we’ve talked about this project.

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

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member can’t have it both ways. Either there is inflation or there isn’t.

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

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

POTATO SUPPLIERS

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Solicitor General if I may. Are any of the police forces associated with or attached to his ministry entering into an investigation into the potato matter which was raised with the Minister of Agriculture and Food?

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Potato chips.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the investigation is being carried out under the aegis of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

I am not aware that any police force itself is involved in this investigation. I understand it is a matter of the Food Council being involved and also the possibility of charges being laid under the Combines Investigation Act.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does that mean that no one in the Solicitor General’s ministry that he knows of -- and I presume that would also be true of the Ministry of the Attorney General -- has yet been called in on the investigation with Agriculture and Food?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am not aware of any such request, Mr. Speaker.

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

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Mr. Lewis: Yes, a question of the Minister of Natural Resources:

Can I ask the minister what he intends to do about the emergency situation in Elliot Lake, where 700 workers in the Denison Mines have been on a wildcat strike now since Friday -- I believe it is since Friday -- in objection to the safety and health hazards that exist in the mine?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Re- sources): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is much aware of the efforts we are employing in the Elliot Lake area. We are working very closely with the Ministry of Health; just last week I had the officials of the union in my office and we discussed the matter in complete detail. We are moving ahead and they seemed quite satisfied when they left my office at that particular time.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, can the minister explain the measure of satisfaction, since for the first time in the 18 year history of the mine, 700 people have walked off the job because of safety hazards; 60 safety hazards enumerated on Saturday, many of which contravened the Mining Act as it is now constituted? What does his ministry intend to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, my ministry and the officials of my department of mining section are on top of this matter. I am just waiting for a full report from them and when I have that I will take further steps.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, is the minister aware that on Nov. 6, 1973, and again on April 16, 1973, his chief mining engineer for Ontario, Mr. Davis, indicated there were no reports of safety problems in the Denison Mines? Therefore how can he say he is on top of the matter when 700 people are out on strike for that reason now?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, we are entirely on top of the matter. We have been on top of it for some considerable time and studies and discussions have been going on with the union. In fact the Ministry of Health has done extensive x-rays of the miners in that particular area.

We have done some very exhaustive studies and we have had experts in the field. We have had difficulty getting the type of experts in ventilation and the various problems that are associated with a uranium mine. These experts are pulled together now and we are moving ahead with what they are asking for.

Mr. J. F. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the high incidence of silicosis in the uranium mines at Elliot Lake, what does the minister, in concert with his colleague the Minister of Health, intend to do to insist that that industry clean up?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Thunder Bay is aware of the very intensive study we have embarked upon, in fact it is at the press right now. It was prepared by Prof. Patterson. That report, of course, will give us some indication as to the seriousness of the matter and maybe some direction as to which way we should go.

We are also working very closely with the Ministry of Health, as I pointed out just a moment ago, in the x-ray field where we are moving at great speed. In fact we have made more marks and made more mileage in the last six or eight months than we have in the previous three or four years. So we are well aware of the situation and we are moving in the right direction, I am positive.

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Labour: Is the Minister of Labour aware that since the legislation has been changed, 107 pensions have been granted by the Workmen’s Compensation Board between Jan. 1 and March 1 of 1974, for silicotic victims, primarily from the Elliot Lake area; and is the minister prepared to put some pressure on his colleague to do something about the unheard of conditions in the Denison Mines and the Rio Algoma areas?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, we are working very closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources and I will make it a point to look into it myself personally.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Health a question?

After the promises made in November, 1973, to the workers in Elliot Lake about silicosis, about tuberculosis and about radiation hazards prompting the possible incidence of cancer, why is it that they had to come back this month and beg for the kind of health survey which the minister had indicated would be undertaken and have not yet been undertaken; and now we have 700 people out on strike because of the health and safety hazards in the uranium industry?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I haven’t any fast reply to that question. It is one of those issues we have been looking at in connection with occupational hazards in industries, and just this morning I spent quite a bit of time talking about it. We are very anxious to determine, in fact, the cause and effect relationships in that industry.

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

Mr. Lewis: One last question, of the Premier: Given the government’s emphasis on uranium now; given the contracts entered into with Japan and Spain; and given the description of incredible conditions in the mine -- about heavy equipment operated with less power than is required, with dust conditions where workers cannot see each other, with ventilation problems which leave people gasping in the mine -- can the Premier somehow co-ordinate the activities of the ministries in order to respond energetically to the problems of Elliot Lake which have forced these 700 men to leave their work?

Mr. Roy: The Premier needs a superminister, that’s what he needs; some more superministers.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Natural Resources pointed out, his ministry has been very much aware of the situation and is working towards solutions to some of the problems. If it would help the hon. member, I’d be delighted to discuss it with him again and with the Minister of Health. The government is concerned and is quite prepared to take whatever steps will help resolve the situation. As the minister pointed out, he met with some of the representatives just last week on this very subject.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

INTERNS’ AND RESIDENTS’ DISPUTE WITH HOSPITALS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Could the Minister of Health tell us if he is going to do anything about the problem raised to him by the Interns and Residents Association of Ontario, because his letter of March 19 addressed to the Ontario Council of Administrators of

Teaching Hospitals, suggesting that the Minister of Labour might supply mediation or that individual hospital boards might have another look at the situation, has obviously been ignored and the problems of salaries, working conditions and the very serious problems raised by the interns and residents remain unsolved and continue as a festering sore in our health service system?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to meet some of these interns and residents not too long ago on an unofficial basis and I believe they too have had some change in their approach to things. We felt, at that time, that the proper place for these discussions on salaries and hours was within the teaching hospitals and universities. I still feel that is the proper place for these discussions.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary, I presume the minister refers to a meeting held close to the March 19 date, which is the date of the letter that he sent forward. Is the minister not aware that since sending forward the letter the situation hasn’t changed one bit; that the Minister of Labour has not been accepted as the conciliator nor have any of the individual hospitals chosen to bargain? I am advised that the interns and residents are more angry than ever and that the minister is doing nothing except exacerbate an already very difficult and unfair situation.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will look into this, but there is a tendency always to assume the minister should interpose himself into operations that are quite properly between two other parties. It is a good thing not to interfere with those operations until you’re needed.

Mr. Singer: Well, the minister is needed right now.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

LAKE SUPERIOR OUTFLOWS

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): I have a question, Mr. Speaker, of the Premier. In view of the failure of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) to meet his commitment to me on April 9 to supply this Legislature with the detailed information on the regulation of Lake Superior; and in view of the meeting reported by Canadian Press on April 11 between himself and Governor Milliken of Michigan in which, and I’m quoting:

“The two leaders agreed that the International Joint Commission should adopt a new water regulation plan for Lake Superior and that the two federal governments should provide compensation for power interests at Sault Ste. Marie and property owners along Lake Superior damaged by higher water levels.”

Is the Premier now prepared to tell the people of Ontario what specific regulation plan for Lake Superior he has agreed to and whether or not he is prepared to agree to the use of Lake Superior as a reservoir for the Great Lakes water system?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the Governor of Michigan and I made those final determinations. I think what we did agree to, or what we felt had merit, was to have the International Joint Commission, which is I think the appropriate body in this case, deal with it. That really is the substance of what was said by both Governor Milliken and myself.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Why then does the story say -- which gives the implication that an agreement has been reached and he has agreed with the federal plan -- that there should be compensation for higher water levels on Lake Superior? If he says he has not agreed to any plan, why is he saying there should be compensation for proposed higher water levels?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the discussions and the statement, it referred to the responsibilities of the International Joint Commission, and if in its wisdom -- and this would have to be accepted by both federal governments, not by the State of Michigan or the Province of Ontario -- this led to a programme which did have some negative effect, and obviously some very positive effect, the question of compensation should be something that the International Joint Commission should study in its recommendations.

Mr. Foulds: A final supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Is the Premier not aware that in fact the federal Canadian government and the federal US government have agreed in principle to a regulation plan and that they are awaiting concurrence from the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the federal government at Ottawa and the American government have had discussions on this issue and on a number of other issues. I’m not sure there is an agreement. I will check that out and find out whether there is in fact an agreement.

I mean, we had an agreement with Canada and the United States with respect to water quality, which was really the main basis for my discussions with Governor Milliken, but the American government has not met its commitment under that agreement. Our concern is that this be approached through the International Joint Commission and this is really the essence of that part of the statement made by Governor Milliken and myself.

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

Mr. Foulds: Point of order --

Mr. Speaker: I had three supplementaries from the same member; it is sufficient.

Mr. Foulds: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order.

Mr. Foulds: I would like to inform you and will further inform you in writing that I do not deem the minister’s answer satisfactory and under standing order 27(g) will request a debate tomorrow night.

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

Mr. Roy: The Premier is going to have to come back Tuesday.

An hon. member: The late show.

Mr. Roy: Does the member like the late show?

SMITHS FALLS HOSPITALS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health, and the question deals with the Smiths Falls situation: In view of the fact there has been improper utilization of hospital beds and a report of the College of Physicians and Surgeons in fact indicated that 80 per cent of the beds in both hospitals were being misused -- something like 109 beds out of 189 -- what does his ministry plan to do to correct that situation and save the taxpayers from abuses by the hospitals and by certain physicians in that city?

An hon. member: He’s going to make the beds.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Smiths Falls is not unique in the Province of Ontario, where we have --

Mr. Roy: What he is admitting is that he is wasting millions.

An hon. member: Oh, listen to the answer.

Hon. Mr. Miller: May I suggest that when we try to take remedial measures in some of the areas that are in the member’s riding, that he should assist us, too.

Mr. Roy: I am prepared to co-operate in anything.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It is very simple to talk about the things the government should do as long as they are not in the member’s own riding.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: He has to cover that riding, too.

Hon. Mr. Miller: There are two hospitals in that town, as I understand, and that is true through many rural Ontario communities. It is true not only of rural municipalities, but it is particularly true of rural municipalities where perhaps sound economics would dictate only one or a combination of services.

Our ministry has been working very actively with both hospitals in that municipality -- firstly, in an attempt to buy one of the hospitals, I believe the member will find; and secondly, to amalgamate services and define the roles if that course of action doesn’t materialize. We are still, I think, having a good deal of co-operation and assistance from the people in both hospitals in that municipality and I hope we are on the verge of solving the problems.

Mr. Roy: If I might, as a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In light of the fact that last year the deputy minister made a suggestion that 18 active treatment beds be reclassified as chronic care beds in Smiths Falls, and it was subsequent to pressure from certain Tory doctors on the minister’s predecessor that the ministry’s mind was changed, does he plan to continue this approach to bend to the will of the doctors who are abusing these beds? In fact, may I say, Mr. Speaker, on this question is the minister not in fact admitting that the situation in Smiths Falls -- which by conservative estimates is a waste of about $1 million a year -- goes on throughout the province?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been the policy of this ministry over the past year and a half to take some very real steps in terms of rationalizing the hospital bed situation in the Province of Ontario. We can show that some 1,700 beds were taken out of active treatment service during the past 12 months, in an attempt to provide the services that people need at the price they can afford. There is no question that in this particular area we would be better off to take some of the beds and put them into chronic hospital use, and that is the basis on which our discussions are going on.

Mr. Roy: Why did the ministry back off last year?

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

ODC PERFORMANCE LOANS

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Can the minister explain why 18 performance loans in the amount of $1.5 million have been granted by the Ontario Development Corp. seven full months after the announced cancellation of the granting of forgivable loans or performance loans?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, at the time we announced the cancellation of the performance loans we made it extremely clear to this House that we would be looking at applications for about a six-month period thereafter. Applications that had been filed by the end of July of last year would be looked at up until December of that same year. Those loans were extended on that basis.

Mr. Stokes: A supplementary: Is it an ad- mission, then, by the minister, that it takes six to seven months to evaluate the applications for performance loans that are coming into the Northern Ontario Development Corp. or the Ontario Development Corp.? Is that the minister’s admission that it takes them seven years to evaluate these applications?

An hon. member: Seven months, seven months.

An hon. member: The member for Thunder Bay said seven years.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: Seven months.

Mr. Reid: Seven years is closer.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we can assess or evaluate the applications a great deal more quickly than that, but at times it requires the assistance of the applicants to make sure they have all of the information filed with ODC, NODC or EODC. Quite often we find that information is not available and for some period of time it’s held up by the applicant. Until they have it in, sir, we cannot make a final decision.

They were informed that if the information was not in the hands of the development corporations before the end of December, 1973, the applications would be waived in default as a dead file.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-Forest Hill.

U.S. REACTION TO LAND TRANSFER TAX

Mr. Givens: Could I ask the Minister of Revenue whether it is true that various American mortgage-lending institutions are now holding up all mortgage loans pending the passage of the land transfer tax and speculative tax legislation to determine whether these pieces of legislation will adversely affect them; and that this will have a devastating effect on the quantum of mortgage loans in this province?

Mr. Shulman: It’s on the order paper.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, it has not come to my attention directly that any number of corporations may be doing this. I mentioned last week that it had come to my attention that there was at least one such lending institution that was concerned about the matter; and in that instance I assured their counsel that their mortgage advances being made to their builders would not be in a secondary position to any liens which my ministry took back in the event the property were eventually sold to a non-resident Canadian.

Now whether others may be doing that at this time, I am not in a position to say.

Mr. Shulman: All are, all are.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I might observe, though, that that happens to be one of the reasons why I have indicated my anxiety and my desire to get on with the completion of the Land Transfer Tax Act.

Mr. Lewis: The government is drying up all the mortgage funds, land --

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: What is the Premier talking about? He is going to make it tougher to get housing than it is now.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order; the hon. member for High Park is next.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Davis: The leader of the NDP would not have a nickel of mortgage money going.

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

LOSSES FROM BROKEN LIQUOR CASES

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, if we may turn to a lighter minister, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is not a light weight.

Mr. Roy: He is better looking.

Mr. Shulman: Can the minister comment on the unique packaging and cartage methods used by his department which resulted in 301 out of 319 cases that arrived at Freedland St. last Thursday being smashed; and can the minister comment on how much material disappeared out of those smashed cases en route?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Cases of what?

Mr. Shulman: Beverage of some kind.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh beverages; oh, I see. Is that milk?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations ): Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware there were any cases of, I gather alcoholic beverages being broken. I will find out -- unless the hon. member wishes to work through his usual sources.

Mr. Roy: The minister wishes he had been there instead of the member.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is an issue to get the member’s party elected.

Mr. Lewis: We need one.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I just wasn’t aware of it. I didn’t catch the number. Did the member say 300 and --

Mr. Shulman: There were 301 out of the 319 smashed on arrival.

An hon. member: Call the shipper --

Hon. Mr. Clement: I see. Were they smashed when they arrived or after they got here?

Mr. Shulman: Both.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Thanks very much.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

TORONTO AREA GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr. Breithaupt: It might have been the staff that was “smashed”.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister investigating the private garbage disposal business in the Toronto area further to the recent reports in the press that two American companies are apparently taking over the industry and forcing smaller operators out of business?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, we are aware of all the potential sites in the greater Metro area and who owns them at this point in time; and we are investigating all the sites, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Roy: The minister is familiar with the garbage business, isn’t he?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Ottawa East knows all about garbage.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary; yes.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. B. Newman: Could I ask the minister to consider looking into the ownership of that type of industry in other areas besides the city of Toronto, because in my local area Sasso Disposal are owned by Browning-Ferris of Dallas, Texas.

