Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

GO-URBAN SYSTEM

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House of changes to the Krauss-Maffei GO-Urban demonstration programme at the CNE.

In part, Krauss-Maffei has been funded for this project by the West German government. Because of a recent decision by that government to move away from certain long-range technological programmes, Krauss-Maffei’s financing prospects have been affected to the extent that four weeks ago I was approached to see if arrangements could be made to modify the contract. As a result, I have negotiated the following:

First, the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. will now develop and will own the GO-Urban intermediate-capacity technology, using existing Krauss-Maffei research and development data for which the West German government and Krauss-Maffei have invested approximately $30 million. This valuable asset is available to Ontario without cost. We have also negotiated the right to an exclusive, royalty-free licence in Canada and a royalty-free, non-exclusive licence in most of the rest of the world.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Going into the junk business?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Second, our contract with Krauss-Maffei has been terminated and Ontario will be refunded all of the money it has spent so far on the demonstration project at the CNE. An interim payment of $8.5 million was made yesterday to cover most of these costs. The final settlement will be made on the submission of an audited statement.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Remember the statement by the Premier (Mr. Davis)?

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): So we get the hardware. Put out an inventory --

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Shut up and listen!

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Third, Ontario will have the use of the Krauss-Maffei test track and test equipment in Munich free of charge. Since Krauss-Maffei will no longer be constructing the CNE test track, and since we negotiated access to the Krauss-Maffei facilities in Munich, we can postpone our investment in a demonstration track at this time.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Until another election.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We think it makes sense to delay that expenditure now and fully utilize the Munich facility.

Mr. Shulman: Very wise!

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Depending on our experience there, we could integrate a future demonstration track in Ontario as part of a future revenue system. This represents a saving of $7.7 million for the guideway and stations alone.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The Treasurer (Mr. White) wrote that before he went away.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am tabling a copy of the complete agreement. Our ability to conclude this agreement represents much forethought by my predecessor, who negotiated guarantees for the Ontario taxpayer in the original agreement.

The new agreement continues the development programme and it allows Ontario to use over $30 million of research and development already invested by the West German government and Krauss-Maffei at no cost to Ontario. It also allows us to continue our programme to develop an intermediate-capacity transit system.

Mr. Lawlor: They have the technology, the staff and the brains. We are going to have to bring half the German population over --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to set out briefly how the government proposes to proceed from here. First, OTDC will manage the development programme and will continue to provide me with regular reports.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): That’s good.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Second, OTDC will receive and assimilate the data to be provided by Krauss-Maffei as quickly as possible and begin utilizing the Munich test track and test vehicles. I envisage that a short time will be necessary for our management team and technicians to complete the takeover of the system. Once this is done, this is going to be a Canadian-directed programme.

Third, McDonnell-Douglas has already agreed to cost-share and to collaborate with OTDC during the takeover phase. Preliminary discussions have already been initiated for their involvement in subsequent phases -- the prototype development, pilot production and revenue production phases.

So Mr. Speaker, as a result of a series of recent developments, Ontario has gained control of this technology at no cost to the taxpayer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I like that.

Mr. Lawlor: He said that with a straight face. Very good.

Mr. Martel: That’s why they made him minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Oral questions.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the members please refrain from interjections?

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

GO-URBAN SYSTEM

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the minister who just made the statement if the West German government decided to get out of funding this research in part because the research itself was having some difficulty in getting off the ground, so to speak, in that the car will not go around curves. Has it got anything to do with the fact that the West German government does not think this programme is economically feasible and therefore Ontario is left holding the bag?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: First of all, Mr. Speaker, Ontario is not left holding the bag. The question of whether we continue or not is entirely in the hands of this government as far as development of the technology is concerned. I would point out there is no bag to hold because the money we have spent has all been returned. We have not lost one nickel; it is all back.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Just a couple of years.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Now as far as the technology is concerned, we have a report that was produced by qualified engineers from the Krauss-Maffei company, from McDonnell-Douglas, from OTDC and from the ministry. For six weeks we have intensively studied the total technology. In that report they indicate there are risk areas, as in any technological development programme, but that they are technically soluble.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister may wish he had never got involved.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We would like to continue along to determine the viability of the system itself to be used for an urban transit programme.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, if you will permit, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister not think that after all of the ballyhoo and palaver that has gone on with this thing, there is a substantial risk for the taxpayers of this province to see us thoroughly involved -- even with the partners we have, including the government of Canada in part -- in a research procedure in a foreign country many thousands of miles away, and abandoning the research project that has been built for a considerable amount of money at the CNE grounds? Surely the justification for that is extremely thin.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the construction at the CNE, as I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition is fully aware, has not commenced. The contracts for the guideways and the stations had been recalled.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: After all the gas mains have been removed?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Singer: And the parking lots are cleared?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that is a fact and it is these costs which we have recovered. All of these costs have been recovered in our final agreement and arrangement made in discussions with Krauss-Maffei.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They were anxious to buy their way out.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the reason for the Krauss-Maffei Co. wishing to be relieved of that contractual obligation they had with the province is very simply that they were no longer receiving the 80 per cent funding they were getting from the West German government, and they really couldn’t, financially, continue with the programme.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for High Park have a supplementary?

Mr. Shulman: Inasmuch as the government was counting on Krauss-Maffei for the last two years to solve its transportation problems, what is it going to do now? Is it going to start all over again?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, we have not been counting on Krauss-Maffei to solve all of the problems. The Ontario Transit Development Corp. has been working on all the various modes. I have said here on many occasions that despite what the opposition has tried to make the people believe, we have not dealt with only one mode. We have been dealing with light rail transit; we have been dealing with streetcars; we have been working on the development of new systems that use conventional transit. That’s been going on continually, despite what the opposition have tried to make the people of this province believe.

Mr. Martel: What would the government do with the grand canal -- the Spadina trench?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That didn’t have the lustre and pizzazz of the Premier.

Mr. Martel: Gordy isn’t here today to enjoy this.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary of the minister: Could he advise the House how much money we’re going to receive in the way of a refund, and are we going to be refunded for -- ?

Mr. Speaker: The minister answered that question. Does the member for Sudbury have a question?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister without Portfolio): Listen once in a while.

Mr. Roy: The minister didn’t say how much, Mr. Speaker. Can he tell us how much money is involved in the refunds from Krauss-Maffei?

Mr. Speaker: Do you wish to give the information again, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Roy: Are we going to be refunded for the big extravaganza?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That was not the member’s original supplementary. The member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister: Under the new arrangement do McDonnell-Douglas aircraft still have exclusive licence in the United States?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No. Mr. Speaker. Those licence rights now rest in the hands of Ontario as a result of the agreement, and we will negotiate with McDonnell-Douglas.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): It’s really valuable, too. I wouldn’t want to try and raise much money on the licensing rights at this point.

An hon. member: The opposition will never have the chance.

Mr. Deans: I wouldn’t want the chance to raise money on the basis of those licences.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview wishes to ask a supplementary.

Mr. Singer: Could the minister advise what recovery, if any, the federal government is going to get for its investment in the Krauss-Maffei project?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not attempt to answer for any of the actions that have been taken by Mr. Gillespie, but I would simply draw to the hon. member’s attention that the federal government participation has been with the Spar Aerospace Co. in the development of the linear induction motor, and there’s no reason to believe that motor cannot be continued to be used.

Mr. Singer: For what?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is the best linear induction motor that’s been developed by any company --

Mr. Singer: If we could only find a use for it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and it can be used, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, again the hon. member is not aware of the possible uses of this motor.

Mr. Deans: Is the Premier going to succeed at anything?

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Could it run the “big blue machine”?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It does not have to be used only with magnetic levitation systems; it can be used with wheel systems as well. Mr. Speaker, it can run the “big red machine,” too.

Mr. Shulman: It is so embarrassing. Are they going to make the minister the goat for all this?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside has the last supplementary on this question.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Would the minister now reconsider the offer, if it is still available, of the Instaglide system to build a demonstration track at the CNE at its own expense in time for the CNE next fall?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t really think that company would need my permission. I don’t own the CNE. They could make arrangements with the Canadian National Exhibition board. If they want to put it up free of charge, I’m sure they’d be glad to have it.

Mr. Martel: They’d be getting stung again.

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

FUTURE OF METRO CENTRE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier, further to his statement on Metro Centre, and also the invitation from Metro Chairman Godfrey that the Premier use his good offices to get that programme on the road again -- I almost said on the rails -- is he concerned, for example, that even the transportation terminal will be held up unless some initiative is taken with regard to Metro Centre, which is apparently, according to one news report, back to square one?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I can’t comment on whether the proposed development called Metro Centre is back to square one. I’m not in a position to comment on that.

I think it is fair to state that in some personal observations Sunday evening -- actually it was a day or so before that -- where I personally observed -- and I hope I was very careful that I did not indicate just what form Metro Centre should take as to the relationship of the amount of commercial accommodation vis-à-vis housing, or the densities -- that in my view, and I was speaking very personally, some form of development should proceed.

I related it very directly to the province’s interest in the transportation part of Metro Centre, because some reconciliation has to be made fairly soon as it relates to the GO service, as it relates to bus service, as it relates to possible developments to, say, Malton International Airport. From our standpoint, the transportation part of the Metro Centre is of great interest to the government.

I had a very informal discussion with the mayor of Toronto some two or three weeks ago and made it quite clear to him that from the province’s standpoint we were prepared to assist, quite obviously, in terms of financial support for the transportation part, but this would, of course, have to be related to the design developments, and of course the position of the federal government or/and the two railways. But from our standpoint, Mr. Speaker, and this has been the position for I guess the last two or three years, the transportation part of Metro Centre was very important to us.

In case there is any confusion, I also indicated to the mayor that in my view the question, and I think a very valid question, as to the continuing position, architecturally or aesthetically, of Union Station was something that had to be resolved by the city of Toronto and by Metro.

As far as getting it back on the road, or on the rails -- and part of it is on the rails I guess, technically speaking -- I think perhaps we should await the next couple of weeks and the municipal elections. I question, very frankly, whether much can be initiated until those determinations are settled by --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier may have a new mayor to deal with.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the people of Toronto and Metro.