Hon. W. Newman: Yes; I must be careful in answering the question. We are looking at the total right throughout the province, at all these sites.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

FINES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ACT

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Labour.

Doesn’t the minister agree with the inspector under the Construction Safety Act that the fines that are levied by provincial judges for violations under the Act become a licence for the construction industry to violate the Act, since they are much lower than the penalty clauses normally incorporated into their contracts? And does he not believe that it might be necessary at this time to establish a minimum fine in addition to a maximum fine, in order to bring the fines into line and to bring about better construction safety?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t dare to make a statement at this time until I have really looked at the whole matter myself.

Mr. Deans: Is the minister aware that the fines for violations under the Construction Safety Act average no more than $150, even though the maximum is $10,000; and that a $150 fine in a major construction project is, in fact, no fine at all?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: The hon. member knows full well that we have up to a maximum of $10,000 and it is left to the court to decide as to the amount of the fine. So I doubt if the Minister of Labour should really interfere with the court in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

NURSING HOMES RESIDENCE AGREEMENT

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware that some nursing homes have a clause in their residence agreement that in the event of death the resident is obligated to pay the full month’s care regardless of the day the person expires?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have to say no, I am not aware; but I would be glad to look at it.

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

REHABILITATION OF PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health: What provision has the ministry made for the care and rehabilitation of patients from the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital whose discharge back into the Windsor area is being, or already has been, directed?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we are, as I am sure the member knows, taking steps to rehabilitate quite a few people from our psychiatric hospitals. We are trying to move them out of the major institutions and back to a form of care that is more useful to them.

In many instances we are moving people into homes for special care, as I am sure he is aware, in an attempt to bring them into a less institutional environment. This is the approach we are taking in that general area; in fact one might say in the general area around any of our psychiatric hospitals, which at this point in time are considered to be full of, say chronic psychiatric patients rather than active treatment psychiatric patients.

Mr. Burr: A supplementary: Is it the policy of the ministry to establish halfway houses or sheltered workshops for such patients in those areas?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I can safely say it is ministry policy to assist in halfway houses for psychiatric patients. One of the problems, of course, is obtaining the proper kind of location and management for these; both for the psychiatric patient and for other types of patients, such as the alcoholic.

Mr. Burr: A supplementary: Does that mean the minister looks with favour on sheltered workshops and halfway houses?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I have just read a brief on that area of activity, Mr. Speaker, and I would say yes, I look with favour upon that kind of thing.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

MARKETING OF “FANCY HONEY”

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Is he aware that an artificial product has been introduced to the consumer within relatively recent times called Fancy Honey, which is a sugared syrup artificially flavoured to resemble honey but it is anything but the product of honey bees? Is it not contrary to the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act to give an artificial product a natural product name, and such being the case would he see that the word “honey” is removed from this product?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, we had a meeting with the honey producers’ executive last week on this point and the matter is under consideration to see how we can possibly deal with it.

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

PRESCRIPTION OF DRUGS BY OPTOMETRISTS

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain why he has gone against the advice of his own experts and allowed optometrists the use of drugs?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first of all I am very pleased to have a question from the member for High Park. I had stopped eating apples some time ago, when he stopped asking me questions, in the hope that he might return to his daily procedure -- and it has finally worked.

I suppose he is jumping to a conclusion that I received one piece of information from one person in a matter of advice. I understand the hon. member has a copy and I know that a number of other people have a copy of this advice. Just how they got it I’m not quite sure, but I’m very curious to know.

Mr. Lewis: Why?

Mr. Shulman: It was delivered by hand.

Mr. Roy: If the minister asks me, I will tell him.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I can safely say that this one issue received a great deal of consideration and a great deal of advice was given about it. The position the ministry took in enunciating the health disciplines bill was taken after a very great deal of thought. I believe it is a fair position.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary. I wonder --

Mr. Shulman: May I ask the first supplementary?

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

Mr. Shulman: Can the minister name one senior person within his department who supports his view?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can, but I won’t.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the minister if he doesn’t feel the situation he is responding to in this question is almost identically analogous to the situation involving dentists and denturists? Why should he take such a strange position with the denturists since he is prepared to allow the optometrists this particular responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Certainly it’s a good thing that the hon. member is not in the governing party, because I think he would find there is a fundamental difference between the denturists and the optometrists. One is a graduate of university in the Province of Ontario; the other person has not yet proved his competence by any method of testing.

Mr. Roy: Obviously the minister didn’t understand the question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, a supplementary: Is the minister not then prepared --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying in his answer that the position regarding denturists is not going to change and that he is going to work with the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) to continue the raids on the denturists’ premises and to proceed with the charges against them?

Mr. Lewis: Did he say all that?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Again, I would point out to the hon. member that he is jumping to conclusions not based upon fact.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And which is not true.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The last question was asked by a member of the New Democratic Party. There are just a few moments left and we shouldn’t have any more supplementaries.

The hon. member for Welland South.

STUDY OF VINYL CHLORIDE

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is his ministry considering an extensive study of vinyl chloride as to its ability to cause cancer among certain employees employed in related industries?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Well I don’t think we have any money in our budget this year concerning such a study. Perhaps I can look for money in next year’s budget.

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

PRESCRIPTION OF DRUGS BY OPTOMETRISTS

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister say what drugs he intends to give optometrists the power to prescribe; whether some of those drugs are lethal in certain quantities; and what training he believes that optometrists have in the use of these drugs?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well I am interested to note, as a matter of fact, that the hon. member is an advocate of the medical point of view.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Isn’t the minister jumping to conclusions?

Mr. Cassidy: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I will be glad to. In the bill, if the hon. member has taken the time to read it, we say that an optometrist may use such drugs for such purposes as are permitted in the regulations. That is the way the bill reads.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, but what are those drugs?

Hon. Mr. Miller: The drugs that are to be permitted, insofar as I understand it at this point in time, although the regulations are not finalized, are the topical anaesthetics for the use of tonometry only.

Mr. Cassidy: Well Mr. Speaker, a supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary only.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister not aware that some of those drugs are lethal in certain quantities; and what controls does he intend to apply to the non-medical use of those drugs?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, Aspirin is lethal in certain quantities.

Mr. Shulman: Don’t put it in the eye.

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

DAAL SPECIALTIES LTD.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the Minister of Labour aware that Allied Chemical, the American owner of Daal Specialties Ltd. in Windsor, is planning on either moving the facility from the Windsor area or completely closing the plant?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Yes Mr. Speaker; there have been a number of rumours floating around the Windsor area in connection with the Daal Specialties plant. This plant, I understand, employs some 400 people, 300 of them being female. The company is engaged in the fabrication of seat belts, and I am informed that because of a reduction in production and technical changes it would appear that the company has been affected. I understand that two of their plants already have been closed down in the United States. However, this is only rumour, as I state; I haven’t had any official notice from the company. I did hear, as well as my hon. friend did perhaps, that rumours have it they might leave Windsor to go to the Collingwood plant but I wouldn’t want him to think for a moment this is official. They are only rumours.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has now been exceeded.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the estimates of the following ministries be referred to the standing resources development committee: the Ministry of the Environment; the Ministry of Natural Resources; the Ministry of Transportation and Communications; and the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Stokes: In that order?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Not necessarily. I will inform members later today.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend the Educational Communications Authority Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, this amendment removes the requirement that not fewer than three and not mare than four members of the board of directors of the authority be civil servants.

MASTER AND FELLOWS OF MASSEY COLLEGE ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Master and Fellows of Massey College Act, 1960-1961.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: About time, that one.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Great stuff.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That one the minister could nationalize.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, this amendment would allow a student, either male or female, who is a graduate student studying for a further degree at the University of Toronto to be a resident of Massey College. I hope members wont ask to change the name of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The ninth order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 26, the Land Transfer Tax Act, 1974.

LAND TRANSFER TAX ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Tell them what is wrong with the bill.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) : I am a little embarrassed by this bill, because I am attacking the wrong minister here. I know the hon. Treasurer (Mr. White) was responsible for bringing it forth. I consider the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) one of my friends in this House and for what I am about to do to him I apologize as one friend to another.

Without a doubt, this is the worst bill -- not as to intent but as to result -- that has ever been brought into this House. The minister intended two purposes when he brought the bill in. He wanted to stop foreign money coming into the country in the form of equity ownership but he wanted to encourage debt to come in.

He wanted the mortgage money to continue to come because it has to come in. If it stops coming in, interest rates are going to rise very rapidly and people just aren’t going to be able to get mortgages. The result of the bill is going to be exactly the opposite of what he intended.

Last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, I telephoned one of the lawyers who specializes in real estate in this city. I am not going to use his name because it would embarrass him with his clients -- I am one of them -- and I said to him, “I have some friends who are not Canadian citizens. Actually, they live in Switzerland. They have been doing a great deal of purchasing of land in this province and they would like to continue to do so but they don’t wish to pay the 20 per cent penalty. On the other hand they don’t wish to break the law and in fact, they insist the law not be broken. Is it possible for them to continue to buy land here in this province, without paying the penalty and by remaining within the law?” I received this reply back from him, delivered by hand, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to read it to the minister. First of all, let’s take care of the equity half of the matter. We will come to the debt shortly.

“Dear Mr. Shulman:

“You asked me to lay out a method whereby your Swiss friends may make a $2 million purchase of Brampton real estate without paying the new 20 per cent land transfer tax. I understand that they insist that everything be done perfectly legally and, of course, that is the only way I would go along with it in any case. There is really no problem at all. As soon as your people are prepared to proceed I will set up a new Ontario corporation with two classes of stock, common and class A. Our firm will hold 51 per cent of the common and the remaining shares will be divided up between the Swiss, but no individual may hold more than 25 per cent."

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): That is a loyal Canadian.

Mr. Shulman: To continue:

“It is, of course, fully understood that the common shares will have complete control of the management of the company and will make the decisions as to which land is to be purchased although we will, of course, be pleased to receive advice from the minority shareholders, your clients.

“The class A shares will be held entirely by your Swiss friends and provisions will be put into the charter to the effect that all income and disbursements of capital to the extent of 99 per cent of both shall be distributed to the class A stock. Using this method the provisions of Bill 26 are not violated in any way and your friends will be able to make their purchases without the added 20 per cent expense because, of course, control remains in Canada.

“The cost will be nominal. Please forward a cheque for $2,500 and there will be in addition the usual management charges.

“Yours sincerely.”

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Is that just for the letter?

Mr. Deans: That is an expensive letter.

Mr. Shulman: That is for setting up the corporation. The $2,500 is for setting up the corporation and for doing the other various researches that are necessary.

Mr. Deans: What does the minister say to that?

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Treasurer has left because he is the man who brought this bill in. Over the phone the lawyer made one other comment to me and I hate to pass this on, but in this small body I am sure it wouldn’t be reported. He said, “Having read the bill it was my impression it was drawn up by someone’s junior although, on second thought, it might have been drawn up by one of the lawyers in the Attorney General’s department. Perhaps that is the ex- planation.”

I know that is not the explanation. The explanation is quite different. I will come to the explanation shortly but first of all, before we leave that aspect of it, I want to come to the other half. The minister says he doesn’t want equity to come in but he does want debt. He wants the mortgage money. In fact, he needs the mortgage money but what everybody forgot when they set up this bill -- and it is so simple that it boggles my mind that they forgot it -- is no more mortgage money can come in because they can never foreclose. Who is going to put up mortgage money where if he has to foreclose, if the payments are not kept up, he suddenly has a 20 per cent tax put upon him? In order to do that, if the minister really wants to put on the 20 per cent tax, if he really wants to run the risk of having this happen, he has to raise the interest rates at least two or three per cent a year.

Let’s suppose the minister is going to bring in an amendment saying foreclosures won’t be covered. He has to do that or else there is not going to be any more mortgage money. It is finished; dried up.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Did the member read the bottom?

Mr. Shulman: Yes, I read the bottom. If the minister brings in an amendment to that, saying foreclosures will be allowed or exemptions can be allowed, suddenly we have a hole so big one can drive a truck through because when equity wants to come in, it doesn’t come in as owners; it comes in as mortgagors. So we are had if we do and we are had if we don’t. It is just an impossible situation.

In actual fact, he doesn’t have to worry because, although he may only be aware of one company involved, every foreign mortgage company has stopped lending in Ontario. They stopped last week and if one goes out and tries to get a mortgage today from any of them, one can’t get it. All the minister has to do is get on the phone and he will find that out.

The member for York-Forest Hill is perfectly right; they are sufficiently upset about the implications and lack of thought in the bill that there isn’t mortgage money available. In fact, it has gone a little further. All real estate transactions, for all practical purposes, have stopped. There is a sudden lull; where everything was rushing through, now everything has stopped because nobody knows what is going to happen. They know the bill can’t live as it is. It has to be radically changed. But can it be changed sufficiently to allow these various inequities to be ironed out and still have any of the original effects the minister intended? I doubt it. So do the lawyers; so do the mortgage companies.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): They think the government is a bunch of amateurs.

Mr. Shulman: They are not amateurs. I can explain what happened.

Mr. Givens: But he used to close so many deals himself.

Mr. Shulman: He had nothing to do with the bill; it was the good old Treasurer. The Treasurer said one day, “We’ve got to have a great budget here and what are we going to put in it? We really haven’t got much to put in the budget. What would be great would be a land transfer tax.” He said to the people in his department -- and where he made his mistake was he didn’t give them enough time -- “I want a 50 per cent land transfer tax.” That was turned down by the cabinet, Mr. Speaker. The cabinet refused that. He went back and said, “How about a 20 per cent land transfer tax?”

The cabinet bought it but they didn’t leave enough time for the people in his department to draw up the bill; it was drawn up hastily. They had about 2 1/2 to three days to do it and they didn’t have time to think through the implications. The lawyers made the mistake but I can’t blame them because the government didn’t give them enough time. That is purely and simply the answer.

I don’t want to belabour the point. The bill is an abomination. It is going to force up the price of land. It is going to force up the price of mortgaging. It is going to force up the price of real estate. It is not going to do the things which the minister wants it to do, which is keep out foreign ownership. In the odd case of small people, the guy who is buying a cottage or something, he will come in and buy his little piece of land and pay the 20 per cent transfer tax; but he is just going to add that on when he resells it. The minister is going to force up the price of little housing, too.

The bill is such a mistake that I have one piece of advice to offer the minister -- withdraw the bill; take it back. We agree with the intention behind it; we know he was trying to do the right thing but it was just badly thought out; perhaps I should say it was not thought out. I offer the minister as a friendly suggestion -- and I really mean it this way -- the bill won’t work.

If he lets it go through over his name, six months from now he is going to cry “uncle” and he is going to wish he had never heard of this bill.

The price of land, the price of real estate in this province is going to be up by at least 20 to 25 per cent within that time. The foreign money will come in as before except it won’t be coming in as debt which is how he needs it; the price of mortgages will be 15 per cent in this province. He can come back and laugh at me if I am wrong. If he puts this bill through, by Christmas we will have 15 per cent first mortgages in this province because there just isn’t enough Canadian money to supply the mortgages and we are not going to get the foreign money any more. The minister has scared the hell out of them.

Mr. Speaker, I won’t belabour this any further. I can only say that amendments will not save this bill; the bill is going to produce exactly the opposite of what the minister intended. I very strongly recommend to him, as a friend of the government, that he repent and withdraw and bring it back in a more acceptable form.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Who is the friend?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is with somewhat mixed feelings that I rise to take part in this debate. It is always a problem if one is not the first or third or fourth speaker on these matters, because most of those great ideas one has had have been pretty well covered by other speakers.