But certainly there is no question, from my standpoint personally Mr. Speaker, that Metro Centre should go ahead in some form or other, and I’ve been very careful not to say exactly what form, and from our standpoint the transportation centre is important and we are prepared to be involved in it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Once the municipal elections are settled, is the Premier prepared to take specific initiative rather than just to express his views that it should go ahead?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I hope there won’t be any need to take any specific initiative in the sense of the government interfering with the autonomy of the municipalities, which the Leader of the Opposition always guards so jealously when it suits him to do so.

Mr. Bullbrook: More and more every day.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Most of the people of the province agree with my position.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is quite obvious that the public of the province doesn’t totally understand his position on these matters, because it happens to vary from incident to incident.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They don’t understand the Premier’s. He has to do something about that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, there is no question that we will have to do something to make it very clear that the Liberal Party’s position on local autonomy depends on the particular issue and the particular geographic area of the province.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): They understand the Premier and that’s enough.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Get out in the province and sell that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would hope, Mr. Speaker, it will not be necessary for us to become involved in a way that would infringe on the autonomy of Metro and of the city of Toronto.

Mr. Roy: Where is the next by-election?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions from the Leader of the Opposition?

LAND BANKING

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Can he explain to the House the purpose of the 2,300 acres assembled for OHC and under the direction of his ministry in the south Milton area?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Yes, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the land banking was explained in my press release at that time. We are endeavouring to obtain control of sufficient lands throughout Ontario, to make sure that the lands are used in the meantime in regard to agriculture purposes if necessary, but ensuring in the long run that we do have lands available for housing development, if this is the area which is applicable at that time for development. The same applies to other lands we have acquired throughout Ontario. These lands will not be developed immediately but they will be in the long run.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: I would like to ask the minister, since this is a long range plan, how can he explain the policy of Ontario Housing which resulted in the payment of $1 million in speculative profits -- based on the sale of less than 600 acres in this 2,300-acre assembly -- $1 million in speculative profits to owners who had title to the property for less than six months, and in one case only 32 days?

Mr. Bullbrook: The same old game. It’s who you know.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is using the term “speculative profits” very loosely.

Mr. Bullbrook: Oh no, he knows exactly what it is.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Very loosely.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: Does the minister want the figures?

Mr. Singer: Does he want the figures? Give him the figures.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The value of the land, no doubt, will be worth every dollar that was spent on the land. I am not going to get into an argument as to whether or not we should have paid less or more. It could be that in future months we would have had to pay more. We probably would have had to pay more, so I think the Leader of the Opposition better be very careful in rephrasing the term.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the minister does not want to get into an argument about it, would he be prepared to table the evaluation documents and the minutes of the OHC meeting that resulted in the decision to go forward with this purchase, which certainly resulted in a speculative profit? I would be prepared to argue with the minister on the use of that adjective, when the facts are known as we have examined them.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter and report to the House as to how the purchase was justified by OHC.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Singer: Could the minister explain how a company like New Star Investments would have sold a parcel of land to Cedar Heights Construction Ltd. in February, 1974, for $379,000, and how the minister’s nominees would have bought the same parcel of land on March 12 for $579,000?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Two hundred thousand dollars profit in a month.

Mr. Singer: Two hundred thousand dollars profit in a month.

Mr. Roy: Is that speculation?

Mr. Singer: Could the minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I will explain in due course. I will look into the actual acquisition of the lands to determine what did happen.

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Yes, do.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am not in any way today prepared to comment on this particular acquisition or any other until I have all the facts. It’s very easy, as I found last night, for certain members of the opposition to loosely quote what happened seven or eight years ago.

Mr. Roy: Officially nothing.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): This is 1974. It’s very easy for the minister, too.

Mr. Lawlor: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the last supplementary.

Mr. Lawlor: Was there any land speculation tax paid in the course of that transaction?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I will look into it and find out.

Mr. Singer: It was done before April 9.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions? All right. The hon. member for Wentworth.

WARRANTY ON NEW HOMES

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Given the wide-ranging problems which are reported to many members of the Legislature from home purchasers, can we reasonably expect the home warranty programme which was promised in April for the fall of this year somehow or other to come to the floor of the Legislature in the next month?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that it could come to the floor of this Legislature within the next month. As the hon. member perhaps knows, or doesn’t know, the federal government met with the construction industry and various representatives of consumer groups in the spring and came up with certain alternatives which were not acceptable to the public at large. As a result of that, we have met constantly over the past several months, not only with members of the construction industry but with each provincial government.

The last meeting was some two weeks ago Monday of this week. CMHC and other federal lending institutions were present at this meeting for their very apparent interest. The result is that a proposal is being put forward -- it is now being drafted.

I understand the federal government is extremely interested in it, and rightly so, because of the federal implications. I anticipate that if federal legislation is not introduced very shortly, we will move in this direction in Ontario.

I may point out that the Speech from the Throne some few weeks ago did indicate the federal government was moving into this area.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Does the minister commit his answers to memory? Because that is exactly the same answer he gave to the same question when it was asked in the month of April.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s pretty good. I’d hate to give a different one, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deans: Then by way of supplementary question, might the minister care to explain the remainder of the answer in which he said if the federal government wasn’t prepared to go ahead quickly, Ontario was prepared to go it alone? Surely he doesn’t consider some time next year to be quickly when he is talking in April, 1974?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Ontario is prepared to go it alone, Mr. Speaker, but you must realize there are certain implications insofar as financing is concerned. We must, through necessity, work closely with lending institutions, particularly Central Mortgage and Housing Corp., because we cannot develop a programme that would be simply acceptable to the people of this province in terms of warranty protection without the involvement of lending institutions which have a very definite interest in this type of programme.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): But the government can take the initiative and the minister knows it.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

USE OF AMPHETAMINES BY ATHLETES

Mr. Deans: I would like to ask a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Will the provincial secretary require the Ministry of Health to conduct an investigation into the allegations of one Dr. Thomas Fried, in which he claims that there is a prominent team physician in Ontario, in football, who is administering amphetamines to players in large doses before the games?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I will take that under advisement.

PROVINCIAL ELECTION

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Premier. Given the major blunders that have occurred over the last few years, ranging all the way from the energy tax to the cancellation of Krauss-Maffei, doesn’t the Premier feel that it is time the people of the province were given a chance to express their opinion of the government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I certainly think there will be an opportunity for the people of this province to express their point of view, and while I recognize that the member who asked the question is one of those who takes some pleasure out of difficulties that the government from time to time experiences --

Mr. Deans: I don’t like the difficulties the Premier inflicts on the people.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and while I recognize that contrary to the philosophy his party supposedly represents -- and once again being somewhat contradictory -- this government is not apologizing for proceeding with research and development in the field of intermediate capacity transportation. It may be that there aren’t many other jurisdictions that are doing it, but the Province of Ontario initiated it to a great extent and will continue.

I would only make this observation, that I realize some of the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, would like nothing better than to see this particular research programme, or one akin to it, or this sort of development, fail purely for partisan political reasons.

I can say only this to the hon. member --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the government is very anxious to resolve, on the long-term basis, the urban transportation problems that our society faces, I think it is fair to state that they will not be solved by subways, they will not be solved just by bus transportation, they will not be solved totally by streetcar or rail transportation; it will take a combination of many things.

I am not surprised, Mr. Speaker, because I recognize we are in politics and these members take a very partisan point of view, but I think it is regrettable that the members opposite do not support the government in an attempt, in a very genuine attempt, to solve one of the major problems facing most urban societies in North America and Europe today, and that is in the field of transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I have said from the outset that this is experimental -- I have never said anything else -- that we know we are pioneering, we are not buying it off the shelf, and there are a lot of experts who have contrary points of view. I can always say, Mr. Speaker, I think the history of this society, both here and elsewhere, suggests with some degree of accuracy that those people, whether they be government, the private sector or individuals, who are prepared to demonstrate a little bit of intestinal fortitude, a little bit of courage, a little bit of foresightedness on occasion, these are the ones who ultimately achieve something of significance for society.

I would say to the member for Wentworth that while I know he is delighted, as are some members opposite, that we are having some difficulties, I can only say -- and I say this completely objectively -- their delight in this difficulty is purely partisan and political in nature.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: The Premier surely doesn’t feel that he has carte blanche to waste the money and the time of the people of Ontario and raise the expectations on worthless projects.

Mr. Speaker: Your question?

Mr. Deans: May I ask the Premier whether he is prepared to put forward any one project that might be worthy of the support of the opposition?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, recognizing that the opposition member, particularly the hon. member who asked the question, is not always totally objective in his analysis of government programmes, I can’t really speak for him, nor would I presume to do so. I can only say this, I have listened here for several years, including the last two or three, and when it comes to transportation I haven’t heard any viable suggestion emanating from the hon. member at all; not one.

Mr. Martel: When has the Premier been around?

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park with a supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: In view of the collapse of Krauss-Maffei, has the Premier considered approaching Wells Fargo?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Martel: The Premier is on the road too much.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I take that question from the right wing reactionary of the socialist party of this province, really, in the spirit in which it was suggested.

Mr. Martel: Here comes another lecture.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think with the very excellent agreement --

Mr. Martel: The Premier should go back to teaching Sunday school.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I wish, right in this House, to congratulate the minister on the way he concluded this agreement, that there will be no necessity to approach Wells Fargo, one of the larger banking institutions in the United States, for any assistance whatsoever. I assume that was the Wells Fargo to which the member was referring, knowing his many connections with these banking institutions.

Mr. Germa: Put the wagons in a circle.

Mr. Lawlor: Back to the stage-coach.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the demise of Krauss-Maffei was to save the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development from having to pull it around the track?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): If I did that, it would be a more useful thing than the member has done in his whole political career.

LOTTERY FOR HAMILTON HOME LOTS

Mr. Deans: Can I ask the Minister of Housing whether he might find some --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, we can’t hear the question.

Mr. Deans: -- whether he might find some way to ensure that the next time he runs a lottery the closing date isn’t on a statutory holiday?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, I will ensure that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

STUDY OF VINYL CHLORIDE

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): A question of the Minister of Labour: Now that the minister has seen the data sheet of the occupational health protection branch dealing with vinyl chloride, is he prepared to answer the question of whether or not his ministry is enforcing the provisions of this data sheet from the occupational health branch in the lower limits which they now require for those people working in the vinyl chloride industry?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I hope and understand that we are, but if the hon. member has any question with regard to any specific incident or location, I will certainly be glad to follow it up.

Mr. Good: Supplementary: Can the minister inform the House how long a period it will take to programme these industries down, from 200 parts per million of vinyl chloride allowable in the air, down to the 25 parts and 10 parts that is the recommendation of the occupational health branch? Is this an immediate achievement or has this ministry already enforced these rules? This is what I would hope very much.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I understood that we were enforcing those standards now. Now if there are some cases where it may take them a little while to conform, I hope that we would be reasonable with them, but not reasonable to the point of delay to endanger the health of the workers involved. Again I say if the member has any specific location where it is not being enforced and wants to draw it to my attention I will follow it up.

Mr. Speaker: A question from the New Democratic Party? The member for Stormont.

LAND ASSEMBLY IN EDWARDSBURG TOWNSHIP

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Housing: I would like to know how the hon. minister defends his passive support of the proposed Spencerville industrial park in view of the following statements made in the Aug. 27 edition of the Cornwall Standard Freeholder by his confrère, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): Question!

Mr. Samis: I have already asked the question.

The statements were: “I personally find it extremely difficult to believe that the government can justify such a large purchase.” And further on in the article: “The minister said the creation of any such park would be centralization --

An hon. member: Question!

Mr. Samis: “ -- and destroying a certain way of life. Our plans have always been to help create small industrial parks to upgrade the quality of our life.”

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Samis: In view of that, how does the minister defend his passive approval of such a park?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member to repeat the question.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Read it again.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Would the member read it again in the form of a question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: Some of those neanderthals are still reading speeches; after 20 years here they still read. Ask the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) how often she reads her questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Stormont wishes to place his question.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to repeat the quotation if the hon. backbenchers will give me the opportunity to read it.

Quote, by the minister: “I find it extremely difficult to believe that the government can justify such a large purchase.”

The Minister of Industry and Tourism said: “Our plans have always been to help create small industrial parks to upgrade the quality of our life. This is our objective.” Furthermore, the minister said: “The creation of any such park would be centralization and destroying a certain way of life.”

In view of the fact that the city council of Cornwall and the mayor have officially come out against this project, the Minister of Industry and Tourism said this in the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder --

Mr. Speaker: Will you place your question, please?

Mr. Jessiman: Question!

Mr. Samis: I’ve just asked it, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I won’t ask the hon. member to repeat it, even though I still haven’t heard it. But let’s go back to what I’ve said before in the House. I think he’s referring, if I understand the question -- or was it a question? I think it was a statement.

Mr. Samis: It was a question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If there was a question there I failed to hear it --

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): How does the minister justify it?

Mr. Samis: How does he justify what his colleague said in Cornwall?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In any event, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member hasn’t had a chance to acquaint himself with all the facts as to what has happened in the House in the last few days. I think if he were to check Hansard he would find that the Minister of Housing said that the Ministry of Housing had absolutely no plans for development of a satellite city in the area referred to by his colleague from Ottawa or whatever other part he comes from.

I would like to say to the hon. member that if the government should decide that there is some use for the lands involved, I would be very pleased to see some action taken in my riding to improve the economy of the county of Grenville and, in particular, the township of Edwardsburgh. In no way do I know at this time as to what use will be made of the lands. No decision has been reached by the government.

I didn’t get all of the hon member’s question, and that’s why I wished him to rephrase it again. Maybe if he passed it over to me I could answer it a bit better.

Mr. Samis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could I ask if the minister will adhere to the policy of the Minister of Industry and Tourism in this regard? Is he the spokesman on this matter?

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): What is the question?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will be aware as time goes on that the government as a whole decides what the government’s actions will be. It is not decided by any individual minister.

Mr. Martel: Even on Krauss-Maffei?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have in the past had the confidence of the people of Ontario, and we intend to make sure that we act on behalf of all of the people of Ontario. I look forward to this confidence continuing in the future.

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

GO-URBAN SYSTEM

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications pertaining to his statement this afternoon; Will the money that will be reimbursed by Krauss-Maffei include reimbursements, for instance, for all the time spent by civil servants working on this project? Will we be reimbursed for the extravaganza, the film presentation --

Mr. Speaker: Would you place the question?

Mr. Roy: Pardon me?

Mr. Speaker: Place the question without editorials.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Can I ask a question or not?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: My God, I’m going to have to start reading. Would you like me to repeat the question?

My question to the minister, Mr. Speaker, was simply this: Will we be reimbursed for all the work and the time put in by civil servants on this project? Will we be reimbursed for the extravaganza, the film presentation in Toronto and Ottawa?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And up at the Science Centre.

Mr. Singer: With all those slides, movies.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: With caviare and booze.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think I could perhaps best answer the hon. member by reading one of the paragraphs from the agreement:

“KM shall pay the ministry an amount equal to the aggregate of all moneys received by KM from the ministry pursuant to the TDS contract plus all direct costs incurred by the ministry and/or OTDC in connection with the TDS contract” --

Mr. Renwick: What about the indirect costs?

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister then advise the House, possibly at a subsequent date, how much money was reimbursed to the Ontario government by this company -- the global amount -- and how it was calculated?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have said that I have already received $8.5 million, which was paid yesterday.

Mr. Roy: Eight-point-five million dollars?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, $8.5 million has already been received; it was received yesterday. The balance will be paid to us upon submission of an audited statement.

Mr. Singer: That’s enough to pay for the Treasurer’s trip!

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: When that final amount is known, I will be quite happy to make it known here in the House, yes.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, could I ask one more supplementary on that point?

Mr. Speaker: One more supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Could the minister give us a breakdown of the $8.5 million that he received? What was it for? Is he going to give us a breakdown on that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a breakdown at this time. That amount was paid to us in a lump sum as an interim payment until such time as we are able to audit the balance of what is owed to us, and that then will be paid to us by Krauss-Maffei. That is in the agreement, which I have tabled and members will be able to read.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park with a final supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: Is the minister willing to table all terms of the entire agreement?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have already tabled the entire agreement that was signed by myself on behalf of the ministry, by the chairman of the board of Krauss-Maffei and by the president of OTDC.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

KRAZY GLUE

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Could I ask the minister if he is aware that several students have been injured by the misuse of Krazy Glue, and does he contemplate legislation to control the marketing of this particular glue?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that anybody has been harmed by Krazy Glue. I would think that it would be solely under the federal Hazardous Products Act, dealing with noxious and hazardous products. I am not aware of the situation at all.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s what keeps the NDP together -- Krazy Glue.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

KRAUSS-MAFFEI SYSTEM

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Could he advise us as to whether or not any calculation has been made as to the value of the obligations that Krauss-Maffei is relieved from, as a result of which we are getting back this $8.5 million, plus whatever amount comes late? How much are they being excused from doing in dollars? Has that been calculated?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker. I haven’t calculated the particular amount, if I understand the hon. member, but it seems to me that the hon. member was talking about figures on that side of the House for some months now as to what the total cost of the TDS contract was going to be. It seems to me that that figure probably is the one that we have been relieved from and that they really are not being relieved from anything. They are simply not going to carry out their contract. The amount of money they will be repaying us, plus the availability of the data that they and the West German government paid for, which is coming to us, is a direct cost to them. Any moneys that they have expended, they have expended and they have no recourse of recovery.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, surely the minister doesn’t expect us to believe that the money that is being paid to the government of Ontario is being paid to it out of the goodness of Krauss-Maffei’s and the West German government’s hearts? They are paying us to be relieved from certain contract obligations. What is the value of those contract obligations from which they are being relieved?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the value of the contract obligations would have been the costs that would have been incurred to build the TDS demonstration down at the CNE. That’s the cost they were involved in. The hon. member has a copy, I believe -- if he doesn’t it’s in his pocket somewhere -- of the original contract, which gives all of the costs that were involved and the amount of work that was to be carried out by Krauss-Maffei on this particular project. That contract has been terminated as a result of the agreement that was concluded yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. Lawlor: Let us see the new agreement.

QUALIFICATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICE

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. Because of the ambiguity in the municipal legislation, the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) made a statement last week that teachers who run for public office will not be jeopardized jobwise. Can the Premier give the same assurance for other municipal employees who may wish to run for public office?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is being considered by the government, and there will be a statement, probably by the House leader, tomorrow or Friday.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kent.

Mr. Roy: The Premier shouldn’t despair. He has a great future in the junk business -- blue machine, Krauss-Maffei.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Kent.

SHORTAGE OF HOPPER CARS

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Is the minister aware of the severe shortage of hopper cars in southwestern Ontario to market or to ship out corn that is being rushed to the elevators?

I am informed the elevators will soon be full and I would ask the minister if he would make an effort to convince these railways to make more hopper cars available to take care of this rush of corn in southern Ontario.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): No, Mr. Speaker, I haven’t heard anything of it. I will check into the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions? The member for Essex-Kent.

DIESEL FUEL TAX

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Revenue: What steps is the minister taking to collect large outstanding accounts, that he may recall yesterday from my question, with regard to diesel fuel tax? If these accounts are outstanding, does he advise the transport board of any of these large outstanding accounts?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): The last question first, Mr. Speaker: I have not been in touch with the Board of Transport Commissioners -- which I presume he is referring to -- but as to the outstanding indebtedness owing by some of these companies who made purchases out of the province, and then drove into the province, certainly we have the matters under active pursuit; and in many cases these accounts are paid. There are a few that are outstanding, as I indicated yesterday, and they are also being actively pursued.