First of all, I would continue saying as my colleagues have and the NDP have, the bill will not work. It is too flawed, has too many loopholes and, really, as has been pointed out on occasions before, the principle of the bill in itself is flawed. We have yet to hear really what the principle of the bill is, what it really intends to do.

If it intends to cut off equity investment in the Province of Ontario obviously it doesn’t do that. All it does is make the cost of doing business in the Province of Ontario 20 per cent more expensive. If that was the reason, obviously it is not going to work.

If, Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill was to improve the amount of housing on the market in the Province of Ontario, obviously it is not going to do that either.

What then is the principle of the bill? The member for High Park has probably given as logical an explanation as to what has happened as anyone else. The cabinet decided in their wisdom that they had to do something. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) was making great speeches around the province that he was going to do something about speculators, and so they came up almost overnight with some kind of policy to try to combat this situation and a policy somehow to control it.

It’s interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Treasurer, whose last budget perhaps was supposed to be his monument, is having problems with this budget. You will recall last year one of the principal items that the Treasurer put forward for the general benefit of the people of the Province of Ontario was an increase in the sales tax with an added seven per cent new tax on home heating oil and fuel. The Treasurer was forced to retreat on that. I would suggest that if he and his colleagues, particularly the Minister of Revenue, will give this bill a sober second look, they will take it back and bring in a new bill which will not confuse and dismay not only people outside of the Province of Ontario but certainly Ontario residents themselves.

Mr. Speaker, it’s a continuation really of the government’s programme to govern by headline. If you talk to a lot of ordinary citizens who would not ordinarily deal in these kinds of matters, they will say the government is doing great things; but it’s a farce and a sham and it’s hypocritical to proceed with this bill as it is now.

My own political philosophy is that we should not allow Ontario land to be sold to non-residents. I said that over the years. I was one of those who pushed originally for the cutting off of recreation land to non- residents. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I come from an area that to a great extent in some particular cases depends a great deal on American investment in Ontario recreation land. Some of the small communities in my riding and in other areas of northern Ontario depend almost entirely on Americans coming up to their summer homes or buying summer homes in that part of the world and having them built and spending money on supplies and so on. I might just add as an aside that there’s another interesting phenomenon going on in that we are now attracting German people in particular. Even some Japanese have been showing interest in our area.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and I don’t want to get into a long philosophical debate about the ownership of land, unless of course you insist, that land is the most precious heritage we have. What gives value to that land is the character of the people who inhabit it and surround it and the stability of the governmental institutions which give stability also to the ownership of that land. So I would say that I am categorically against the sale of land in the Province of Ontario to non-residents.

I might also add, Mr. Speaker, that I have a personal problem in this regard. A few years ago, two friends of mine and myself purchased a defunct mining town complete with houses, sewer and water, hydro, roads and so on. We bought that with the intention of perhaps developing it but hopefully selling that property, perhaps subdividing it and, quite frankly, making a profit. In those days there was nothing wrong with that concept, and I suppose there is really nothing wrong with it these days either. We can’t change the rules of the game that fast.

My friends and I have been to the federal government to interest them in this property. They have not been interested. We have been to the Ontario government and offered to sell this property to them and they have shown no interest. We have advertised across Canada from Vancouver to Halifax, including Toronto amongst other places, and Calgary, Winnipeg and so on, to sell this particular piece of property to Canadians because we wanted this property to remain in Canadian hands. As a matter of fact, we bought it with that aspect in mind because we understood some Americans were trying to buy it and we wanted to retain this piece of property, which is a particularly beautiful recreation spot, in Canadian hands.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Very, very high-minded.

Mr. Reid: Right. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we found that there weren’t any Canadians interested. Neither the federal nor the provincial government nor anyone seriously answered any of the ads that we placed in the papers across Canada. The only interest that was shown was by some people from the United States who had heard about the property and who came up to see it.

So, I have a personal conflict there, Mr. Speaker, and this particular matter could put me in severe financial straits. I think this is something that the Legislature should also keep in mind, that these are some of the side effects that will happen. But I continue to state, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that land should be sold to non-residents of Canada or the Province of Ontario.

Unfortunately, because of market conditions, some people are going to be in a position of being forced to do so unless this government takes action to outlaw the practice altogether, which I believe it should do. On the other hand, I think also that the government should set up a system whereby it will be, if we want to put it that way, a buyer of last resort of not only recreation land, but farmland and commercial land.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And mining towns.

Mr. Reid: And defunct mining towns particularly, perhaps.

Mr. Speaker, it concerned me somewhat when I first saw this bill to see what exactly the effects of it would be. As I’ve said, all it will do is increase the cost of doing business in the Province of Ontario and add to our already high inflation rate. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, that aspect in itself is enough to have the government withdraw the bill, rethink its position and bring in a bill which, in fact, will control the situation.

I give you another example that happened within my riding just within the past few months, Mr. Speaker. I had a farmer come in to see me, frustrated, upset and facing a very serious economic crisis. For some years he had used or rented the adjoining farm from a person who lived in Manitoba. He used to run his cattle there and the cattle used that farm for pasture land. Not to go into all the circumstances of the matter, Mr. Speaker, what happened just recently was that the gentleman from Manitoba, and perhaps he had good reason -- I do not know -- sold to an American the farm that he had next door to the farmer in my riding. The American, as far as I know, has no plans to use that land other than to sit on it and use it perhaps as a speculation in that he hopes he’ll be able to make a profit in years to come.

What has happened in this particular small instance, and one that’s probably very microscopic in the economic life of the Province of Ontario, is the fact that a Canadian farmer, an Ontario farmer, was not able to purchase that land. He is now deprived of the use of that land perhaps. It is now owned and controlled, which is probably as important, outside the Province of Ontario and outside Canada. These are serious matters that must be dealt with and yet are not being dealt with in this bill.

As also has been pointed out, talking to this particular minister -- whose only function really as a minister is to administer his department and not set policy -- is perhaps a waste of time. I would have thought that we could have heard the Treasurer speak on these matters.

It’s interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, from the report of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism, particularly in regard to foreign ownership of Ontario real estate, that the matter was debated thoroughly, and that they did have the facts and figures when they recommended in their report that the sale of foreign lands be cut off. Having gone through the report to refresh my memory, as I recall it, the report indicated that there was a net inflow of capital or equity investment in the Province of Ontario, in relation to commercial land in particular, of some $100 million. The figures that were extrapolated from that indicated that that probably meant a gross investment of close to $1 billion.

In other words, another $900 million or so was raised in the Province of Ontario or in Canada, or was taken back by way of mortgage. The net investment in dollar terms in any given year, according to the committee in any case, was something like $100 million. The rest was raised primarily in Canada, as I say, by way of mortgage, bank loan or so on.

Does that mean, if that equity investment was wiped out, by not allowing foreign ownership of land, that we would in fact lose that investment? I think not, and the committee, which had a majority of Conservatives who signed this report and supposedly agreed with the recommendations, obviously felt the same way.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there was a time in Canadian history when equity investment was important in our commercial operations, in our industries and in our natural resource extraction. It was important not only for the dollars it brought in, but the expertise that it brought with it. In a lot of cases we needed the knowledge of foreign investors in the way to develop our industries and our natural resources.

I would suggest to you most respectfully, sir, that those days are now gone, and that to a large extent in the world today Canada is in fact exporting the expertise, the entrepreneurship and the managerial ability that we imported when we originally imported the equity investment in dollar terms into Canada.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the bill is not only flawed, it is wrong in principle. The principle should be no foreign ownership of land in the Province of Ontario. I would suggest that the bill is only going to add to inflationary pressures in the province by some 20 per cent -- a larger increase than we have seen -- in the price of food and other goods in the Province of Ontario.

I would suggest most strongly that the minister take the bill back to cabinet and bring in a bill that will deal with and control the situation.

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

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. Speaker, everything that needs to be said about this bill already has been said. Unfortunately that doesn’t mean that we cease talking about it, because the government has committed itself to it, and sometimes the process of uncommitting it takes a little time.

I think what has to be done is to take the major points, which have already been made, and to drive them home in the hope that perhaps the minister will recognize the folly of what has been imposed upon him by his colleague, the provincial Treasurer.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to some oi the observations of my colleague from High Park, a moment ago, I was thinking that in a strange way this is this year’s energy tax.

Last year the energy tax was conceived in the administrative portions of the department. It wasn’t thought through. Its political consequences weren’t considered at any great length. It was the kind of thing that had a certain inexorable logic that fascinated the provincial Treasurer, so he brought it in. But it exploded in his face, and within one week he came back to announce its withdrawal and told a press conference that 95 or 99 per cent of the people were opposed to it.

How a minister could be so insensitive to 95 or 99 per cent of the people being opposed to it and bring it in in the first instance was always a little bit puzzling.

This bill really should be withdrawn too. Unfortunately I don’t think it is the kind of thing that most people are going to personally react to in order to create the kind of public furore which will result in its withdrawal. But it should be withdrawn, because it is as misconceived as was the energy tax last year. Apart from the minister, the only Tory who has spoken for it so far -- that smiling member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. R. G. Hodgson) -- was really doing his level best to rationalize the irreconcilable, namely, the position that he agreed with in the select committee on economic nationalism and this bill and, hopefully, saying that there was nothing in conflict and that the government would move some time later to implement the full recommendations of that committee. I repeat, that was the supreme rationalization and nothing more.

What is the purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker? It seems to me one should perhaps focus on that for a moment. There’s no doubt about it that the purpose of the bill was this government’s gesture to Canadian nationalism. In fact, I now recall during the press briefings prior to the unveiling of the budget, and in the subsequent meetings in which me minister has had with various representatives of the business world and the trade unions, that he referred to this bill as “our expression of nationalism.” The protection of Canadian interests, the halting of the foreign takeover of Canada, has now become something which people from all parties support. All parties have to pay lip-service to it and this is this government’s lip-service to that particular clause.

I was fascinated at the observation of the hon. member for High Park -- and I suspect with his capacity for getting inside information that he’s correct -- that, in the first instance, to make the thing logical, the proposal was that the bill was going to have a 50 per cent tax, but when that went to the cabinet it was killed; it was brought back with a 20 per cent tax and it was accepted.

The simple fact of the matter is that if the government’s objective in this bill is to halt the further acquisition of Ontario lands by foreigners it simply will not do it. As has been pointed out, I think in very well chosen words, almost a slogan, by my two colleagues, the leader of the party and the hon. member for Wentworth, the only difference is Ontario is still up for sale but now it’s going to cost a little bit more.

So the government has really fallen between two stools. It has set itself up an objective to halt this acquisition of land by foreigners but it has come in with a procedure which simply isn’t going to achieve it at all. The net result -- and this is what the supreme irony of it is, Mr. Speaker -- is that in the process it is, as a government posing as a champion fighting against the inflation forces, going to be accelerating those inflation forces by boosting land costs all across the Province of Ontario. That 20 per cent on all land that is going to be bought by foreigners will become a built-in figure adding to that cost of land, and as soon as the government begins to add it in there it will have that competitive value that will drive the land up to that level. So that, while posing as the champion of anti-inflation, the government is accelerating the inflation forces.

Again, just by way of a brief digression, the irony of it is that this bill and its partner, the Land Speculation Tax Act, are again doing precisely the opposite of what presumably was the government’s objective. They are going to consolidate the inflation that has built up in such a scandalous fashion over the last year or so. They are sort of going to institutionalize it. It will now become part of the whole price structure of the nation and, because the Acts are themselves ineffective, they are going to add to the increased inflation in the instance of the land speculation tax and, in this instance, they are going to sort of nail on another 20 per cent by all those purchases by foreign interests.

Mr. Speaker, clearly, that in itself is solid evidence as to why the bill should be withdrawn. However, what I wanted to draw attention to in the main body of the remainder of my remarks is what exactly the government turned away from in the report of the select committee. Here was a select committee that had 12 members on it, eight of whom were Conservatives, and all of them signed it, admittedly some with varying degrees of reservations with regard to various recommendations. But, generally speaking, everybody supported the general thrust of this bill, which was to halt the acquisition of Ontario by foreigners.

Let me, for example, just put it on the record. It’s been referred to, but for those who perhaps pick up their information from only the record of Hansard, I think it is well that some of the recommendations be right there so that they can read them and see them in their stark, unqualified extent.

Page 23 of the report, for example, dealt with foreign ownership of Ontario real estate. In reference to ownership of land by individuals, this is what it said:

“The committee recommends, subject to recommendation 2, that all future transfers of legal or equitable, including leasehold, interest in real property in Ontario to individuals, directly or indirectly, be restricted to Canadian citizens and landed immigrants resident in Canada.”

That’s pretty solid and unqualified. It came, I repeat, as a unanimous report of 12 members of the Legislature, two-thirds of whom were Tories. Why would the government bring in a bill which so clearly does not fulfil the recommendations?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Even the Minister of Housing recommended it.

Mr. MacDonald: Even the Minister of Housing recommended it. Mr. Speaker, if you want to prohibit the foreign takeover of lands and you decide that you are going to use taxing as your mechanism for doing it, you have got to have a tax which is prohibitive. It is as simple as that. If you want to prohibit it, you have got to have a prohibitive tax. The proposition that a 20 per cent tax is going to be prohibitive is only a tax that is automatically going to be built into the price of land all across the Province of Ontario, as I have already indicated.

And so the government backed off, if it is correct that it was considered at 50 per cent to begin with. It backed off and it went back to a 20 per cent which is aborting the whole objective and the whole professed purpose of the bill. But there was the recommendation that it backed away from.

Let me go on now to point to the nature of the recommendation that was made with regard to corporate holdings of land. On page 37, there was a conclusion which reads as follows: “Having regard to all of the factors -- ” just le me interject there, Mr. Speaker. The report carefully considers a lot of counter arguments, a lot of consequences that might be something one should bear in mind. They didn’t simplistically and blithely come to a conclusion. They considered all of these consequences, and then they said in their conclusion:

“Having regard to all of the factors, the committee has concluded that it would be desirable for future acquisitions of .land in Ontario to be restricted to corporations substantially owned in Canada.”

What does “substantially owned in Canada” mean? We find out when we turn to the recommendations. I will read the first three of them without interruption so that they can stand there for posterity to be reminded once again:

“1. The committee recommends, subject to recommendation 2, that all future acquisitions of land in Ontario, other than by individuals, be restricted to corporations or ventures not less than 75 per cent owned by Canadian citizens or landed immigrants resident in Canada.

“2. The committee recommends that corporations or ventures less than 75 per cent owned by Canadian citizens or resident landed immigrants, who can establish that it is bona fide in the nature of their business to acquire land on a regular basis for real estate development or finance have the option of becoming 75 per cent owned by Canadian citizens or resident landed immigrants as a condition of being entitled to continue to acquire land during the period required to obtain a fair price for the corporation shares on the Canadian market.

“3. The committee recommends that corporations or ventures less than 75 per cent owned by Canadian citizens or resident landed immigrants be entitled to obtain leasehold interest in land in Ontario on terms appropriate to their commercial needs.”

What that means, Mr. Speaker, is simple and unqualified. The committee didn’t horse around. It didn’t play games. It came to the conclusion that this government was worried about the foreign takeover of Canada insofar as Ontario, its responsibility, is concerned and it came to a conclusion that it wasn’t desirable. So it makes a specific, unqualified proposal. And what does the government do about it? It waters down the proposal and comes in with a sort of a panty-waist alternative that simply isn’t going to achieve the objective at all -- not at all.