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

FREE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAMME

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, Mr. Speaker: In view of the just-announced decision by Parke, Davis & Co., Cooper Laboratories Ltd., and Burroughs Wellcome & Co., that they are no longer willing to comply with the pricing policy for listing drugs in the drug benefit formulary, does the minister intend to abandon this particular misguided project also?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for High Park, we think it is a very worthwhile programme and there is no intent to abandon it.

Mr. Shulman: What is the minister going to do with the drugs not being available?

An hon. member: Wait and see.

Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor General has the answer to a question.

Mr. Shulman: No answer?

Mr. Ferrier: She hasn’t got any answer.

Mr. Martel: She is still thinking about it.

Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor General has the answer to a question.

HAZARDS OF ALUMINUM ELECTRICAL WIRING

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Welland South (Mr. Haggerty) raised with me the question of possible fire hazards relating to the use of aluminum electrical wiring.

The United States consumer products safety commission has taken this matter up as it relates to the use of aluminum wiring and press reports of its interest have been published in Canada. We are informed that the American government authorities have not come to any final conclusion as a result of their studies.

It is important to remember that the aluminum wiring used in Ontario is of a different alloy than that used in the US. The safety regulations concerning wiring are the responsibility of Hydro and they are, of course, interested in the matter of aluminum wiring.

Ontario Hydro has issued advice concerning the danger of improper use of the material, but we are informed that the type of wiring in use in Ontario is not a hazard when properly installed. Naturally, any wiring can be hazardous if improperly used.

Both the Canadian Standards Association and Ontario Hydro continue to carry out research in the matter and they will take whatever action is appropriate should any danger become apparent from the use of the wiring in the province.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nipissing.

CROWN TIMBER TAXES

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Natural Resources: When one considers the difficulties of the logging industry and the lumbering industry in the province at the present time, could the minister explain the changes in the methods used to scale logs -- which have, in fact, doubled the tax collectable -- as well as the doubling of the tax that has been collectable through changes in the Crown Timber Act, and what effect this has on the laying off of hundreds of people across northern Ontario in the last few months?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): The member is quite right in saying that we did double the Crown timber dues, and this was announced in the provincial Treasurer’s budget as of last spring. As we did with the mining tax, we increased the revenues to the people of the Province of Ontario from those resources. We think it is a very fair and equitable return from the masses of resources we have in northern Ontario, and indeed across the province.

To say that this increase has been directly related to the number of those unemployed at the present time is not correct, because the problems facing the sawmill industry today are directly related to the housing starts in the United States, Japan and even in Canada. The fact is there is a decline in demand from the lumber market. Consequently they have to cut back and many of the mills are on a 50 per cent reduction basis. Therefore, there is going to be a short period of readjustment.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing -- a supplementary?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the minister has failed to answer that part of the question that had to do with scaling and changes in the method of scaling which has also doubled the tax on the same amount of logs that is being taken by the producers. Is the minister not aware that there is a change in the method of scaling that also increased the income to the province at least equal to the amount of increase that was brought about by the changes in the dues? In fact, what he did was --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been asked, I believe.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The minister couldn’t answer it before. I have to explain it to him. He doesn’t know what it is all about.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, to further inform the member, we did move to a different form of scaling -- weigh scaling -- as it reflects the return on softwoods. It’s about double the return to the Province of Ontario. There is an increase on the hardwood return, and I agreed, after meeting with the hardwood producers, to re-examine the formula that we are using. But to say that this is directly related to the amount of unemployment caused in the wood industry is not correct.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

HEALTH OF ROSS SHOULDICE

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Despite the minister’s assurances that that great free enterpriser, real estate developer and Tory bagman from Sudbury, Mr. Ross Shouldice --

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Laughren: -- is too sick to appear before our real estate tribunal, has the minister checked out the medical evidence to see whether or not he, indeed, is too sick, since there appears to be evidence to the contrary?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I was asked that question, I believe, a week ago in my estimates, and the subject was discussed. As of about Oct. 18 or 24, my ministry had written again to the solicitors for Mr. Shouldice and the doctors involved --

An hon. member: This is permissible.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- asking for a new medical certificate, and stating that in the alternative they were going to proceed. I haven’t got a report back from my staff as of today as to whether such a certificate has, in fact, been received by them. My staff have been directed to proceed with it as soon as possible, but if there is a medical certificate indicating the man is unable to travel to trial or stand trial, the hearing won’t proceed, in any event, as the member well recognizes.

Mr. Martel: He’ll never be prosecuted, that dog.

Hon. Mr. Clement: If the member has any information as to the man’s general health and welfare, I will be more than pleased to receive it.

Mr. Deans: He’s afraid.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Perhaps he might arrange to have him examined by one of his colleagues.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member for Sudbury East got a mortgage from him.

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

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 32nd order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING (CONTINUED)

On vote 801:

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister wish to speak?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Chairman, last evening there were, in my opinion, some rather serious allegations made. I think it might be in the interests of all the members of the House if I were to reply to the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) and the member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith) in order that we can bring into proper perspective the allegations that were made.

An hon. member: Where is the member for Grey-Bruce?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce on the acquisition of land in Saltfleet, I wish to report as follows:

In March, 1967, OHC was approached by a Hamilton real estate firm with respect to certain lands in Saltfleet township.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Which firm?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: These lands comprised a portion of the land which OHC finally purchased in 1967. In April, 1967, OHC was approached by the firm of Jon-Enco Ltd., which had taken over the previous owner’s interest in the lands. Whereas the previous owner had a relatively small acreage -- I re- peat, a relatively small acreage -- the new offer comprised 1,500 acres in Saltfleet and in Binbrook townships.

It is our understanding that Jon-Enco Ltd. had received offers from 32 owners to purchase as follows: 11 in March, 1967; two in May, 1967; two in July, 1967; one in August, 1967; 13 in September, 1967; two in October, 1967; one in November, 1967. Most of the offers received did not have to be closed until late 1968 or 1969.

In July, 1967, OHC received a letter from the township of Saltfleet, signed by Mr. J. Butler, deputy clerk-treasurer, requesting OHC’s participation. It read as follows:

“I am directed by council to request that the Ontario Housing Corp. participate in the scheme being developed by Jon-Enco Ltd., of Toronto, Ont.

“The area of development” --

I beg your pardon?

Mr. Deans: I am sorry, when was that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I will repeat it for the member for Wentworth. In July, 1967, OHC received a letter from the township of Saltfleet, signed by Mr. J. Butler, deputy clerk-treasurer, requesting OHC’s participation, which reads as follows:

“I am directed by council to request that the Ontario Housing Corp. participate in the scheme being developed by Jon-Enco Ltd., of Toronto, Ont.

“The area of development being considered by this company is located at the west end of the township of Saltfleet, south of the Niagara Escarpment. This scheme was recently discussed with Mr. Brady of the Ontario Housing Corp., with Mayor Victor Copps of the city of Hamilton, and Reeve Leslie Thomas of the township of Saltfleet.

“We would appreciate early consideration regarding this by the board of directors.”

The board of directors passed a resolution on Dec. 19, 1967, as follows:

“It is resolved that Ontario Housing Corp. purchase 1,500 acres of land in Saltfleet and Binbrook townships from Jon-Enco Ltd. at a purchase price of $4,000 per acre and a maximum price of $6 million; resolved further that Ontario Housing Corp. purchase an additional 62.75 acres of land in the township of Binbrook from Jon-Enco Ltd. at a price of $4,000 per acre; resolved further that the necessary engineering studies on the above lands be proceeded with.”

Mr. Chairman, the appraisal report from Stewart, Young and Mason indicated:

“In my opinion, as of Sept. 30, 1967, the market value of the property is $3,350,000, or $2,135 per acre. The land residual value as of the same date is estimated to be $8,220,000, or $5,440 per acre.”

Mr. Deans: What does that mean?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: There are many factors involved in the acquisition of land sites, Mr. Chairman, and I think the hon. member should know this. One is the availability of land in a given area. Another is suitability of purpose. Accessibility in relation to the community must be considered and, of course, the viability of costs.

All these factors, plus many others, are taken into consideration. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, to the members, if this land acquisition had been based merely on the appraisals which I’ve outlined, merely on the appraisals alone, then the price paid by the corporation could be considered to be open to criticism. Appraisal reports and opinions of value are subjective at the time they are made, and are not the only criteria that we use in land acquisition.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Annual housing demands, shortages of serviced lands, the industrial growth taking place in the community, the availability of large parcels; all have to be taken into consideration when land acquisitions are made. And also, there must be the willing co-operation of the municipal councils in order to accept growth. The appraisal reports are only one consideration of the many in the final determination.

However, Mr. Chairman, although it is evident that OHC paid more than the appraised value of the land in question --

Mr. Deans: Twice as much.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- it would appear from all the foregoing and all that has happened since -- and the hon. member from Wentworth better listen very carefully to this -- that the corporation was very wise --

Mr. Deans: I’m listening.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- in its decision to act, rather than reject the proposals because it could not obtain the land at its appraised value.

Yesterday, the member for Grey-Bruce in mentioning this particular acquisition in Saltfleet, indicated he had spoken to Mr. Murchison, formerly from OHC. He inferred that Mr. Murchison had not been in agreement with this purchase. I want to set the record straight, Mr. Chairman. I would like to quote from a telegram signed by Mr. Murchison, to the federal government -- to CMHC -- in which he sent data supporting the application of this land assembly. It says:

“FOR YOUR INFORMATION IN RESPECT TO LAND VALUES IN SALTFLEET, WE HOLD SUPPORTING DATA ON ACTUAL SALES IN SALTFLEET FOR VARIOUS SIZE PARCELS WHICH WILL RANGE FROM A LOW OF $4,000 PER ACRE IN JANUARY 1966 TO A HIGH OF $15,400 PER ACRE. THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE SALES MADE IN THE LAST YEAR FALL WITHIN THE RANGE OF $8,000-$10,000 PER ACRE.”

Mr. Deans: But not in that area.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It continues:

“THE LARGEST PARCEL OF APPROXIMATELY 85 ACRES SOLD IN 1965 WAS AT THE FIGURE OF $6,220 PER ACRE. WE HOPE THIS INFORMATION WILL ASSIST YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR COST FIGURE ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT.”

That is Mr. Murchison.

The corporation submitted to CMHC a request --

Mr. Deans: That is a real whitewash.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- for financing of this project.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): That has no substance at all. You shouldn’t insult our intelligence with that kind of thing.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: CMHC, by a letter dated Jan. 5, 1968, approved the purchase of the land --

Mr. Bullbrook: They are in variable sizes. You can do that with any piece of property.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- after they had made their appraisals. I quote CMHC as follows:

“We are pleased to advise you that Governor in Council approval was given by PC 1967-2401 to the entry into agreements between the government of Canada, Ontario Housing Corp. and Central Mortgage and Housing Corp., pursuant to section 35A of the National Housing Act, 1954, respecting the acquisition of approximately 1,500 acres of land in Saltfleet township for future housing development.

“We assume you will be preparing the necessary land acquisition and holding agreement and we look forward to its early receipt.”

Mr. Deans: When was that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Jan. 5, 1968.

Mr. Deans: Is it possible to get a copy of that, so that we can read it as well?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes. Well, I am sorry; I only have this one copy.

Mr. Bullbrook: Prepared by OHC.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am saying this transaction was approved not only by our government, but also by the federal government.

Mr. Bullbrook: That is misleading. On a point of order --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As a result of this --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: A point of order. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that’s a deliberate attempt to mislead this House in saying that the federal government --

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Bullbrook: Sir, the point of order is: In saying that the federal government, in essence, approved the values. That is the essence of your statement -- the question of values and you know full well CMHC doesn’t even look into your values. You have carriage of it and they rubber stamp the 90 per cent participation. And that’s exactly what happens.

Mr. Chairman: I would draw to the attention of the member for Sarnia that it is not parliamentary procedure to accuse a minister of misleading the House.

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, sir, it might not be parliamentary procedure.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): It is the truth.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am suggesting to you that the minister misleads the House, perhaps not deliberately, but the thrust of his statement is that he is talking about values. His last statement was that the federal government approved of this; and I, as one member, took it that he meant that they approved of the valuations. The fact of the matter is they don’t even look into it.

Mr. Chairman: It seems to the Chair that the member has a disagreement with the hon. minister, but not a point of order. Would he continue?

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): What is the point?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): He has made his point.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Singer: If the minister has some answers, let him answer us.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- I would assume that the federal government has the expertise to understand whether or not the transaction should be approved.

Mr. Bullbrook: They don’t.

Mr. Roy: You know darn well they do not.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The hon. member has interpreted it one way, which is up to himself to determine.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): You have full jurisdiction.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): It is time they took a look into OHC.

Mr. Roy: Yes, and you guys can’t be trusted.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to carry on with the rest of my statement, if I might, to inform the House that as a result of this very timely -- in my opinion -- land acquisition, the corporation has recently received proposal calls for the construction of 254 housing units.

Mr. Deans: Seven years later.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: This proposal call will be approved, I expect, by the OHC board of directors. The builders submitting the proposal calls will be approved on Nov. 19. The important part of this is that the prices will range from $18,400 to $21,000. Where can we get a better value than that? I ask anyone to deny that that is not good value. This, together with the current land value, which includes the original acquisition costs, interest and carrying cost to date, as well as the servicing cost to date, will allow individuals at income levels of between $11,850 and $12,700 to qualify for home ownership.

Mr. Deans: And the payments will be what?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The total book value of a 50-ft lot, including all of the above-mentioned services, is $15,100 -- and compared with today’s market value of approximately $23,000, which I believe the member for Wentworth mentioned last night, is, in effect, 25 per cent less than the present market value. For a 30-ft lot, and a semi-detached house, the book value is $11,490.

Mr. Roy: What does that do to the money you paid six years ago?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Again, that is 35 per cent below today’s market value of $17,000.

Mr. Singer: He is not answering the question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Thus, through the acquisition of the land outlined, the corporation in the ensuing seven years will be able to produce a total of 10,000 housing units providing accommodation for 40,000 people.

Mr. Deans: I know. I told you that. I am aware of it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think it should also be noted by the hon. members for Wentworth and Grey-Bruce, Mr. Chairman, that OHC has developed 1,988 homes on Hamilton Mountain under the HOME programme, including 739 this fiscal year.

Mr. Deans: I am aware of that too -- and you made an awful botch of it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have the supporting documents here, Mr. Chairman. I think they pretty well outline in full detail what did happen and, in my opinion, support what OHC did in the year 1967 and following.

Mr. Deans: May I ask some questions about that statement?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If you don’t mind, I’d like to follow through with the other questions that were raised. I want to talk to the --

Mr. Deans: Could we deal with the one question first, because I have no concern in the other question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have concerns as to what was raised by the member for Nipissing.

Mr. Deans: You can do that after we talk about the one you have just raised.

Mr. Roy: That’s a different problem.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman. I think I will determine what we’ll do in this particular case.

Mr. Deans: I think you will not determine what we will do.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, what is he --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have not finished my statement --

Mr. Deans: He has finished his statement with regard to the question we were talking about. Now, he is not going to answer another one until we talk about it, supposing we have to stand here all day.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I started my comments by saying that I wished to reply to the member for Grey-Bruce and to the member for Nipissing. I didn’t mention that I was going to reply specifically to the member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: On a point of order, you have made reference to me specifically on at least two occasions during your speech. Since you did, I take it upon myself to ask the questions that I think are appropriate about the statement that you have just finished making. That is my job.

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Deans: Now don’t try to cloud it by raising another issue. Let’s deal with the one issue first. That seems to make common sense. We didn’t deal with both issues at the same time last night.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Oh, go and have a cup of coffee.

Mr. Deans: Surely we can deal with them as we did last night, separately.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman -- on a point of order -- we did deal with them all at one time. We had them come up exactly at the same time.

Mr. Roy: That is a good way to get out of answering questions.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, we didn’t. The minister is answering a question that was initially raised by the member for Grey-Bruce which I followed up on; I raised some questions which he has answered directly to me by name. I now want the opportunity to ask him some questions about his answer to my questions of last evening. I don’t want it muddied up by another statement regarding an entirely different project in another part of the province.

Mr. Chairman: It would seem to the Chair it’s the minister’s prerogative to conclude the statement. It’s the same when an hon. member is making a statement or asks a question; he can conclude his question or statement before the minister interrupts, so I think that we should let the minister finish.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the member for Wentworth can well remember what I said. He has a very good memory.

Mr. Deans: Thank you very much, I cannot. It was a lengthy statement.

Mr. Roy: It was an extremely confusing statement.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, this is in regard to the question raised by the member for Nipissing concerning the purchase of land by OHC in North Bay from Gateway Developments Ltd. in 1969. On Aug. 26, 1966, the city of North Bay requested the Ontario Housing Corp. to ascertain the need for serviced residential land to be made available under the HOME plan. I would like the member for Nipissing to listen if he would please.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): I am listening and I am sitting here.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The survey I made recommended that OHC undertake a six-year programme to accommodate 600 Home Ownership dwelling units. In order to satisfy the need for serviced building lots in 1970, it was considered necessary to purchase registered service lots rather than raw land that would require planning and servicing.

Our investigation revealed that serviced land available for building at that time was not abundant. Two subdivisions in the West Ferris area, together with three other subdivisions in the Widdifield area were considered for our purposes. Gateway Development Ltd., one of the developers, submitted an offer to sell serviced lots in the West Ferris area for $4,700 per lot.

Negotiations were carried out with the vendor, resulting in a revised offer of $4,300 per lot. This was later reduced to $4,200 per lot and was substantiated by an independent appraisal by a Mr. J. V. Holmes, of North Bay. I have the appraisal and I wish to read it. I think the main part is the last paragraph. I could go on in detail and maybe I should; it does give out some very valuable information. I will give the appraisal in detail.

“Letter of opinion re subdivision land being referred to as a registered plan M327 and containing 112 residential building lots.

“Registered owners: Gateway Developments Co. Ltd., 30 lots; Kirkwall Holdings Ltd., 82 lots.

“Location: The subject property is located in the former township of West Ferris now amalgamated with the city of North Bay. This property is three city blocks east of Lakeshore Dr., which is the main thoroughfare, and is located in the midst of an area that is being developed in successive stages. The type of residential dwellings in the adjoining subdivisions has been the project type dwelling, being approximately 1,050 to 1,100 sq ft, brick veneer bungalow and split level models. This particular subdivision is reasonably close to both primary and secondary schools as well as local shopping, banking, etc.

“Size of land: The subdivision land referred to above contains 112 lots, 30 lots located on Strathcona Dr., 82 lots on Van Horne Cr. These lots are each of a size to meet land size requirements for a single-family dwelling by the city of North Bay, as this is a registered plan. The average size of all lots is 50 wide in frontage by a depth of either 100 ft or 105 ft with the exception of the lots on the east side of the subdivision, which back up to a strip, being parcel 660, belonging to the city of North Bay, which also adjoins both Canadian Pacific Railway and Ontario Northland Railway lines. Almost all these lots have a 50 ft wide frontage, although the average depth is 149 ft. This extra depth would be the compensating factor on these particular lots.”

The next part of this appraisal, I think is most important. It is the description of the land.

“The actual land of each of these lots is rather low-lying and would definitely require fill. This letter of opinion assumes that no additional fill will be dumped on the individual lots and that the purchaser will establish his own lot grade.

“Land use: As this subdivision of 112 lots is zoned R1, only single-family dwellings may be built here.

“Services: The value per average lot mentioned below is to include the following fully paid services: Sanitary sewers, house connections, 28-ft asphalt road, swales and culverts, storm sewers, water mains, street lighting, street signs and back lot overhead hydro.

“On information gathered by the writer from the engineering firm re the above services it is understood that approximately two-thirds of Van Horne Cr. will be serviced with storm sewers and one-third will have drainage ditches, and that approximately three-fifths of Strathcona Dr. will be serviced with storm sewers and two-fifths will have drainage ditches.