How might they achieve this, Mr. Speaker? Before I leave this report, I think it would be interesting to draw attention to something that again was discussed a number of times in the post-budget debates with various people. On page 24 of the report in the recommendations, there is one that I suggest that the minister should take a look at, if indeed it is the government’s intention to do something about the extensive foreign holdings in Ontario at the moment as well as dissuade those foreigners who wish to continue to buy up.

Recommendation 5 to be found on page 24 says as follows:

“The committee recommends that municipalities in Ontario be empowered to levy a surcharge of up to 50 per cent of the real property tax otherwise applicable in respect of land ownership in Ontario not ordinarily resident in Canada.”

The immediate reaction, like the reaction, for example, of the government when it found the proposal was going to be for a 50 per cent land transfer tax is, “How horrible. It’s confiscatory. It’s not fair.” But one can’t have it both ways. If the government wants to prohibit, it must have a prohibitive tax, otherwise it is not prohibiting.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We have no right to do it.

Mr. MacDonald: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. Meen: We have to have the constitutional capacity to do it

Mr. MacDonald: What does he mean by the constitutional capacity?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The committee decided the government did have it.

Mr. MacDonald: The committee decided the government had it and as anybody --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the minister suggesting, for example, that the municipality wouldn’t have the right to put a 50 per cent surcharge on any land it chose?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I’m suggesting that in circumstances in which it became confiscatory when we are dealing with non-residents and with aliens, we are into an area which is grey. Counsel to that select committee as well as the best legal advice we have indicate it is dubious whether that’s within the constitutional competence of the provinces.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, all I’ve got to say to the minister who, for better or for worse, is now the minister on whom this bill is pinned, is that he has joined the flim-flam artists deluxe. He is posing; he is presenting this bill as a bill to do something respecting the integrity of Canadian nationalism; to do something to halt the takeover of lands by foreigners and presumably to regain it. Now, in effect, he is saying that to do it and do it effectively so that his objective would really be achieved is unconstitutional.

Hon. Mr. Meen: No. On a point of order.

Mr. MacDonald: What? Let’s clarify this. I don’t object; he has the floor,

Hon. Mr. Meen: That is not what I am saying. I’m saying if we get into a confiscatory nature that’s another matter. We do have the capacity to tax real estate and that’s the approach we are taking. I’ll have more to say about that in my reply.

Mr. MacDonald: I will just say to him that the committee considered it; he will have his chance later. I appreciate that.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): He’s as pusillanimous as they come.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I’m looking forward to that.

Mr. MacDonald: I sought the clarification because I think it is well to see the further inconsistencies in the government’s position. To resort to the argument that to put on a tax which would be so prohibitive as to achieve the professed objective of the bill is unconstitutional just shows that his whole position is so riddled with inconsistencies that it’s untenable. He should withdraw.

The point I wanted to make is that if the government was really interested, for example, in contributing to a more effective housing policy -- which, presumably, is one of the objectives of these land speculation bills and the land transfer tax and everything else -- here is a way in which it could have achieved its objective for this bill, by putting on at least a 50 per cent surcharge on the property tax. Then we would see that land would be returned to Canadians in a hurry and it wouldn’t be bought up by others. Presumably this is what it is seeking to do.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the government would provide the municipalities with the moneys they need to service land so they could get more serviced lots and flood the market with available land for the construction of homes. This would do something to take the upward pressure off the market. That, again, I assume, is the overall hope of the government. But it is not doing it.

In fact, all throughout, what the minister has done is walk away from firm, clear and valid recommendations and clear techniques for achieving those recommendations. He has come in with something which, as it has been pointed out to him many times already, simply will not work,

I suggest to the minister that even if this isn’t the kind of bill which will produce a public furore reminiscent of the energy tax last year, he should at least be prescient enough to look ahead and to recognize the consequences a few months from now and try to persuade his colleagues to withdraw it. If we are not going to get the public furore outside, let’s have some enlightenment and common sense in here so that he will take the initiative himself.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: One of the interesting things about the debate on this bill and the government’s statement with reference to it, is that all three parties are agreed that the ability of foreigners or non-residents to own property here should not just be controlled but should be removed.

The government has chosen -- and the minister has reinforced its attitude through his interjections -- to use the undoubted powers of the taxation on property to impose what, according to government statements, is supposed to restrict and in fact stop any further foreign buying into the Canadian real estate market.

This is, of course, a tremendous breakthrough in the attitude of the government. I can well recall putting this to the former Premier, Mr. Robarts, and his response was, “Well, surely you should have the right to buy property in Florida if you want. Therefore, we cannot interfere with the right of Americans or any other foreigners to buy property here.”

Fortunately, that attitude has been lost by the governing party and the attitude expressed in the statement associated with this bill is directed toward not just controlling foreign ownership but stopping it.

The second thing I want to say in this regard, Mr. Speaker, is that I agree with the other speakers who say that the government did have access to the legislative alternative of prohibition -- not using the tax base, but simply prohibiting non-residents from buying and acquiring tide to any further properties here.

I, too, have examined carefully the recommendations of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism. The member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith) and the member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon) were active members of that committee and had a role to play in the wording, I understand, of the recommendations that eventually were accepted unanimously by the committee.

Now it may be the ministry’s wisdom that a prohibition by law would not stand up in court, but surely that should have been the approach to explain the attitude of the government and to put it forward strongly -- and let the government of Canada protest if it so chose. Obviously, it would then be tested in the courts.

In my view, the government of Canada would not protest. As a matter of fact, it should move with similar legislation at the federal level, or at least co-ordinate the provinces in bringing forward this type of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I remember you paying careful attention to my remarks in reply to the Speech from the Throne. You may recall that on that occasion I put forward statistics associated with the huge increase in foreign ownership, not of recreation land and farmland, but of commercial properties between Oshawa and Burlington and particularly in the metropolitan area.

The list could have gone on endlessly -- some of the people listening to my speech thought that it was endless in that regard -- and it is frightening that foreign capital is moving into Canada because they consider this a safe place for investment. They are not prepared to put it into a banana republic or perhaps another area of the world where their moneys and their investments will be invested at some risk. Because of the sureness of investment here, those people are prepared to accept a relatively low rate of return.

For that reason, the 20 per cent imposition that would be brought forward under Bill 26 is not going to be the deterrent that the minister envisages. I believe it was the minister who said, “If 20 per cent isn’t enough, we will double it or make it as high as it has to be.”

If the principle that the government wants to put forward is to prohibit the ownership of land in this province by non-residents, then this bill does not express it. In fact, it puts on a 20 per cent tax, which for most people might be prohibitive but which in the circumstances of international investment in real property is anything but prohibitive.

In the present state of the market the tax can readily be passed on, and for the investors who are looking for something in which to put their huge pools of international capital, this 20 per cent will not be a deterrent, and this has been put before you, Mr. Speaker, quite specifically.

In reference to the commercial properties, I didn’t for a moment want to say that in my view recreation and agricultural properties are not of equally great importance. On previous occasions, Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues and others have brought to your attention the frightening rate at which our best recreational properties are being lost to foreign sale.

As a matter of fact, I noticed the Premier’s special assistant, the former Attorney General (Mr. Bales), under the gallery just a few moments ago, and I specifically remember discussing in this Legislature a strip of some of the finest recreational property north of Sault Ste. Marie, several miles of lakefront, in which the only Canadian owner at that time was the then Attorney General himself. He may even -- since he’s so busy in Toronto -- have already passed that property on to some other owner.

There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to agricultural property, you being a farmer yourself and interested in the value of agricultural land, are as aware as I am that is the unnatural and dislocating pressures of foreign capital brought into the Province of Ontario for the express purpose of buying properties at any price -- the price has no significance whatsoever -- as long as the property can be acquired; and this 20 per cent tax is not in any way going to restrict that particular matter.

Now, I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the government in principle is saying that sale of our properties to foreign interests, at least to non-residents, must be stopped, then of course the principle of the bill is one that is supportable. But, obviously, the 20 per cent tax does not achieve that.

We on this side support the recommendations made by the select committee, which were clear and entered into after careful research and apparently after extensive debate among the members of the committee. We feel that it is a sham that the Minister of Revenue, or those who make the financial policy were not persuaded to accept those recommendations.

If it had to be tested in court, so be it; but surely a politician looking at the chances of such a test would see that it would not be contested by the government of Canada and that surely it is a provincial right so to legislate.

It is regrettable that Bill 26 does not, in fact, state the principle that should be supported by all three parties; that, in fact, it could have been a breakthrough of tremendous proportions.

The bill in its present form cannot be supported and we would hope that the minister is not only prepared to bring forward some amendments, as he has indicated that he would in this bill, but to put in the place of the operative clause the principle that, in fact, our property can no longer be purchased by non-residents.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised in this debate that we haven’t heard a word from any of the Conservative members -- apart from the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who spoke on Friday. I think it speaks badly for the Conservatives and badly for this measure that there is not a single person, apart from the one I have mentioned, who is willing to defend the bill except the minister.

Mr. MacDonald: And he did it pretty weakly with tongue in cheek.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right; and the minister is just simply a technician in these affairs. It reminds me of the debates that I had with the minister over regional government bills when he was an assistant to the Treasurer in the municipal field. At that time he would get up on things like the Haldimand-Norfolk bill, or the bills that established the regions of Peel and of Halton, and he would say: “Look, I am not responsible for the overall policy; that’s got to do with somebody else. I am simply here as a technician.”

He was very clear in the introduction of this bill on Friday. I regret that I wasn’t here, but I read the debate. In that introduction, the minister said: “Well, we have got some changes to section 6 and to section 16. I have got a nice little piece of technical apparatus here; and here you are, a nice little piece of clockwork.”

He is putting it on the table at the direction of the provincial Treasurer. It is the Treasurer who should be seeking to defend this bill, Mr. Speaker, and not the Minister of Revenue. As is well known, the Minister of Revenue -- and his predecessor, who is also sitting in the House -- simply comes forward and looks to the nuts and the bolts.

Frankly, I really question whether the present Minister of Revenue is capable of trying to defend or comprehend the wider ramifications of this particular bill. He has not given us that evidence in the Legislature up until now and his --

Mr. Speaker: What about the principle of the bill? Order, please. We are talking about Bill 26.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. On Bill 26, Mr. Speaker, his interventions up until now suggest at the very least a pusillanimous attitude toward any kind of innovation in the province.

He’s saying, “Well, we can have a bit, we can fiddle around, but we can’t do anything meaningful in the taxing field, because that would be unconstitutional or discriminatory, or that wouldn’t be right, or the foreign corporations that provide funds to help the Conservative Party wouldn’t go along.”

I don’t know what the reasons are. Possibly he might come clean on this and he might explain just why it is that the government has come in with such a piece of window dressing, a tax which is riddled with so many loopholes and a tax which just plainly isn’t going to work in the declared purposes that were given it in the budget.

I wish that the Treasurer would speak in this debate, or for that matter, the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Kennedy), who has left the House, the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Rowe), the hon. member for Carleton, the Minister of Housing, the hon. member for Humber (Mr. Leluk), the hon. Minister of the Environment, the member for Ontario South (Mr. W. Newman), or the hon. member for London North (Mr. Walker). None of those members is in the Legislature right now, Mr. Speaker. Not one of them.

Yet these were the people in the Conservative Party -- two of them are now in the cabinet, two more are parliamentary assistants to ministers -- who unequivocally rejected the approach now being taken by the government. It seems to me they should either defend the flip-flop on their position if they have now changed their minds, or they should come into this Legislature and unequivocally tell the Minister of Revenue that they cannot go along, that they have analysed the question and that a total prohibition on foreign acquisition of real estate in the province is what is required for the kind of circumstances that we have today. They’re in an untenable position and they have been put there by the present minister, by the Treasurer and by the cabinet.

It’s curious to me that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Housing, both of whom have a pretty direct concern with the land of the province, should have been participants in the cabinet when the decision to bring in this woebegone tax was made.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the discussions that went on behind the scenes rather looked like this: A number of people in the government and among the civil servants advising the Treasurer told him that something had to be done. Their estimates, according to the budget, indicate that some $300 million minimum was flowing into the province every year in foreign real estate investment. It was probably much more since, presumably, one of the intentions of this particular 20 per cent tax, on the government’s reckoning, is that the amount of foreign acquisition will decrease. I assume that the minister believes that. If he doesn’t believe it then the tax is of course completely useless.

But at any rate, it’s $300 million, $500 million, or maybe $1 billion a year flowing into Ontario real estate from Singapore, from Hong Kong, from Switzerland, from Germany, from the United States, from Britain and presumably -- now that there are so many billions flowing into the Middle East -- from the Middle East. If anything, the liability was that this amount was going to increase rather than not.

The officials came there -- and I wish the minister would table some figures on their estimates -- and said, “Look, there’s a serious problem.” The Treasurer, who likes to think of himself as a red Tory, said, “Okay, we better do something,” and asked his officials, “Now what shall we do?” And the officials told him, in the time-honoured way of bureaucrats, “You have three options.” This is the way that officials do these things in cabinets. They give you an extreme which is tough, an extreme which is soft and ineffective and something in between. That’s the wav the officials try to direct government to do the things that the officials think would be effective.

Now, knowing the way that the officials of this government work, it’s safe to assume that what they thought would be effective would probably be inadequate, because of the fact that they have been brainwashed and conditioned, inevitably and helplessly almost, by having to be in close juxtaposition with members of the Conservative government and cabinet for so many years.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Did the member say we brainwashed the civil service?

Mr. Cassidy: I’m suggesting that it’s difficult for them to come up and offer the measures which they know to be adequate because of --

Mr. MacDonald: They’ve been put down so often.

Mr. Cassidy: -- the tolerance of the ministers for progressive social legislation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s hardly what he said.

Mr. Cassidy: What’s that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It sounds better since he fixed it.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, that’s fine.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Isn’t the member glad I gave him a chance to change the record?

Mr. Cassidy: I appreciate the former Minister of Revenue’s intervention, Mr. Speaker. At any rate, as we understand it, there were the three options. One of them has been sketched in by the members of the select committee, and that was a prohibition on foreign acquisition of real estate in the province. The officials put that one forward as the hard option, because in their hearts they knew that, whatever the backbenchers said and whatever the Minister of Housing and the Minister of the Environment had said in committee, the cabinet wouldn’t buy it. This cabinet and this government are simply too much the handmaiden of private interests to stop foreign acquisition. They still believe that Ontario is for sale to anybody anywhere in the world.

The second option that they put forward was that the tax on transfers of property to non-residents be a minimum of about 50 per cent. I’m saying that that is inadequate. If they had suggested that the transfer tax be a minimum of 100 per cent, then maybe they would have found the middle ground. At any rate, the middle ground that they suggested was a tax of 50 per cent.

Then they came up with the soft option -- and it is the soft option that has been taken by the government -- that is, the transfer tax of 20 per cent on some foreign land acquisitions -- not all acquisitions, though; the number of exemptions is legion. And the minister, when he introduced the bill on Friday, indicated that the exemptions would be further increased and further widened by giving priority to mortgage lenders over the lien and by saying that any foreign investor who was willing to say that he was holding property temporarily for resale to Canadians upon development, would likewise be permitted to continue and not be interfered with by the tax.