“Special note: In addition to the price paid for a subdivision lot in any new subdivisions in the former township of West Ferris since 1966, there is an extended service fee of $450 which is payable to the city of North Bay at the time the building permit is requested. This is a mandatory charge and cannot be waived, unless bylaw No. 907 were to be changed.

“Estimate of value: After taking all facts into consideration, including raw land costs, servicing costs, this area of housing market, demand and so on, I would estimate that the current market value for single-lot sales to an individual or a builder for an average 50-ft wide lot at $4,200, not including the extended service fee referred to above.”

It is signed by J. V. Holmes, along with his qualifications.

After that appraisal on Oct. 28, 1969, the OHC board of directors approved the purchase of 112 serviced building lots. Provincial approval was given on Dec. 18, 1969. On March 12, 1970, CMHC approved a 90 per cent loan to OHC under 35C of the National Housing Act to assist in the development of these lands. Servicing was installed as scheduled and the lots were marketed in two phases -- 30 lots in 1970 and 82 lots in 1971.

Mr. Chairman, the full details of this acquisition were fully explained to the hon. member in a letter dated June 12, 1970. For the information of the members of this House, I’ll read the letter into the record.

“June 12, 1970

“Mr. Richard S. Smith, MPP,

“Parliament Buildings,

“Toronto, Ont.

“Dear Mr. Smith:

“Re: North Bay HOME 169.”

Mr. R. S. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: A point of order for the member.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I have never questioned the fact that I received that letter or do I question what was in that letter. If the minister wants to waste the time of the House and read the letter, that’s fine with me. It just says exactly what he’s just gone over. How many times does he have to go over the same thing like a machine? If we’re going to waste our time, we might as well waste it doing something else. Let me reply to him.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair rules that that is not a point of order. Will the minister continue?

Mr. R. S. Smith: It is not a point of order in this House to get up and complain about repetition? Is repetition allowed under the rules of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Certainly needless repetition is not allowed but it was the Chair’s impression that the hon. member wanted the letter read into Hansard, and it wasn’t last night.

Mr. R. S. Smith: He didn’t have to read it at all.

Mr. Chairman: No, but the minister would like it read into the record.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Well, let him read it in, I don’t care what he does; but it is needless repetition which you should rule on.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is not repetition at all, but I would point out to the hon. member before I proceed that there are many times that we have had to listen from this side of the House to certain things said many, many times, on the same day, and in the same hour in many cases.

Mr. Chairman: Would the hon. minister continue? There is no need to lecture the House.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s the way I would like the hon. Chairman to rule the House. Thank you very much. I will now read the letter:

“Dear Mr. Smith:

“Re: North Bay HOME 1/69.

“I am enclosing for your consideration the material you requested from the hon. Stanley Randall in the rent committee meeting dealing with the Ontario Housing Corp.’s estimates. This material consists of an appraisal prepared by Mr. J. V. Holmes, AIC of North Bay, and also a letter from Gateway Developments Co. Ltd. to this corporation, outlining terms of their offer of Sept. 29, 1969.

“Gateway Developments Co. Ltd. first offered to sell serviced lots in the West Ferris area for $4,700 per lot. Negotiations were carried out further with the vendor, resulting in a revised offer of $4,300 per lot. This was later reduced to $4,200 per lot, and was substantiated by an independent appraisal by Mr. Holmes from North Bay.

“In your comments, you indicated that Ontario Housing Corp. purchased these lots considerably above the market value, since lots in that area were selling for $3,700 each. Our recent investigation suggests that these lots were sold in January and February of 1968 for $3,750 each, whereas our negotiations pertain to lots to be serviced and delivered in 1970. As you will appreciate, in this two-year span servicing costs have risen considerably, and the current market value of lots in this area is considered to be not less than $5,000. This fact has been substantiated by Central Mortgage and Housing Corp., which has contributed a 90 per cent loan for the development of this subdivision under section 35C of the National Housing Act.

“We realize that the large residential area of West Ferris, near Lake Nipissing, has a high water table. All houses built in this area for many years have had to accommodate this particular soil condition. Soil tests by the engineering firm of Proctor and Redfern, North Bay, have confirmed that the area is quite appropriate for residential building, providing the usual precautions are taken.

“Twenty-six of the 112 lots are 149 ft in depth and back on to a 60 ft strip of land owned by the city, forming a buffer zone toward the Canadian Pacific Railway right of way. The railway tracks are actually 222 ft from the houses to be constructed, and as a condition of Central Mortgage and Housing Corp., the vendor is required to provide an effective tree screening at the rear of all lots backing onto the land owned by the city of North Bay.

“We are assured to have purchased serviced lots at a reasonable cost, and expect to market the lots later this year.

“Yours sincerely,

“Paul R. Goyette

“Deputy Managing Director, Development”

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the above letter fully clarifies the question at issue. The hon. member brought up the point that the lots were purchased above cost and that they weren’t proper lots for servicing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Which is correct.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And I say that the letter proves that they are. I might add also --

Mr. R. S. Smith: If you look at the rest of your correspondence with the people who built on those lots after, and look at how much money they had to spend on fill, I was correct at the time and you were dead wrong -- and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I might add also that the hon. member is well aware that all the houses in that particular area have the same problem. It is up to the individual, whether it is OHC-built, or whoever builds it, they all have to take the same precautions.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s not true; it is not a true statement.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: OHC approved the purchase of 93 serviced lots in North Bay in March, 1973, at a price of $7,500 per lot, considerably more than what we were talking about before. This price is fully supported by two independent appraisals, as well as an in-house appraisal.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the two members, I feel that OHC has acted in the best interests of everyone. In speaking directly to the member for St. George, I would like to be advised today if we have evidence to substantiate the charges which she made last night.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Well, open your books.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a few comments on what the minister has said. First of all, there is no question that properties were being sold at $500 per lot below the price OHC paid in adjacent subdivisions which had a far better water table level and where much less money had to be spent on those lots in order to make them usable. These lots were purchased at approximately the same time by builders who went in and built on them and provided homes at less than the cost that could be provided on these lots.

You bought 112 lots and you paid at least $500 too much for each of the lots. Following that, you sold the first 30 on the basis, I believe, of individual sales on leasebacks. Is it not correct that the first 30 were on leasebacks?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The first part of your statement is not correct because the appraisal certainly doesn’t show that we paid $500 more. I was just going to ask whether this is a matter for you to judge, or have you got an appraisal to substantiate your charges?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Yes, I have the word of other subdividers and of other builders in the area who sold and purchased lots. They told me they sold and purchased lots and showed me their agreements of sale at a very similar time for $500 less. These were not in the same subdivision because nobody would buy lots in this subdivision because they were so sloppy. Nobody wanted them.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Somebody did.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Yes, you did. You were the only fish around. Your outfit bought them and paid away too much for them, and you know it.

We will go farther than that. I asked you how the first 30 were sold and obviously I am not going to get an answer on that. They were sold on the basis of a lease to the individual person over five years and then he had the option to pick up the lease under the HOME programme. As for the next 82, they found that didn’t work too well because they had a hang of a time getting rid of them, although they did finally get rid of the 32. They found a builder then who would take the majority of these lots off their hands. He went in there and took an awful risk and built on those lots. He built a good home for the price, and people got good buys.

The builder was left with a bill of $800 and some dollars per lot that he had to pay for fill before he could use the lots. There was a great amount of negotiation between Ontario Housing Corp. and the builder as to who should pay this $800, because obviously the builder was sold a bunch of lots that weren’t usable, even though they were serviced to the point as outlined in your letter.

The fact of the matter is there was not one inch of fill put in by you before you sold them to the builder. The builder had some difficulty because of this, but because of his ingenuity he was able to put up a good house and get out of it and get you guys out of it too. You never assisted him one damn bit for your mistake in buying a piece of bog, which is what you did buy.

Since that time, there has been correspondence between individual home purchasers in the area and your ministry in regard to water run-off in the yards of a number of people in the area. There is no place for the water to go, particularly in those areas where there are no storm sewers. I have had correspondence with your ministry on behalf of at least one constituent back and forth for a period of two or three years without any results whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is that the thing was a bog from the start. It was a sale made by Gateway Developers, who had nothing to do with the Gateway at all. They don’t even come from North Bay; they come from Thunder Bay. A group of people wanted to get rid of a piece of bog and they found the only buyer who would buy it, and even that buyer was prepared to pay too much. I think that is obvious.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the hon. member doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): That’s the final answer?

Mr. Roy: That is arrogant.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. minister is obviously not interested in looking at the thing from the point of view of an independent person. He’s more interested in protecting Ontario Housing Corp. and his government than he is at looking at factual information.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. I have two or three things to say. I cannot commit to memory everything the minister said in his opening statement. It was very long and I would love to have had a copy of it, because there is a lot in it.

I want to ask the minister a couple of questions. First, am I right in assuming that Ontario Housing Corp. operated in 1967-1968 and perhaps operates even today fairly independently of the minister in the purchase of land, and that the decisions that it makes are not influenced in any way by politics of political considerations?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I can’t say exactly what the process was in 1967-1968, but my understanding is that Ontario Housing Corp. acted as a corporation on behalf of the government. It went through the usual channels of appraisals, approvals by the board, approvals by Management Board -- Treasury, at that time -- and then by the cabinet. At this particular time, 1974, Ontario Housing Corp. is part of the Ministry of Housing.

Mr. Deans: Okay. I just want to be clear. I’m correct then in assuming that the board of directors of Ontario Housing Corp. made the decisions based on the merits of the purchase and that there was no input from the government as to whether or not it should purchase or otherwise. They were in the business of acquiring land when it seemed appropriate to do so and the price was right. Is that fair?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would say that it’s fair to assume that any corporation acting on behalf of the government would do so in the best interests of the people of the province.

Mr. Deans: I want to go back with the minister for a moment to some of the things that do stick in my mind. The board of directors of Ontario Housing Corp. approved the purchase in December. Is that right? That’s what the minister said. I can recall that. I also recall telling me that Jon-Enco was acquiring property through the months of April, May, June, July, August, September, right through until the month of December. Is that right? Not every month, necessarily, but through that period.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In 1967.