As far as the government is concerned, it doesn’t matter where a speculator comes from: if he’s eventually going to unload the property to a Canadian, then he will not be liable to the tax.

What this means, very simply, is that most of the people who have been buying property in Canada will be put in a position where they can say: “Yes, of course, we are honestly developing this property. We therefore seek, and presumably will get, the waiver.” And after four or five years they will hand the property back to Canadians at a highly inflated price. The bulk of the speculative activity indulged in by foreigners will continue.

It’s worth looking at the kinds of speculation or the kinds of investment that go on by foreigners in order to see if the government really has got to the root of the problem or whether the 50 per cent or 100 per cent tax -- that is, the tax that was rejected by this government -- might have had some effect.

It staggers me, not only that the government rejected the conclusions of the select committee, but also that it is seemingly so unaware of the very sensitive analysis that was made by the select committee and submitted to the government, I believe, about a year and a half ago.

I have no evidence -- and we haven’t heard from any of the Tory members, the ministers or anybody else -- to show that the government has done any of the research that was suggested by the committee in order to look into this problem further.

The government, in the estimates given by the Treasurer, is telling us that a minimum of $300 million is going to be invested in Ontario by foreigners over the coming year, because that’s the revenue it expects to get from the tax. If the minister wants the calculations, the Treasurer has said that $60 million will be recouped from this tax, and that is 20 per cent of $300 million. That does not include, however, the exempt investment of developers who are foreign-owned, nor of foreign-owned companies who presumably will be given an exemption as well, according to what the budget has said.

The select committee argued very strongly that there ought to be a thorough study of what was going on. But the government, in its budget, was unable to give any indication of what the true picture was. The minister acknowledges that he doesn’t know. His officials seemingly acknowledge that they don’t know either, because in the budget papers, where they discuss the various taxes, there is no attempt to estimate what the amounts of foreign investment have been, what the trends in foreign investment have been, or even to say what the amount of foreign investment in land and property in Ontario might have been in this current year and what it will reduce to, if it will be reduced at all, because of the tax. Nor is there any attempt to estimate how much of the foreign investment will be exempt and how much will be hit by the tax.

We’re going into an area which is totally uncharted, despite the fact that a year and a half ago the select committee said: “Look, this is too important to be left to guesstimates and to Donald Kirkup and to people like Mr. Elliot Yarmon and others in the real estate industry who have been used to dealing with foreign real estate investors.”

When you look at the report of the committee, Mr. Speaker, they mention a whole variety of means by which foreigners invest in Ontario real estate: wholly owned corporations; trusts; trust companies; joint ventures; equity or profit participation, investment in existing real estate companies, which incidentally won’t be covered by this particular bill; options, which in certain cases will but in other cases will not be covered -- for example, options in the shares of Canadian controlled real estate companies set up for the express purpose of investing in real estate; a variety of complicated contractual arrangements, and then of course developers, mortgage finance and land leasing companies.

Then there are the questions of profit participation agreements which are reached by mortgage lenders who are putting in debt capital, but capital in which the grounds between debt and equity investment are much fuzzier than they were back in the days when the minister learned his law and his chartered accountancy. The lines are far fuzzier than they used to be and it is clear that those gradations and those technical problems have not been adequately anticipated in this particular bill. The loopholes are there for the high-priced tax lawyers and the high-priced accountants. They will make a very large amount of money in seeking and in finding means of evading the bill.

The member for High Park has already given a very good example of a loophole, and that is in the case of companies which are set up with a very small amount of A shares which carry the voting rights and a very large quantity or foreign-owned B preferred shares to which most of the income will go. In these cases, the A shares will be handed to trustworthy Canadians who are willing to do the bidding of the foreign investors who hold the B shares, because they are receiving legal fees and that is simply the way the game happens to work.

There is no provision in the bill against thin capitalization that is necessary in order to prevent that particular loophole being exploited. I see the minister is nodding his head. I know he is going to get up in the debate and say, “Look, we have to plug up the loopholes. We are aware of that and we will be doing that as time goes on.”

What kind of commitment is that, if the minister and the Treasurer and the Treasury have only so recently converted to the idea of this bill that they come up with something that is quite thoroughly ineffective, not only on the grounds that the tax is too little but also on the grounds that the bill is technically offensive and objectionable and ineffective? The bill is not an adequate technical instrument even to do the things that the minister says it might want to do. As a technician he has failed, just as this particular bill is a failure as an instrument of social policy.

The early indications from the minister, Mr. Speaker, are that he is going to be intent not on narrowing the loopholes but on widening the loopholes in this particular bill. I would like to ask a few questions about general policy, because I think that the alternatives which were discussed by the select committee and which are obviously available to the minister but which were rejected out of hand by the cabinet, that is, the alternative of a complete block to foreign equity investment in Ontario real estate, really was the course that ought to have been taken.

I do not see what the constitutional problems were. The only constitutional problem that might have arisen would be a question as to whether persons who were not resident in Ontario but who were Canadian citizens would have been able to acquire Ontario real estate. It is a question worth posing as to whether Ontario wished to rule out Quebec residents, or Saskatchewan residents from acquiring or, for that matter, from dealing in Ontario real estate. But that could have been handled separately and if, in fact, Ontario had had a rule against non-residents acquiring real estate, then it could have established very easily a legal means by which Canadian citizens from other provinces could have continued to enjoy their rights.

The example, I think, is Prince Edward Island, which the minister may know has an outright prohibition on people who are not islanders holding real estate of more than 10 acres. They have had to take this crisis move because of the peculiar circumstances they have.

Hon. Mr. Meen: What the member means is they had and it has been overturned in the courts. It has been held ultra vires.

Mr. Cassidy: That bill has been held ultra vires? All right, then we will find another means of doing it. In the meantime, if Ontario declares that that is to be its intention, there are two or three things that flow from that. In the first place, a large number of foreigners just back off, if the bill is genuinely ultra vires. I don’t believe that that kind of problem cannot be overcome. After all, it is the provincial government and not the federal government which has jurisdiction over the questions of property and civil rights. We nave the power to make the declaration on that.

If the PEI legislation was judged to be discriminatory, then it seems to me to follow that this particular bill can be judged to be discriminatory as well. If, on the other hand, a tax measure is not judged to be discriminatory, but the PEI legislation was judged to be discriminatory, then the middle route proposed to cabinet by the officials of the Treasury could have been made to work.

Let us suppose that 100 per cent tax was required on transfers of Ontario property to foreigners; there is no way in which that tax can be deemed to be confiscatory. It confiscates nothing. It is simply a tax on what the foreigner wishes to do. He pays $1 million for a property and he is required to pay $1 million in tax, and that is the beginning and the end of it. It does not prevent him from doing it; it just simply adds to the cost and reduces the return which he will get from that particular piece of business. I am sure that that particular tax would have been permitted, even if constitutional changes may be need in order to permit the PEI solution, which is one that we would prefer.

A confiscatory tax is where, for example, a tax on income is levied at 90 or 95 or 98 per cent where, in other words, the individual reaps no return from his income. But this other kind of tax would not qualify. Where, for that matter then, is the dividing line? You cannot decide a dividing line, Mr. Speaker. You could argue that any tax which discriminates between a foreigner and a resident of Canada or a citizen is ultra vires on those grounds, because it discriminates against that particular fellow and therefore makes it more difficult for him to do business.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if more was known, if the government knew more about the market and about the reasons that bring foreigners into this market, they would realize that the present tax may shake out a few cottage owners, as people have said. But let’s take the situation of people in inflation-ridden countries with an unstable political environment who are looking for a safe haven for their money and are looking for some place where their returns are rather higher than, say, in Switzerland, where it is well known the returns that are paid are very low.

If they are buying investment property in Ontario to hold, the additional 20 per cent tax that is being levied by the province is of very little import to them. Right now they are in a situation where the values of property are rising by 20 or 25 per cent a year. The return over time, therefore, that they are anticipating may be to double or triple their money or at least to keep pace with inflation on a worldwide basis. The fact that they have 20 per cent taken off the top at the beginning is of very little significance. The fact that their annual return is reduced by 20 per cent is also of very little significance because, as the minister knows, in certain cases the return they actually get on an annual basis may only be as little as one or two per cent. This is property which is being locked up for a very long term. That particular kind of investment isn’t affected.

Then we get people who are dealing on a very short-term basis and who are coming in, developing the property and getting rid of it, presumably to Canadians. They are not affected because they will not be obliged to pay the tax. We get foreign-owned corporations which are buying land for industrial purposes. Again, they get a waiver from the tax; they are not affected. If anything, they may be more affected by the new screening mechanism of the federal legislation than they are by this particular tax.

Ultimately we come down to a certain segment of the market, a few unfortunates who actually intend to move up here sometime because they want to get out of wherever they happen to live and find they may have to pay the tax because they aren’t yet landed immigrants. People buying residential recreational property will be affected and so will some people who were ill-advised and who were buying, say, for a period of between five and 10 or 15 years. They may be affected and a few of them may be shaken out of the market.

Let’s look at this in a different way, though. The ministry says $300 million will be spent by foreigners on Ontario real estate in the coming year, maybe a bit more. The total increase and the yield from the tax expected by the government is of the order of $75 million and if that were all to be the result of foreign real estate, then $375 million will be spent by foreigners.

Now, if we work it out -- if the average cost of a home, of a housing unit in Ontario, is about $35,000, that means 10,000 single-family or semi-detached housing units could be acquired by foreigners during the coming year. That’s a very substantial chunk and a very substantial contribution to the inflationary pressures that exist within the housing market.

It means 20,000 apartment units, Mr. Speaker, 100 major highrise towers acquired by foreigners. That isn’t exactly easing the foreign speculators out of the market.

Or it means 25,000 recreational properties, or 50,000 acres of development land at $7,500 an acre, which is the price being charged around major cities. Or if we want to go to the downtown areas of Toronto, Ottawa or Hamilton or other cities like that, it would be somewhere between -- let me see if I can work it out. Four hundred acres? That’s about, I think, 1.6 million ft of downtown property which can go into foreign hands, and will go into foreign hands quite cheerfully according to the minister and the ministry, despite this particular tax. That’s a helluva deterrent when that amount of urban real estate can still go into foreign hands.

It just isn’t going to work. It’s simply an added cost of doing business, and as a number of speakers have said it will be passed on if the number of foreigners who are continuing to be active in our market is as great as the government seems to indicate. If this tax were going to be effective, and the yields from the tax would be miniscule and it would be only a few cottage owners and other people like that who were paying the tax, we would see a very great departure of foreigners from our market.

There are some other points as well, Mr. Speaker, and these are maybe social points that I might make. One is to assess this particular 20 per cent land transfer tax and the loophole-ridden tax on speculative profits against the whole context of the government housing policy. We have argued that heavy taxes are needed on speculation, but always in the context of a general housing policy which puts forward supply measures as well in order to ensure that decent housing at reasonable cost is available to people across the province.

The government doesn’t see it that way. It doesn’t see it that way at all. It is copping out on its public responsibility to ensure that adequate housing is on the way. It is copping out on its public responsibility to ensure that urban land is managed, to ensure that housing units come on stream at prices people can afford -- $30,000, $25,000 or $20,000 a unit. Stacked townhouses, all kinds of different mixes, are not becoming available.

For eight months we get words from the ministry about the housing action programme; now we are told that over three years we may get an additional 10,000 units a year under that particular programme. But that only matches the number of housing units which will continue to be going into foreign hands if the figures being given by the ministry are to be believed about the amount of foreign investment that will continue. Foreigners will be buying as much real estate in Ontario as is being provided additionally to the market under the housing action programme.

The budget provided a couple of taxes which were meant to be sexy politically. Yet when it came down to the nuts and bolts of what was being done to make sure that more lots were available, or to make sure that more housing was available, or to make sure that more people earning under $10,000 and $12,000 could rent or buy homes that they could afford, you find -- what? An $11 million subsidy for servicing; less than $20 million being provided for the housing action programme, a plan whose details we have yet to see; and discussion of an Ontario land corporation whose major impact will, it seems to be clear, be directed to long-term policy in areas like eastern and northern Ontario. There is nothing ensuring a massive programme of public land acquisition in order to ensure that objectives in land and housing policy can be fulfilled.

The municipalities, Mr. Speaker, have told the minister, and told the ministry, that at least one-third or maybe one-half of urban development land should be publicly owned. There is no such commitment in the budget and no such commitment in this particular bill. The government is clearly still resting on developers to do its job of deciding the mix and kinds of housing that shall be developed. Not only that, but it’s saying there are not the Canadians to do the job and therefore it will leave it up to foreign developers to continue to play their role in our market.

If we knew more about the role of these foreigners, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we might find they really don’t contribute very much at all. We might well find that much of the capital they supposedly bring into housing in Ontario is raised from domestic sources in the form of mortgages. We might also find that the foreign mortgage capital that’s coming into Canada, which is competing for a limited supply of building materials that are mainly locally produced and which is competing for a limited supply of land -- that again can t be imported to help the situation -- you would simply find that that foreign equity capital and that foreign mortgage capital, and the Canadian mortgage money which is going along with the foreign equity, is helping to hop up the market but is not contributing any additional housing beyond what we could contribute ourselves.

That’s a very real possibility, Mr. Speaker. And yet foreign money is continuing to be invited into the country and into the province and is being levied a penalty in certain cases; and the penalty will then be passed on to Canadians who wish simply to have housing of their own.

I’m questioning, Mr. Speaker -- and maybe the member for High Park and I aren’t totally at one in this -- I’m questioning whether its healthy to have a lot of foreign mortgage money coming into this country. I certainly question whether it’s healthy to have foreign equity coming into the country, when it is all competing for the scarce land around our cities and for scarce building materials.

If you look at it, Mr. Speaker, and if the minister looks at it, he would find, among other things, that a great amount of foreign money has gone into commercial and shopping centre development, for purposes which frankly I can’t defend under a situation where rents are rising by 15 or 20 per cent; and a situation where housing is in desperately short supply, where both housing for purchase and for rental is becoming increasingly scarce in the urban Ontario market; and in a situation where housing starts are in fact decreasing rather than increasing. If that foreign money wasn’t going into commercial development, Mr. Speaker, then there would be more building materials available at more reasonable prices to go into apartments, to go into townhouses, to go into homes, to go into public housing, to go into co-operatives and all the other kinds of housing that we need in the province and we wouldn’t have such a crisis as we have right now.

But the ministry, and the government, are sort of seized by this growth ethic. They cannot see that it may, in fact, be healthy to discourage some of the actors in the housing market and that those private people should be replaced by public people, municipalities, co-ops, non-profit organizations and the government itself in determining the kind of housing that should be built and where it should be built and what incomes it should be looking for.

Now Mr. Speaker, when we get to the committee stage of this particular bill we will be looking at the loopholes in detail. I want to say something about one concern that I have here, though, and that is that there is nothing in this bill that prevents foreigners from continuing to acquire property in Ontario, and in fact from mortgaging in order to pay the tax.

Now that’s one of the most incredible situations that I can think about. All they need to do is to tell the mortgagor that the market value of the land will be what they pay for it plus 20 per cent and they want a 90 per cent mortgage please; and the mortgagor will then proceed to pay 80 per cent of the tax that they have to pass on to the Ontario government if they don’t happen to find a way around the loopholes.