Mr. Deans: In 1967, right through into December, right?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Wait a minute, now. Maybe we’re talking about two different things.

Mr. Deans: I’m talking about acquiring; the minister said they continued to acquire property. They took on the initial holdings of this mystery real estate company and they then went on and continued to acquire properties up to and including the month of December.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, I’m sorry. What I was referring to is that they received offers from 32 owners, and I thought the member was quoting from that. I mentioned March, May, July, August, September, October and November.

Mr. Deans: And they acquired those properties or took options on them. Is that right? This is the closest we’ve ever come, by the way, to finding out what really happened, because when I asked the questions back in 1968 and 1969, I was told that it couldn’t be revealed. Okay? So I’m interested now in getting at the truth of the thing.

Can the minister tell me which real estate company it was that made the offer to the government in March, 1967, as I recall his statement, for a smaller parcel of land than that which was finally purchased from Jon-Enco?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: My staff inform me that it was Kronas.

Mr. Deans: Can you tell me what size the parcel of land was that Kronas offered to the government which was turned down?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I can’t.

Mr. Deans: You can’t.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Anyway, I mentioned that.

Mr. Deans: Yes, you said much smaller. I don’t know what that means. Can you tell me who the owners or the principal holders of Jon-Enco are?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, I can, Mr. Chairman. Jon-Enco Ltd. --

Mr. Deans: When was it incorporated?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The following information is from the June 27, 1974, annual returns of the above firm: President, John Innis; treasurer, David Innis; director F. F. Cunningham. The company was chartered in June, 1958. The objective of the company was to purchase, lease, otherwise acquire, rent, operate, manage, develop, construct buildings, to sell or dispose of real property and to mortgage same.

Mr. Deans: Okay. Was it a company that dealt extensively with the government? Can you tell me that? Had it acquired properties prior to that time and since that time for the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Not at that time, I’m informed.

Mr. Deans: Not at that time. Okay. Maybe you can explain something to me. I didn’t understand you. You used two terms in discussing the value of the land per acre. As I recall, you used the value of the land, which was something like $2,100 an acre, and then you used another term, which escapes my mind but which raised that value up to something in the order of $5,000 an acre. What was that second term?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The second term, as I read it out, was: “The land residual value as of the same date is estimated to be $8,220,000 or $5,440 per acre.”

Mr. Singer: Your figures are lousy.

Mr. Deans: Can you tell me what the land residual value is, as of that date?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The land residual value is the value of the land, taking into account the future development of the land at whatever time of the year and whatever year it may be. You have to understand that if you buy land in 1967 it is going to be worth considerably more in 1974.

Mr. Deans: Right.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I believe that is the explanation of residual value.

Mr. Singer: Oh come on. It’s going to be worth even more in 2073!

Mr. Deans: Is the minister telling the House that the Ontario Housing Corp. looks at the value paid for the land and most of this land was either assembled or purchased or options were taken during the year 1966-1967, with the option value average being $2,100 an acre or thereabouts -- and that the Ontario Housing Corp. then takes into consideration what the land may well be worth at some subsequent point in time --

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): The year 2000.

Mr. Deans: -- and pays the person an amount appropriate to the land value, in this case, seven years later?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Chairman, what I’ll tell the House is exactly what the appraisal says -- I have the appraisal right here -- and the hon. member can determine for himself whether or not he agrees with it.

“The land residual value as of the same date is estimated to be $8,220,000 or $5,440 per acre. The land residual estimate is the value of the property before deduction for profit in connection with its future development as set out herein.”

The reason I hesitated while reading that was that I couldn’t make it out too well. It is pretty old, but in any event that’s what it says.

Mr. Singer: What does it mean?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That is signed by Stewart, Young and Mason.

Mr. Deans: Okay. I want to be sure. Am I right in saying that the land cost Jon-Enco an average of $2,100 or $2,200 an acre -- I think that complies with what you said, that $3,350,000 was approximately what they laid out for the land at the time of the purchase; I think you read that into the record -- and that within a matter of one month from them acquiring the last parcel, the Ontario government was prepared to pay $8,220,000 for something that cost that company only $3,350,000? Do you call that looking after the public funds?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I’d like to make it very clear that the Ontario government did not pay $8,220,000 --

Mr. Deans: No, I know you paid about $6 million --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The hon. member did say that the Ontario government was prepared to pay the amount he mentioned --

Mr. Roy: You were tough bargainers. You went down to $6 million.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The Ontario government obviously was not prepared to pay $8,220,000.

Mr. Deans: Okay. It is my recollection that you paid about $6 million.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I quoted the figure --

Mr. Deans: Is that fair? About $6 million in ballpark figures?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Deans: About $6 million -- a little more than $6 million in fact.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, just a minute, Mr. Chairman. On a further point of order, I read to the House -- and I’ll read it again. The resolution was that the OHG would purchase at a price of $4,000 per acre and at a maximum price of $6 million.

Mr. Deans: That’s what you paid? Okay. You paid $6 million in December, 1967, for land which was assembled in one calendar year previous, the last parcel of which was assembled in the month of November going into December, the average price of which was $2,100 an acre, the total cost of which to the developer -- or speculator, as I might like to call him -- was $3,350,000 or thereabouts. You paid him $6 million some weeks later for the land.

I’ll tell you what more you did. Do you know that before that land was approved by Ontario Housing Corp., the minister of housing at that time -- Minister of Trade and Industry, as he was called at that time -- announced the development in the paper on or about Oct. 6, 1967, before there had ever been a signed agreement with the company involved? He announced the satellite development on Saltfleet Mountain on or about Oct. 6, before the final properties had been assembled. There’s something rotten about that. I think even you would agree that there is something very unusual.

Don’t take my word for it, but I’ll tell you where to look if you want to find that. Look in a Spectator on a Saturday around Oct. 6, because your colleague now representing Wentworth North (Mr. Ewen) was in some difficulty in that riding, as it happens, and Stanley Randall wandered out of his cave and said that he was announcing a great housing development in this riding in order to try and save the bloody thing. He announced it on or about Oct. 6 and the Ontario Housing Corp. hadn’t even dealt with it at that point, and that meant that the firm of Jon-Enco were still assembling the land. He had already agreed to the purchase price, obviously, or he couldn’t have made that announcement.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Who was elected in that election in that riding?

Mr. Deans: I’m not sure what his name was -- he represents Wentworth. But I’m going to tell you that there is something rotten about the way you people do business.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier (Mr. Davis) said we are too political today. He was prepared to pay $6 million to bring Ewen into this House.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Glad to see you back, Bob. You’ve been away for a while.

Mr. Roy: It was worthwhile; we won an election down there.

Mr. Deans: The member for St. George talked about the need for a public inquiry. It’s not a public inquiry that is needed in this province, it’s a housecleaning, because whatever it is that is wrong with this government’s attitude towards expenditure of public funds is becoming more and more apparent each passing day.

Mr. Singer: Nine Tories in the House.

Mr. Deans: You attempt to justify in this House an expenditure of $6 million for something which was worth $3.3 million, and then tell me that we are lucky that you bought it seven years later, because “think of what it might have cost us,” you know. Suppose we had paid the full price that it was worth.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Eight million dollars.

Mr. Deans: Suppose we had paid the full price that it was worth. Even if we had, this so-called “residual value” that you are talking about would have added another $1,000 or something like that to the total cost.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And we would still be further ahead than if we had waited until today.

Mr. Deans: Right. You would still be further ahead, but that doesn’t justify paying more than something is worth.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, whose judgement is that?

Mr. Deans: The fact that you are ahead doesn’t justify your paying more, because what you are doing is --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Whose judgement is that -- yours?

Mr. Deans: Just wait a minute. If this is an indication of the attitude of the government towards the expenditure of funds, I can only assume that today when something is evaluated by the appraiser at $20,000 an acre, you are prepared to pay the residual value, which would be maybe $40,000 an acre, because that is your policy.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, it isn’t.

Mr. Deans: And it means that with any given year in any given purchase you are paying twice what the product is worth in order to acquire it. That’s transferring public moneys, through taxation of people who are working themselves to the bone, into the pockets of speculators. That’s what you are doing. You are raising taxes in the province --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: On a point of order --

Mr. Deans: Point of order, nothing. You are raising taxes in the province --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order --

Mr. Deans: I’m not finished! I’m making my statement, just as you did.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: On a point of order --

Mr. Deans: You will have a chance to reply if you don’t like it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: On a point of order, the member said this is my policy. I want the member to withdraw that statement.

Mr. Deans: Not on your life!

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): It appears to be your policy.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Withdraw it.

Mr. Deans: Withdraw? You are joking!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I am not.

Mr. Deans: You’ve got to be joking.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’m not.

Mr. Deans: Well, you look serious enough, but you’ve got to be laughing underneath.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am serious. You prove it is my policy.

Mr. Deans: Do you realize that you raise taxes in this province to pay for the money that goes into the pockets of the land speculators? This policy -- whether it’s yours personally or not, I don’t much care which the government of Bill Davis has followed has allowed the Ontario Housing Corp. to pay out more than twice the actual value of the land.

Mr. Singer: And if he says “in whose opinion?”, it’s in the opinion of his own appraisers.

Mr. Lawlor: Whose judgement? Your judgement -- bad judgement.

Mr. Deans: You people have just about gone as far as you can in terms of milking the public of the Province of Ontario to enhance your own supporters. It’s about time that you took a serious look at your policies to see whether or not it might be about time that you tried to provide housing at a reasonable cost for the people of the Province of Ontario without using public funds to put money into the pockets of the speculators across this province. You are a disgrace.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, as usual, has gone on with his harangue without really coming up with any facts.

Mr. Deans: The facts? What are the facts?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, because you didn’t listen to what I said.

Mr. Singer: And if he says “in whose opinion?”, it’s in the opinion of his own appraisers.