There is nothing to stop that, Mr. Speaker, nor is there anything to put uncertainty into the heart of a foreign speculator or of his financial backer in the way of the lien that the tax represents. The tax is being given second status to any mortgage claims on the property, and that again undermines the minister’s claim that the ministry intends to stop or seriously deter foreign speculators from coming in. What they are really doing is trying to pick up a bit of dough and then put half of that amount into the housing action programme and other programmes.

There is nothing about thin capitalization. There is nothing about investment in real estate companies. There is nothing about options on real estate companies. There are any number of devices that could be used in order to evade the tax.

I just want to know why the government has copped out on this. I want to know why the member for Peel South isn’t going to speak on this particular bill -- maybe he is, I see him making some notes. I hope he does join us. Is he going to speak on this bill?

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): I am not making notes.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: All right, because there is only one member of the select committee from the Tory benches who has gotten up and he said, well he’s got infinite faith in the government that some time, in the fullness of time, they might adopt the recommendations of the select committee. Only one member, the other seven have sat there mute. What’s that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Maybe the hon. member doesn’t believe in repetition, as the member for Ottawa Centre does.

Mr. Cassidy: No, I am sure he would have something fresh and original to say in the debate, either why he disagrees with the government or why he has changed his position so radically and so completely --

Mr. Kennedy: No position has changed.

Mr. Cassidy: -- from being in favour of a ban on foreign acquisition to coming up with a namby-pamby, Mickey Mouse piece of legislation which is riddled with loopholes, which will not work, which will increase the cost to Canadians, which will not deter the long-term investors from abroad who want to hold our property for 10 or 15 years and which simply is not an effective answer to Ontario’s needs.

Those needs are that we bring down the price of land and that we provide housing for Canadians, for Ontario residents, at prices that they can afford. It just isn’t here in the tax. It isn’t here in the other tax. It isn’t here in the budget, and as far as we are concerned we don’t know where it is in the government. We haven’t heard when they are going to come up with some effective answers in the field of housing or of land.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have lost count of the number of members who addressed themselves to this bill, but I will endeavour to touch on all the points they have raised. To begin with, may I just observe what I think the principle of the bill may be. I want to talk to the principle --

Mr. Cassidy: “May be?” Doesn’t the minister know?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, indeed I do know the principle of the bill.

Mr. Kennedy: If you listen, maybe you’ll get to learn something.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It’s a part, and it’s a very vital part, of our government’s attack on the costs of land and the costs of housing, the very points the member for Ottawa Centre was touching on.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It is an attempt to discourage foreign money from pressing up the land prices that are, therefore, affecting in the same direction --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): By adding 20 per cent how is the minister stopping foreign investment?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- the price of land and houses. It’s an indicator -- I want to emphasize this, and it should be noted -- it’s an indicator of the way the government is thinking with respect to our economic and cultural goals --

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Mr. Singer: We’ll go along with that one.

Mr. Reid: That’s certainly a mouthful.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Foreign ownership of our land and of our heritage has to be a matter of major concern to all of us.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the minister agree with it or does he disagree with it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The bill is not our intended answer to the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism. It is not intended to be the whole of our anti-inflation measures either. Contrary to the suggestions made by some hon. members, it is not a fraud. It isn’t bogus legislation. It isn’t bad. And it isn’t intended to discourage foreign loan investments here, as opposed to foreign equity investments which it is intended to discourage in respect of land.

Mr. Cassidy: By how much?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I might just mention briefly, Mr. Speaker, some other portions of our programme, of which this bill is a part: The housing action programme, the Land Speculation Tax Act and other potential incentives -- and I might put “incentives” in quotes -- to get serviced lots on the market for dwelling unit construction.

Mr. Cassidy: They are all as Mickey Mouse as this measure.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I want to touch on a few of these matters in somewhat greater detail.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be talking about the principle of this bill, but so much of the debate from members opposite has surrounded the select committee report, which really doesn’t get to the principle of this bill in any great detail.

I feel, though, that I should direct some of my comments to the select committee report on economic and cultural nationalism. That interim report, along with others, has been received by the government -- they have been coming in over the last few months. As we announced earlier this month, the justice policy field committee and the social development policy field committee, co-ordinated by H. Ian Macdonald who is now special assistant to the Premier and who until April 9 was the Deputy Treasurer of the province, are studying these reports and we expect to have their views and their reports by early fall.

I would expect that, in the course of their studies of the recommendations of the reports, they will be looking at the question of what percentage by way of a tax might or might not be construed as confiscatory. And I note the views of the member for Ottawa Centre on the matter. He says it might be held to be confiscatory. Well I would suggest to him that it might be held to be confiscatory, because if it were so large that it was prohibitive, then a court could well say that we were attempting to do directly, by way of tax, what we cannot do indirectly under our present constitution. He’s talking about amending the constitution --

Mr. Singer: Surely if it is the government’s intention to stop foreign ownership, it could do that directly.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well If the hon. member had been interested in this debate he would have got into it earlier. But he has not participated in this debate and I’d appreciate it if he would let me carry on with my remarks.

Mr. Singer: I will interject when I deem it is proper and appropriate.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He can only do that with permission of the Speaker.

Mr. Singer: Subject always to the Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Meen: I would suggest to the hon. member that there are some very serious constitutional issues. The select committee itself recognized the constitutional problem and it recommended that we press on anyway.

Mr. Singer: Yes; some press!

Hon. Mr. Meen: What they said -- and may I read from page 45 I think it is, under item 10.2:

“Specifically, and in relation to the committee’s conclusions with respect to individual ownership of land, the committee understands that the scope of the federal jurisdiction in relation to naturalization and aliens is in some doubt on the basis of jurisprudence to date, and particularly in its interface with exclusive provincial jurisdiction in respect of property and civil rights in the province and matters of a local and private nature.

“The committee recommends that the government of Ontario take the position that legislation along the lines proposed by the committee is unambiguously in relation to property and civil rights in the province and matters of a local and private nature.”

Mr. Singer: I say the minister can do it directly; just what he said he couldn’t do.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Can’t you keep that member in order, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Meen: In other words, what they were saying was, “Press on with anti-foreign legislation with respect to real estate,” and to quote the old expression, “damn the torpedoes.”

Frankly, I would observe that I have some sympathy for this and some of my competent colleagues have some sympathy for this. Pass a bill banning or restricting foreign real estate holdings and let it get tested in the courts, because that is what they were suggesting. In fact I as much as said this in the press conference preceding the budget debate during the lockup on Tuesday, April 9 last.

Mr. Cassidy: Did the minister fight very hard in the cabinet?

Mr. Singer: What did he say: “I have sympathy for it?”

Mr. Cassidy: He seems to have more sympathy for the foreign speculators.

Hon. Mr. Meen: But there is another side to this. Have members thought of what turmoil would be created in investment circles? What would this do to Ontario and Canada? In fact it would do us no good at all. As I mentioned to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, Prince Edward Island tried a version of this and it was held ultra vires.

My colleague, the Minister of Housing, and the members for Victoria-Haliburton and Humber express very well their reservations about such hasty action in this area.

Let me read, for the benefit of hon. members present and for Hansard, from page 59 of the same interim report on “Foreign Ownership of Ontario Real Estate.”

Mr. Singer: If one doesn’t like the majority, well read the minority one.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member doesn’t like facts, then he doesn’t have to read the majority one.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Why doesn’t the member hang around, he might just hear this for the first time.

Mr. Singer: It’s too much for me.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He doesn’t want to be confused with the facts.

Hon. Mr. Meen: He has made up his mind, he doesn’t want to be confused with the facts.

My colleague said:

“In our view, a nation is firmly rooted in its history, its people and its primacy over the land which it occupies. Ownership of Canadian soil by our citizens and those who have committed themselves to this country by immigrating to it can only strengthen the nation. Perception by the young of the Legislature’s resolve to retain ownership for them of their natural heritage will impress on them the fact that government is for them and their future as well as for the here and now.

“Having come to the above conclusion on personal and philosophical grounds, we readily admit that the nature and breadth of the committee’s inquiries was limited by time, money and depth of staff. We do not wish to minimize the dedication, skill and sheer hard work which the staff has devoted to the studies carried out on behalf of the committee.

“It is a fact, however, that we are not fully informed of the recommendations, particularly as they apply to the commercial and industrial use of land. Nor can it be said with any confidence that the committee has complete data as to the complex international money market or the manner in which our recommendations may affect this very delicate system.

“We are, therefore, in a dilemma. While accepting the report and its recommendations we are concerned that their immediate” [and they put ‘immediate’ in italics] “implementation by the government could have unanticipated implications at some time in the indefinite future. It would be irresponsible on our part to satisfy our personal and philosophical leanings by urging early implementation of the recommendations without knowing the long-range economic price which may have to be paid by the people of Ontario.

“It may very well be that, once known, the price will be low in relation to the benefits. If the government can satisfy itself on that point, then there is, in our opinion, no other reason to delay the implementation of all recommendations.”

Now I think they have taken a very responsible approach to this very interesting subject.

Mr. Cassidy: If the minister had accepted that argument he wouldn’t even have imposed the tax at all; he would be so afraid of doing anything to interfere with the market.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Oh ridiculous. The member is being ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Meen: There is a lot to be said for the recommendations but as my colleagues pointed out in the section which I have just read -- and which I see the hon. member for Riverdale will now have to read in Hansard -- they recommend, and their view was, that we approach it very cautiously.

The government concluded, my colleagues and I concluded, that we could not, at this time, follow the course of action the committee recommended. We feel that we must await the outcome of the studies when reported on by Mr. Macdonald and by the policy field committees in the early fall.

However, in the meantime we just can’t sit around on our hands. We can’t sit idly by, as my colleague the Treasurer said in his budget statement. In reference to this, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) said last Friday -- let me read at page 1083 of Hansard. He said: “And then what flows” -- I think he meant follows -- “within the budget statement” -- that was following my Treasurer’s comments.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Well it was a committee report with dissents.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The member says:

“In the next half-dozen paragraphs there’s a clear implication, Mr. Speaker, that somehow the recommendations embodied in the select committee’s report are reflected in the tax policy announced by the provincial Treasurer. And this report, this statement in the budget, is a very clever little piece of duplicity in itself. What the budget might have said, to be honest, is that the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism analysed this subject, investigated it thoroughly, made a number of recommendations and, ‘we, the cabinet, have decided to repudiate every single recommendation the select committee made.’”

What arrant nonsense. Our colleagues have pointed out that the select committee did not have access to all the information necessary. They have pointed out that there was much more study which had to be done; and that’s precisely why we wish to now take some intermediate step.

Mr. Renwick: But the committee’s report is more important than the dissents.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. That didn’t stop the government from cooking up a tax in two weeks and putting it in. The minister doesn’t know anything more about the Ontario land market than the committee did a year ago.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Just to clarify the point of just what was said by my colleague, the Treasurer, let me read to members -- it’s appeared in Hansard a few times and the member for Scarborough West quoted the first paragraph himself; but he quoted that paragraph out of context and then went on to draw the illogical conclusion to which I have just made reference.

Mr. Renwick: He didn’t quote it out of context. He read the whole budget statement.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Let me read the entire three paragraphs.

Mr. Renwick: The minister doesn’t need to read the whole three paragraphs. We’ve all listened to it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: My colleague commented as follows.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In reference to this bill, the Land Transfer Tax Act:

“In examining the problem of rapidly rising prices for real estate in Ontario, it has become increasingly apparent that large-scale acquisition of land by non-residents of Canada is a significant factor. The matter of control of non-resident ownership of Canadian land is a current constitutional issue which has not been fully resolved. The problem has been studied, however, and has been reported on recently by Ontario’s select committee on economic and cultural nationalism.”

That part the member for Scarborough West quoted. Then he went on to draw his conclusions that the following six paragraphs negated everything we had just said. Let me read the members the next two paragraphs which follow:

“The government of Ontario recognizes that positive action on this matter is required now in order to maximize Canadian ownership of our real estate.”

Mr. Deans: We consider this to be negative action.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The Treasurer said:

“The government has decided, therefore, to take interim steps using the instruments at its disposal. Accordingly, I am proposing to increase substantially the land transfer tax on purchases of land by non- residents of Canada to 20 per cent from 6/10 of one per cent effective at midnight tonight.”

And a 33 times increase in tax is not peanuts. It’s a very significant increase.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): One small step for mankind.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That, I hope, sets the record straight.

Mr. Cassidy: It is peanuts when you can avoid it most of the time.

Hon. Mr. Meen: What about the other programmes?

Mr. Renwick: By the way, is the minister satisfied it is direct taxation within the province?

Hon. Mr. Meen: In the housing action programme mv colleague the Minister of Housing is taking steps to streamline the plans administration branch operations.

Mr. Singer: Oh yes, oh yes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He signed the report of the select committee.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, and he also happens to have been one of those whom I have just quoted in the select committee report.

Mr. Singer: Yes, he certainly streamlined it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: And he is going to have more to say on his programmes in the weeks ahead.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We have the land speculation Tax Act --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- which I suggest is a disincentive to hold on to land. Its an incentive to get it out into the market, either with finished dwellings or with covenants from builders who will themselves construct within a period of, say a year.

I might mention one other thing: By the end of this year, my ministry will have complete information, on a print-out basis through our computers, of every serviced but undeveloped lot in Ontario. It would therefore be possible -- and the government is looking at the possibilities --

Mr. Cassidy: And the government will sell copies to everyone who wants a house. Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- to consider certain incentives to get these lots into the housing stream either by the method suggested by the select committee -- and we might note this could be applied by way of, say authority to municipalities for certain tax surcharges on the basis of non-residency -- or it could be done simply on the basis of a serviced, undeveloped lot.

These are some further elements that form part of our entire programme towards getting more lots on the market and hopefully, therefore, with supply getting closer to demand, helping to depress prices, and in addition making more land available for housing.

So we have three or four arrows in our quiver as we take aim at the elusive spectre of land speculation --

Mr. Cassidy: Did the minister say he has arrows in his quiver?

Hon. Mr. Meen: None of these should be expected to do it alone, but we believe that together they will accomplish this task.

Mr. Cassidy: The yeoman of the cabinet is drawing his bow on Ontario’s housing problem, eh?

Hon. Mr. Meen: And we think we would be derelict in our duties if we didn’t undertake it now, rather than wait until the fall. We just can’t afford to wait until then.

Mr. Renwick: Has the minister any idea how many serviced but undeveloped lots there are in the province?

Hon. Mr. Meen: There are quite a number.

Mr. Renwick: Has the minister any idea? Has he any estimate?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The question of whether the 20 per cent tax would be reflected in the sale price has also been raised by a number of members opposite. We don’t think so, and there are two reasons for this.

The first is that in the case of the 20 per cent tax on non-resident builders who undertake to develop and resell to Canadians or to Canadian residents, then the tax is deferred without interest. On that basis, then, there is no reason for any potential cost of this 20 per cent to be borne in the resale price.

Mr. Reid: It has to be paid sometime.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The only instance I can think of in which that philosophy might apply would be where a corporation deemed to be a non-resident under the Act sold a completed dwelling to a non-resident, in which event not only would the 20 per cent presumably be included in the sale price, but the non-resident purchaser of the dwelling would pay another 20 per cent on top of the original 20 per cent, for a total surcharge of some 44 per cent. That would be a real disincentive to the sale of that completed dwelling to a non-resident.

Mr. Renwick: But what about a purchase by a non-resident for investment and then the renting of the accommodation? Will that not be reflected in the rent that is paid?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member for Riverdale, who had his opportunity to speak on Friday and didn’t use it --

Mr. Renwick: I didn’t have my opportunity on Friday, thank you.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- that he might withhold some of those questions. I will endeavour to answer them when we are in committee, and I’ll be happy to explain the sections to him. I am sure he’ll understand them.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): He can still speak this afternoon, if he wishes.

Mr. Renwick: I still wish to speak this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Now there is another reason --

Mr. Singer: If the minister knew something about the bill he wouldn’t have to be so sensitive.

Mr. Deans: The member for Riverdale, with the unanimous consent of the House, would be prepared to speak now.

Mr. Renwick: I will save all the arrows in my quiver until committee.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The second reason, Mr. Speaker, and I think it’s even more important, is that the best economic advice we can get tells us in cases such as we have with land in Ontario, where demand exceeds supply -- and this applies to any commodity where demand exceeds supply, but I’m speaking specifically in reference to land -- the price is established not by the cost of the article but by the demand.

Mr. Renwick: The chairman of the Bank of Montreal said that the other day.

Mr. Deans: One can manipulate demand and supply.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Contrary to the views expressed by the economist from Wentworth and the economist from Sudbury East and a few other instant economists we’ve had around here from time to time, a 20 per cent factor then is not reflected in the sale price; it would simply be a further profit to be made. It is a disincentive in this case. Let me clarify that it’s a disincentive to a foreign investor to go into this market with an additional markup of 20 per cent on his cost, which he will not be successful in reflecting in the sale price.

Mr. Renwick: He will be able to reflect it in the sale price.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It will be part of his cost of acquisition, but it will not adversely -- upwardly -- increase the sale price. In fact, it will detract from the demand and hopefully, will depress the basic market value.

Mr. Renwick: There is no way it will.

Mr. Cassidy: No. I recommend that the minister studies the theory of oligopoly.

An hon. member: Except that he doesn’t know what that is.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The costs of these lands are not influenced by market price. With our other measures we think it will help to stabilize the real estate market, not drive it up.

Mr. Foulds: Stabilize. We all know what a stable is.

Mr. Deans: Who is giving the minister his economic advice?

Hon. Mr. Meen: The hon. member for Wentworth has just asked an interesting question. I have access to very good economic advice from within the government, probably from the best economists in the land.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Like the Treasurer.

Mr. Deans: They have made an awful error this time.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Let me just add this.

Mr. Cassidy: They are not the problem.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Where did the member for Wentworth get his?

Mr. Deans: I get my economic advice from Marion Bryden, the same place as the member gets his. It is good advice. She didn’t advise this.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Deans: I’m sorry. Am I interrupting?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Section 22 of the bill refers specifically to the 20 per cent non-resident tax. I’ve been turning over in my mind whether there wouldn’t be some merit in permitting some flexibility, by regulation, to adjust that figure upward, in case we saw, when we monitor this Act and its effect over the next few months, whether or not the 20 per cent is reaping in a tremendous revenue to the province but not deterring foreign investments.

Mr. Renwick: I know of no tax that can be levied by regulation in this province.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It would be interesting to see what the thoughts of the House would be on something of that sort.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just trust us!

Mr. Cassidy: Just raise it to 100 per cent and the minister may get our support

Mr. Singer: Pass a general Act that we will tax whatever we want and well tell members in regulations. What an idea that is!

Mr. Renwick: We cannot allow the government to tax by regulation.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Singer: They don’t need a budget; they just pass one Act.

Hon. Mr. Meen: As to specifics, I am sorry the member for Kitchener is not in his seat at the present time. He asked a number of pertinent questions that were on the subject of the bill, contrary to so many that were not.

He asked about a lien review procedure up to Sept. 30. We do have that procedure but that is only with respect to liens that will accrue from and beginning April 10 last until the date of proclamation of the Act.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The review procedure will go on, as we look over those various transactions, until Sept. 30.

The question arose of whether the bill might increase the price of vacant land. I think I dealt with that one, but I would just point out to him and to his colleagues here in the House that, whether we are dealing with vacant land or not, we are really dealing with the matter of non-residency and not the nature of land, whether it’s vacant or whether it’s developed.

He asked if the tax is a cost of doing business for income tax purposes, and as far as I can ascertain the answer to that question is yes.

Mr. Singer: How did the minister ascertain that? The federal government has not given any such indication.

Hon. Mr. Meen: He asked if vendors may be anticipated to hang on to land.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I would say yes, that could be. If so, then perhaps that’s because of a lack of non-resident buyers. If that is the case, I’d suggest that maybe the bill is doing the job we want it to do.

Now he asked also, could my ministry track down foreign sources which act through Ontario agents? Well I would say that in some cases such foreign sources might be able to escape if the nature of their transaction is suppressed. But, quite honestly, I would expect that the number of false affidavits would be few.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain why?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I want also to emphasize once more that we are not trying to discourage foreign investment by non-residents for development purposes or in any other sense. He had questioned that one, as I recall.

He talked also about accountants wanting precision so they would be able to identify the loopholes. Perhaps in answer to the hon. member for Downsview I’d say that is sort of the opposite side of the coin. I like a little flexibility so that the minute we find one I can move in and plug it up.

Mr. Singer: Yes, with or without the Legislature; preferably without.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well if the Legislature is in session, then fine. But if the Legislature is not in session we could have some difficulties.

Mr. Singer: Surely the minister is not serious about taxing by regulation?

Mr. Renwick: He is not really?

Mr. Singer: Is that government policy?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Singer: He just wants to tax by regulation?

Hon. Mr. Meen: The hon. member for High Park raised a number of points. He talked about false affidavits, how easy it would be, the minimum fine of $50, the maximum of $1,000. Let me point out to him section 122 of the Criminal Code, with which he may not have been familiar since he wouldn’t have had any personal involvement with it. It imposes a penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment for knowingly making any false affidavit, and I think that ought to be enough to discourage some people.

I think it was he who also mentioned that the mortgage market had dried up utterly as a result of this bill, that foreign investments through the lending process were simply stopped dead, taking no steps whatever pending whatever developments they thought might occur up here.

I had my staff check this afternoon and I’m advised that as recently as this afternoon the Toronto Real Estate Board had no indication of mortgage money shortage attributable to this bill. They do indicate there may be some problems arising because of the Bank of Canada’s recently announced interest rate, but that if there are any doubts in that area they arise through that bank action and not through the steps we have taken.

I had indicated very early, following the introduction of the bill, that the matter of a final order of foreclosure being a very clear loophole we had plugged it. In other words, we had not provided in the bill that a final order of foreclosure taken by a non-resident mortgagee would give him title to the land.

The reason was that that would be a very clear loophole through the Act if we were to allow the mortgage process to be used for the basis of acquisition of land by a non-resident.

It became apparent, though, that some lenders were a bit concerned about this matter, and we will be issuing a statement. It is in preparation now. It will make it abundantly clear that where the ministry is satisfied the mortgage under foreclosure did not in any way arise through a collusive arrangement with the mortgagor in order to permit the mortgagee to acquire title to the property via the foreclosure route, we would then waive the tax.

When I wrote to every member of the legal profession under date of April 9 -- the letter was mailed at 4 o’clock that afternoon at the same time as the budget address was going on -- I added this addendum to the references to the Land Transfer Tax Act, and I quote, just finishing off the last part of the sentence:

“... for a final order of foreclosure of the equity of redemption under a mortgage, where it is established to the satisfaction of the minister that such order is not part of a collusive arrangement to avoid the tax.”

Now that, hopefully, had gotten to every practising solicitor in Ontario. As I say, I did have one call and I believe that was clarified. We certainly do not expect to have any difficulties; and certainly I would not believe the mortgage market had dried up.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion --

Mr. Cassidy: What about the amount of foreign investment before tax?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- may I just observe that as usual the official opposition seems to be on both sides of this issue?

Mr. Singer: If the minister would listen he could comment sensibly.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Although they have now indicated they don’t propose to support it, originally their leader said that they would.

Mr. Singer: He said no such thing!

Hon. Mr. Meen: I couldn’t tell which side of the --

Mr. Singer: He said no such thing; the minister is deliberately misleading the House and he knows it!

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- fence the hon. member for Kitchener was on because he didn’t say.

Mr. Singer: The minister is deliberately misleading the House!

Hon. Mr. Meen: But I noted the observations by the hon. member for York Centre -- he was vehemently opposed -- and frankly they surprised me, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing that a 20 per cent disincentive to foreign investment in the real estate field is then going to be a greater incentive to those foreign investors to put their money, that’s floating around looking for a nice safe place to land, that those foreign investors might be far more likely now to put their money into the stock brokerage equity investment field, I’m astonished that the hon. member for York Centre, ex-stockbroker that he is, would have been so perturbed by this bill.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Don’t believe it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: And yet he seemed mainly opposed -- as I read his remarks in Hansard -- he seemed mainly opposed because it didn’t appear to implement fully the recommendations of the Select Committee on Economic and Cultural Nationalism. And of course I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that we’re doing what we can at this time.

An hon. member: How’s he doing?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Well maybe by now he’s had a chance to see the light, I don’t know.

As for the NDP, well I guess they’re wholly predictable. They certainly are more predictable than the official opposition. Because after all, they’re opposed to everything. They opposed the Niagara Escarpment legislation --

Mr. Renwick: That’s a helpful remark; that’s a really helpful remark.

Hon. Mr. Meen: They opposed the parkway legislation.

Mr. Renwick: We are talking about the principle of this bill.

Hon. Mr. Meen: They opposed the planning and development legislation. They opposed every one of my --

Mr. Renwick: We are talking about the principle of this bill. Stick to the bill!

Mr. Cassidy: We’re opposed to the way the government is running the province. It’s doing a bad job. It’s trying to --

Hon. Mr. Meen: It’s none of these things. This legislation by this government is an honest attempt, by constitutional means, to put a damper on the pressure of foreign moneys in this market --

Mr. Cassidy: Three hundred million a year is dampening? Nonsense!

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- to do what we could not otherwise do by other courses of action, whether recommended by the select committee or not --

Mr. Singer: Utter rot.

Mr. Cassidy: The government will allow a third of a billion in foreign money to come in --

Hon. Mr. Meen: We will constantly monitor the effect of this legislation and its companion legislation over the next few months.

Mr. Cassidy: The government doesn’t know what’s happening there now.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We will inspect the affidavits that are filed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We will inspect the records and we will be keeping records over the next few months. If it appears this legislation has loopholes, we will plug them as swiftly as we possibly can -- either by regulation or by amendments to this legislation later on this session, or possibly in the fall.

Mr. Singer: Yes, or by regulations.

Mr. Cassidy: They have left a lot to plug.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, the principles are sound and frankly they deserve support from all sides, from all members who are anxious to see that our natural heritage, our land of this province, is preserved for the maximum benefit of all residents of Ontario.

Mr. Singer: Rot!

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 26.

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 26, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Allan Beckett Bennett Bernier Birch Brunelle Carton Clement Davis Downer Dymond Eaton Evans Grossman Hamilton Havrot Henderson Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton) Hodgson (York North) Irvine Jessiman Kennedy Kerr Lawrence Leluk MacBeth Maeck McIlveen McNeil Meen Miller Morningstar Newman (Ontario South) Nixon (Dovercourt) Nuttall Reilly Rhodes Root Rowe Scrivener Snow Stewart Taylor Walker Wardle Welch Winkler Yaremko-48.

Breithaupt Burr Campbell Cassidy Davison Deacon Deans Dukszta Edighoffer Foulds Germa Gisborn Givens Good Haggerty Lawlor Lewis Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon (Brant) Paterson Reid Renwick Riddell Roy Ruston Singer Smith (Nipissing) Stokes Worton Young-30.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 48, the “nays” are 30.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to committee of the whole?

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

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any possible reason why this bill and its companion bill could not go to a committee outside of the Legislature?

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order. The minister has the privilege of determining which committee the bill should go to.

Mr. Cassidy: It was admitted, though, Mr. Speaker, that there are a lot of loopholes in the bill and it should be open to that kind of discussion.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry, there’s no point of order.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1

Clerk of the House: Notice of motion No. 1 by Mr. Young.

RESOLUTION: That the government of Ontario set provincial standards to control the installation and maintenance of fire extinguishers in all buildings except private residences and that a commissioner be appointed to supervise and enforce these standards.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, resolution No. 1 on the order paper really grew out of correspondence which was sent by a gentleman in Oshawa, by the name of James Gorman, who wrote a letter to the Attorney General, to the Leader of the Opposition and to this party, in connection with a problem with respect to fire extinguishers. Mr. Gorman spoke to me about this subsequently, after I called him, and provided me with a good deal of material, some of which I had not seen before.

I might say that Mr. Gorman has been a salesman for the Levitt Co. for some years and now has his own company which is having some difficulty because he is too concerned with safety. He is having some difficulties with competitors which I will out- line later.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member has difficulty in making himself heard.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): We are listening.

Mr. Young: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the National Building Code report dealt with the matter of fire safety to some extent. At the present time, the Ontario fire code report is coming, when the committee is finished. That should be complete within a reasonable time. But we do know that present provincial standards do require fire extinguishers in every building other than private residences.

The Industrial Safety Act, for example, requires that the owner of an industrial establishment shall provide adequate fire protection and equipment, lays down rules as to the inspection of these bits of equipment every month, and prohibits extinguishers containing carbontech and other dangerous substances. Service stations, nursery homes, school buses and other such items are covered under the regulations. The Fire Marshals Act also gives the fire marshal certain powers to confer and to assist in setting up local bylaws. He also has the power to require that these bylaws be enforced when they are passed.

The Fire Marshals Act also empowers the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations under 26(e), “providing for licensing and regulating the manufacture, sale, servicing and recharging of fire extinguishers.” Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, no regulations have ever been written under this provision.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Shame.

Mr. Stokes: Typical.

Mr. Young: The type of fire extinguisher to be used in any given place and the kind of servicing of such equipment has been pretty well left to the insurance industry and the local fire departments. The insurance industry seems more interested in sprinkling systems and major items of fire protection and leaves the fire extinguishers to the local fire department assuming, not always correctly, that they make sure the extinguishers are always in good working order.

The Canadian Underwriters Association has a couple of very useful booklets which I have here, Nos. 10 and 10A, setting out what types of fire extinguishers should be used in certain situations. They give general principles for the location of such equipment and how it should be recharged and maintained. But these rules are not enshrined in legislation and so are not enforced.

As I pointed out, the regulations possible under the Fire Marshals Act have never been written. That’s what this resolution is all about today.

As I see it, there are four main problems in connection with present practices in respect to fire extinguishers. They may not be in the right place. They may not be of the right type for that location. They may not be properly maintained. The people working nearest them may not know how to operate them.

The first of these need not take much discussion. Most fire extinguishers are placed according to the instructions of the Canadian Underwriters Association. Sometimes, however, they do get placed at the convenience of the builder or so that they don’t detract from the decor of the building. Sometimes, too, in places like school buses, they are hidden to prevent theft.

Many smaller communities have no inspectors in the local fire department trained in the location of such equipment and standards vary from community to community. The standards outlined in CUA 10 need to be made universal in this province and local people should be trained in their implementation.

Second, in selecting the right type of fire extinguisher for a particular location, the purchaser is often at the mercy of commercial interests more keen on sales than adequate protection. There is a very wide variety of extinguishers, some based on water under various kinds of pressure; others have soda acid, carbon dioxide, ammonium phosphate and other chemicals. In looking over the whole lot of them, the building owner may seek the cheapest type of extinguisher rather than the most effective one for his situation.

The Canadian Underwriters Association lists four classes of fires. These classes are as follows: Class A fire, ordinary combustible materials, such as wood, cloth, paper, rubber and many plastics; class B, those inflammable liquids, gases and greases; class C fires, which involve energized electrical equipment where the electrical non-conductivity of the extinguishing media is of importance; and class D fires, in combustible metals, such as magnesium, titanium and others.

Class A fires, of course, can be handled by water extinguishers. But this will cause some water damage while extinguishing the fire. Water in class B fires -- that is grease and oil -- will only spread the blaze. How often we have heard of grease fires in kitchens exploding in this way.

The older types of extinguishers were the best available when they were first sold, but there is no reason to keep selling them when more efficient ones are now available. The modem ammonium phosphate extinguishers, for example, will serve for all A, B, and C class fires. They will handle five times as much fire as water will and do no water damage.

It’s a strange anomaly that the commercial driver’s manual issued by the Transportation Safety Association of Ontario uses a 1954 fire extinguisher standard and recommends types of extinguishers good only for B and C class fires. The majority of automotive fires also involve class A fires. Only multi-purpose, dry chemical extinguishers should be recommended, as they now are in many states south of the border.

Builders of apartments, too, often install the cheaper soda acid extinguishers which should be emptied and recharged every year. The building is sold and the new owner may not be aware of what needs to be done; or he may not care about recharging as long as the extinguishers look all right.

I understand that the Ontario government is now in the process of converting all its extinguishers to the A, B and C type as replacement is required. That’s a good move and it should be universal in Ontario.

Legislation, or the writing of adequate regulations under the present Fire Marshals Act, is needed to phase out the less efficient type of extinguishers, which may have been the very best we had years ago but which are now obsolete, and to bring about the installation of the more efficient ones that we now possess.

In the field of inspection and maintenance, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Underwriters Association book 10A provides sound procedures. But there is no legislation to make them mandatory.

Fire extinguisher servicing agencies are not licensed. Anyone, regardless of qualification, may enter the field and seek business. Any person may seek that business by lowering his prices to the level where servicing just can’t be done without cutting too many corners.

It’s a highly-competitive field, and for anyone more concerned with making a dollar than in safety, the way is wide open to tender prices far too low to guarantee adequate work. The result may be that recharging the equipment, or even putting a new date on the tag after a quick look at the outside of the extinguisher, is all that’s done. Careful inspection, maintenance and repair goes by the board. These things are often not covered by the tender specifications or the business agreements.

The building owner takes too much for granted. To him, servicing is servicing and he doesn’t realize how important thorough servicing can be if the extinguisher is to be constantly ready for the emergency it was designed to meet. Seldom is any detailed service report given to the owner, and seldom does he know what work he has actually paid for. It’s similar to a car owner who is only concerned with keeping the gas tank full, who ignores the brakes, the oil, the tires and other vital parts of the car equally essential to keeping it in good running order.

Mr. Gorman of Oshawa, whom I mentioned before and who has wide experience, says this:

“There are 11 manufacturers of multi-purpose dry chemical -- ammonium phosphate base -- fire extinguishers listed in the ULC’s list of equipment and materials. This does not include some American manufacturers that are not listed but available to Canadian consumers.

“The CUA book 10A states when recharging dry chemical fire extinguishers the manufacturer’s chemical should be used or the extinguisher is void of its label. No servicing company carries in its recharging stock 11 different manufacturers’ chemicals. In fact most recharging companies buy their chemical from one company; a company that sells this chemical for the lowest price and does not have any approval for the chemical. This means once a fire extinguisher has been recharged it is no longer as effective, as it was originally.”

He also says:

“The Industrial Safety Act requires proper fire extinguishers and by the term “adequate” requires that they be in a constant state of readiness. The number of establishments that I have observed that have complied with the Act would be less than 10. I have been in over 1,000 plants from Windsor to Gananoque.

“The average industry is incapable of providing a record of their own fire extinguishers without doing a plant search. In other words, they don’t have any record of the number of extinguishers -- let alone the types and ages and locations of them. Installation of fire extinguishers generally means distributing anything with the words 'fire extinguisher’ stamped on it throughout the plant.”

And he says:

“In some communities the local fire department inspects buildings and instructs the owners to deliver their fire extinguishers to their fire department garage. Here they recharge the extinguisher in a substandard manner and have the owners pick up the extinguisher. They charge for this, of course; and sometimes more than the average legitimate fee. While these units are at the fire department the owner has no fire protection.”

Then too, Mr. Speaker, extinguishers are pressure vessels and so stand some danger of blowing up if any weakness develops in the outside shell. The Canadian Underwriters Association’s book 10A requires hydrostatic testing at stated intervals, depending upon the type of equipment. But hydrostatic testing is done only at the request of the owner and most owners don’t even know that it should be done. There is no legislation to cover it and little specialized equipment in this province to carry it out. Outside Metro this type of test equipment just does not exist.

Near my office door in the north wing is a pressure water extinguisher. Regulations 10a says it should have a hydrostatic test every five years; and it also says there should be a metal tag stamped with the date of the inspection and the name of the person who does the inspection; and that tag self-destructs if anybody tries to remove it from that extinguisher and put it somewhere else. Well Mr. Speaker, there is no tag on this extinguisher; there is no tag on any extinguisher I have seen in the building.

This particular extinguisher was made in 1964. I can see perhaps some reason why the government should leave these potentially explosive devices in the offices of the opposition members, but the strange thing is that they also exist downstairs in the offices of the government members -- and those extinguishers have no metal tags on them either. So evidently the hydrostatic testing is not being done even in this building, unless I have not been able to see the tags that should be there.

The final thing that I raise is training for use. Certainly all janitors and service people in all buildings should be trained in the use of this equipment so they know exactly what kinds of fires particular equipment can put out. Also, the people concerned who are working near this equipment should know as well.

For example, I sit very close to a fire extinguisher upstairs, and I did not know what type it was until I began to do a little research for this particular resolution. If a fire had occurred I would have had very little information on what to do in handling it.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, my resolution says there should be a commissioner to supervise and enforce these standards; and such a commissioner could very well be the fire marshal of this province. The purpose of appointing a commissioner of fire extinguishers would be to eliminate the present confusion and inadequacies that presently exist in the fire extinguisher field.

It would be the responsibility of the commissioner’s office to:

1. Establish a standard for the installation and maintenance of fire extinguishers in all buildings and areas where the public may enter and the possibility of fire exists; and to recommend legislation and regulations to publish these standards.

2. Provide publication of these standards and other pertinent information to the authorities of various jurisdictions, fire extinguisher users, servicing companies and manufacturers.

3. Control the maintenance of fire extinguishers through training and licensing of personnel engaged in this type of service.

4. Through research, provide information and recommendations to those concerned regarding such areas as discontinued approval of certain extinguishers and practices, informing the public and the manufacturers of new or advanced methods of fire fighting, fire extinguisher training for industry and students.

5. Ensure that every community in the province has an inspector appointed by their local fire department.

I call upon this House, Mr. Speaker, to support the resolution I have put forward today.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Yorkview. My hon. friend brings up an important matter and makes what I think is a reasonable argument for setting provincial standards in order to control the information and maintenance of fire extinguishers in all buildings except those in private residences.

It seems to me that having a set standard throughout the province would be desirable. There are no proper individual standards now as to types of fire extinguishers and no provincial maintenance and inspection programmes.

I understand this resolution would provide an inspection programme to ensure that the type of extinguisher used on premises is adequate for the purpose it is intended to serve, that is to extinguish a fire on those particular premises.

It is important also to give consideration to another aspect of this problem. A confectionery or similar store, it is hoped, would have the type of extinguisher that would be suitable for the type of stock carried in such a store. However, if the occupancy of the store changed and it became a dry cleaning establishment or a fish and chip store, then a different type of extinguishing agent would be required.

For instance, a confectionery store would require a water pressure type of fire extinguisher for paper and similar stock, while a dry cleaning establishment would require a carbon dioxide or dry powder type of extinguisher. Inspections should be made when changes take place in occupancy of various business establishments; and, Mr. Speaker, this does not take place now. A store will become a new type of operation, yet the extinguishers often remain the same.

Each extinguisher should be classified as to the coding. Inspections should be made to make sure that every establishment has the type of extinguisher required for that type of operation. The extinguisher should, of course, be changed when the type of occupancy or the type of stock carried is changed.

I feel certain, Mr. Speaker, that uniformity in this regard and inspections throughout the province would bring up the standards throughout Ontario.

The other important point, of course, is not only that fire extinguishers on premises should be of a suitable type but that they should be operable. There is certainly no point in having an extinguisher if, when the need arises, it is found to be empty or not suitable for that purpose. And this does happen in some cases when there is a fire.

In brief, there should be, firstly, the correct type of extinguisher for the purpose and, secondly, inspection should ensure that the extinguisher is workable.

Some cities and towns throughout Ontario have fire bylaws that require annual inspection of firefighting equipment. This doesn’t take place in the Metropolitan Toronto area, of course, and in some other cities and towns throughout Ontario. It is not generally the case in business establishments that annual inspections take place.

This bill, I understand, would provide for uniform jurisdiction throughout the province, as opposed to the present situation where there are several hundred jurisdictions. I think this resolution also should provide that there should be fire bylaws passed in every town and municipality throughout the province so standards would be set that would be applicable.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in the short few moments that we have left, I compliment the member for bringing this resolution forward, and I am glad to give my support to it. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-Forest Hill.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Mr. Speaker, I will speak against the resolution. I think we don’t need a commissioner. We now have a fire marshal by the name of Hurst who can look after matters quite adequately, and I understand he does a pretty fair job.

I think we are surrounded with regulations; maybe they are not enforced, but I don’t think that by the passing of legislation we would get them adequately enforced. I think we should see that the government passes its new building code, which now is years be- hind in its passage. I don’t know why they are delaying further, because I think that fire preventive measures should be built into buildings, and not have a multiplicity of fire extinguishers. And perhaps people who sell fire extinguishers should be licensed. The matter of maintenance particularly should also be looked after, but that’s a different subject, and I don’t think that is going to be solved by having more regulations.

In Metropolitan Toronto, the various municipalities have a plethora of regulations. The city of Toronto has a fire prevention bylaw -- I think its number is 6069 -- and we have a building bylaw. No. 368, which has to do with the building of highrise apartment houses and so on.

I think that when people get involved in a fire, they should leave firefighting to the professionals. They should get their wives and kids and get them the hell out of there and leave the firefighting to the people who know what they are doing, because when you talk about having an adequate kind of fire extinguisher you need a different fire extinguisher for every different kind of fire you may have in any kind of establishment. You may need a variety of a dozen different kinds of fire extinguishers, and the average person doesn’t know what fire extinguishers he should have. So keep yourself well insured, get your wife and kids out of there and leave the firefighting to the professionals.

I’ll tell you this, you pick up a paper -- and this has to do with people who get killed in fires -- and every so often there is a big fire in a rooming house. I wonder why there aren’t many more rooming-house fires in Toronto than there are because there are thousands of rooming houses. You know what causes these rooming-house fires? Two main things -- smoking and drinking. You can take these rooming houses and you could surround them with fire extinguishers and they would still burn down. And they will still burn down, because they are too smashed when they go to bed smoking to get up and to run over to a corner to get a fire extinguisher to put the fire out.

So I don’t care how many regulations we are going to pass and how many commissioners we are going to put in charge and how many inspectors we are going to have roaming around this province and how many extinguishers we are going to put in all these establishments -- it isn’t going to help the matter, because fires are the result of carelessness.

In an industry, in a factory, where people are attuned to dealing with emergencies and they can be trained and they are dealing in a disciplined way, things are different. I am talking about residential fires. I am talking about where people are involved, where kids are involved, women and children are involved, and things of that nature. I am not talking about industrial fires, like in a motor company or things of that nature.

I think we have adequate regulations. The matter is a question of enforcement and not a matter of passing more regulations and putting more people in charge of these regulations. We’ve got enough of a bureaucracy as it is right now.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): He has persuaded us, we will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peel South.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): I will give way.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I’m finally going to get on my feet here.

I want to concur with the previous member who just spoke that there are enough regulations now that fire departments can cover the matter of fire extinguishers. We have the National Building Code, we have a proposed Ontario Uniform Building Code, we have local municipal bylaws, we have the Fire Marshals Act -- which covers the matter pretty thoroughly there, and perhaps I should read this, Mr. Speaker:

“Where in a municipality a fire prevention office has been established, or the chief of the fire department in a municipality has designated one or more members of the fire department as a fire prevention officer or officers, or the fire marshal has so designated any other person, every person who is a member of that fire prevention bureau is designated as an assistant to the fire marshal and shall have all the powers of an assistant to the fire marshal under this Act.”

Of course, if you go into section 19 of the Fire Marshals Act, that pretty well covers it. Each member of that fire department or its volunteer paid fire department has the same responsibility as the fire marshal under the direction of the fire chief.

I think the most important thing, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a lack of fire prevention policies in the Province of Ontario. We don’t have enough education, even in our schools perhaps, throughout the municipalities. I think that we can perhaps reduce the number of fires in Ontario through proper fire prevention programmes.

I think the most important thing in this, that the mover should have brought in with it, is that I would like to see heat detectors placed in every home and every multiple dwelling.

Mr. Foulds: Don’t we have enough regulations? Isn’t that what the member said?

Mr. Haggerty: This isn’t a regulation. This is something that I think would pinpoint a fire perhaps right at the time it starts, and perhaps you would get the people out of the building and you wouldn’t need the fire extinguishers. But as the member says we have about four or five different types of extinguishers.

Mr. Young: He wants to get another regulation.

Mr. Haggerty: That is, in fact, under the National Fire Code of Canada, 1963, so that regulation --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time has expired.

Mr. Haggerty: I think what is lacking is that we should have a good fire prevention educational programme in the Province of Ontario under the existing regulations. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I would like to say that tomorrow we will continue with the discussion on Bill 26 under item 2. Following that, should we conclude it, there will be a slight change, and we will proceed to item 6. Should we conclude both of those items we will then turn our minds to No. 8. I am not sure, of course, what the progress will be and, depending upon the progress tomorrow, I would announce the business for Thursday should it be that way. I also have the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) standing by with his estimates and I would ask that the members of the House prepare themselves for that possibility.

I would also like to say now in regard to the estimates that are currently on the table, in the House -- and not in this order; I will give the order immediately I have it clear -- are Consumer and Commercial Relations, Energy, Agriculture and Food, Industry and Tourism, Resources policy; in standing committee, Attorney General -- who is now being heard -- the Solicitor General, Natural Resources, Transportation and Communications, Labour and Environment.

Mr. Stokes: Is the minister going to provide us with a written list?

Mr. Breithaupt: Before the adjournment of the House, might I inquire of the minister if it is his intention to proceed with the estimates in the House tomorrow evening, or will we follow through with Bills 26, 22 and 25, as may be expected?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes. Based on progress thus far I believe that that won’t be a problem to us, but I would think that that would be correct.

Mr. Breithaupt: The second point I would raise, Mr. Speaker, is with respect to the next private members’ hour. It will be the government’s turn but there are no bills standing in the government members’ names. It would be convenient if whatever bill is to be proceeded with would be brought in to- morrow so that we can be assured of having printed copies by the end of the week.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, that will be negotiated with the whips. I don’t think there will be a problem there.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6 o’clock, p.m.