Mr. Deans: I did listen. I asked you for a copy of the statement -- you couldn’t give me one.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is in Hansard. You can read it tomorrow.

Mr. Deans: Yes, thank you very much. How do I debate what I can read tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Because you didn’t want to listen to it in the first instance.

Mr. Deans: I listened to you very carefully. Tell me where I made a mistake.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Where you made a mistake?

Mr. Deans: Tell me where I misled you.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s my understanding that although the appraisal value was X-number of dollars, there is another value that may be placed on any particular property.

Mr. Deans: By whom?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: By the government.

Mr. Deans: By the government.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Or by the Ontario Housing Corp., or by any developer or any person in any part of Ontario or in any part of Canada.

Mr. Singer: What about the appraiser’s value?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And I think what I want to make sure is that the hon. member admit at least one very important matter -- and that is that we have housing now which is much lower in value to the --

Mr. Haggerty: On paper.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- buyer than it would have been ordinarily. And I think the OHC board was quite correct in doing what they did.

Mr. Deans: I’ll admit this, that the housing in that subdivision today is on the average $2,000 more than it should have been; that the cost to the average person in that subdivision is $2,000 more today than it ought to have been if he had paid the actual value of the land.

Can you tell me, just out of curiosity, what was the initial offer of the Ontario Housing Corp. to Jon-Enco? What was the first offer?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t know; I am sorry.

Mr. Deans: You don’t know?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No.

Mr. Deans: Do you know if there was an offer made other than the offer of $6 million?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I don’t.

Mr. Deans: You don’t know that either. Do you think it is the practice of Ontario Housing Corp. to make more than one offer, to offer something maybe around the value of the land initially?

Mr. Singer: Appraised value.

Mr. Deans: Appraised value.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, to the members right now, we do negotiate. In some cases we do take the appraised value; in some cases we take less than the appraised value. In some cases we decide that we should pay more in order to get certain properties.

Mr. Singer: There is this thing called residual value.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If the municipal government in particular wants to have development in a hurry, or if, say, a site is worth more than the appraised value, then I think there is justification in proceeding with a particular development. Now, I mentioned to you before, there are many factors involved in the acquisition of land sites.

Mr. Deans: I understand that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You understand that?

Mr. Deans: I heard you.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Then if you heard that, that is the answer to why the board decided to pay X-number of dollars.

Mr. Deans: May I ask you -- I am going to be political for a minute.

Interjections by hon. members,

Mr. Deans: Do you think that I would be too far out of line if I wondered about the announcement being made sort of on the eve of the election -- and considering it hadn’t been approved by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corp.? Do you keep a record of your donations to the Tory party? And how much did Jon-Enco put in?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is being a bit facetious.

Mr. Deans: Do you think I am?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think so.

Mr. Deans: I am not smiling either.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think so, because he is asking questions to which obviously I wouldn’t have any answers, and I don’t think it has any bearing, whatsoever, on this particular subject which we are debating today.

Mr. Deans: No, well, I am going to tell you in one final comment, I happen to think that the reason it was announced on or about Oct. 6 was because you had to guarantee Jon-Enco that it was going to get the purchase from the government in order to get your donation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t suppose, Mr. Chairman, there will ever be a day that we can ever convince the socialist party --

Mr. Deans: You could convince me by opening your books.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- that this government does things on the up and up. If you want to take any other --

Mr. Lawlor: Are you going to keep it on the up and up, my lord?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- facts that I have given you and twist them as you have, that’s fair enough.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I have been very concerned --

An hon. member: We missed you,

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have been away for a day or two but I didn’t realize they had missed me so much. I am very concerned, however, with the tenor of the discussion that has just gone on. Admittedly, it was referring to a circumstance back in 1967 and I remember distinctly the announcements being made by the then minister, Stan Randall, pertaining to the housing development in that area. This minister probably didn’t even know whether he was a Conservative or not in those days, but perhaps he did.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have been a Conservative all my life.

Mr. Lawlor: You were born with a blue mark on your brow.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): It shows too.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We’ll see. He was then probably mayor of Prescott, and thinking that he had enough on his plate.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am not sure whether I was.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Maybe it was your ambition to be mayor of Prescott at that time. Now he finds himself as Minister of Housing. We have had a Minister of Housing for just about a year.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: On Nov. 30.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was recognized by the government that this was an area of concern that was reaching crisis proportions across the province. By latest count, I guess, you are the third minister in the year and I suppose it’s not fair to blame you personally for the problems that are now being put before you. I believe that the blame must be directed, however, at the minister responsible -- and that is the incumbent --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I will accept that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- and through him to Ontario Housing Corp. which has surely got to be one of the more serious political millstones hanging around the minister’s neck and around the Premier’s neck these days. Probably there will be another occasion to talk about the embarrassment all of us felt when so many staff members of Ontario Housing were indicted for accepting bribes.

There has already been discussion that the responsibility of the minister was to name those who had proffered the bribes. What concerns me today is the business acumen of Ontario Housing which would lead them to make business deals in the purchase of land which have amounted to unconscionable speculative profits and which are the responsibility surely of Ontario Housing for entering into the negotiations and agreements of the type that I now want to describe to you very briefly, Mr. Chairman.

In recent weeks, Ontario Housing has assembled 2,300 acres of land in the south-east portion of the present town of Milton, formerly known as north Oakville before they had the adjustment of the boundaries because of regional government. The land purchases were undertaken on behalf of the government by Thomas Millman Holden and John Peter Hamilton Ford, partners in the Milton law firm of Holden, Perras, Ford and Haesler.

The assembled land, which is bounded by Fifth Line, Eighth Line, Derry Rd. and Lower Base Line, is not within the proposed parkway belt but has been designated by the Oakville planning committee as agricultural land. In answer to my question today, there was some indication that the minister had approved the purchase of this land, because in the long run it might be used for housing but at the present time it was going to be used to maintain the land as agriculture, even though it is zoned agricultural and only an amendment approved by the minister’s colleague, the Treasurer (Mr. White), would have permitted any change in that zoning.

Milton’s chief planner told our researchers when they inquired about this that he has not been advised by the province of the purpose of the assembly. However, according to an article in the Oakville Beaver, Aug. 7, 1974, Ross Howard, a spokesman for OHC, has stated that the land will be used indefinitely for agricultural purposes and eventually develop as a new city with a population of up to 250,000. I simply bring to your attention again, Mr. Chairman, that the land was zoned already as agricultural and could have been left in productive agricultural work without any purchase.

Information compiled at the Milton land registry office reveals that the government’s agents bought at least seven parcels of land in that 2,300-acre area from three companies, namely, Bonnydon Limited, Cedar Heights Construction Ltd. and Loring Developments Ltd. at substantially inflated prices. Mrs. Dorothy Freedman of 5 Overdale Rd., Toronto, is president of Bonnydon Ltd. and Cedar Heights Construction Ltd. Her husband, Morris Freedman, is vice-president of Cedar Heights Construction Ltd. and president of Loring Developments Ltd. In other words, those three companies are the ones which got the million dollar speculative profit on about 600 acres of land.

I want to make it clear to you, Mr. Chairman, that there’s no evidence that the Freedmans or anyone associated with them had access to any special information, other than presumably their own wise counsel, in purchasing that land at a time, in one instance, just 31 days before the government of Ontario decided it needed it and was prepared to pay the inflated prices I’ve referred to.

These companies purchased each of the seven properties less than seven months before selling to the government, and one property was owned by Cedar Heights Construction Ltd. for only 32 days. The government paid $579,095 for that parcel on March 12, 1974 -- about $200,000, or 53 per cent more, than Cedar Heights had bought it for on Feb. 8. The seven government purchases provided speculative profits to the three companies in excess of $1 million.

I want to point out to you, sir, that six of the seven purchases were completed in March, 1974, when real estate prices around Toronto were at their peak, and less than one month before the Treasurer’s land speculation tax was introduced in an attempt to deflate these prices. The government purchases, at grossly inflated prices, simply reinforced and accelerated the dangerous increase in land costs in southern Ontario, at a time when all government initiative should have been exactly in the opposite direction.

I want to bring the specific details of these seven transactions briefly to your attention, Mr. Chairman. There must be an explanation from the minister because he had considerable responsibility at that time in this area.

The first one was as follows: 83.44 acres, which was purchased on Oct. 11, 1973, by a company known as Loring Investments Ltd.

An hon. member: Sold by.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Sorry. Sold by Loring and purchased by Bonnydon Ltd. for $265,000. They sold it on March 6, 1974 -- five months later approximately -- to Thomas Millman Holden and John Hamilton Ford in trust, acting for Ontario Housing, for $458,928.25. The minister might want to be more precise in the subtraction, but it is a bit over $200,000 profit on that 83 acres in five months.

Mr. Singer: That’s a pretty good deal.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The second one was the property designated lot 4 concession 7, purchased on Sept. 6, 1973, by Bonnydon from Robert Romain for $312,000. Six months later, March 12, 1974, it was sold to Holden and Ford for $544,500 -- about $131,000 profit in six months.

Mr. Singer: Better than making locks.

An hon. member: Two hundred and thirty-one.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Sorry, $231,000, yes.

Mr. Roy: You want to keep up a good average.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Then the third purchase took place in August, 1973, from Tolglen Holdings Ltd., 89.7267 acres -- the surveyors were very precise on this one -- for $269,180.70.

Mr. Bullbrook: Bonnydon again.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Bonnydon again, and sold by Bonnydon to Holden and Ford seven months later on March 6, 1974, for $493,446.85. Once again, a nice even $200,000. Perhaps a little more than that.

Mr. Singer: Two hundred and thirty.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Two hundred and thirty thousand dollars, right.

Mr. Roy: They are keeping a good average -- $200,000 for five months.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The fourth one was sold to another company, also controlled by the Freedmans, called Cedar Heights Construction Ltd. The property is designated lot 8, concession 6. It was purchased from New Star Investments on Feb. 8, 1974, for $379,573, and sold by Cedar Heights to Holden and Ford 32 days later, March 12, 1974, for $579,095.

Mr. Bullbrook: You’re shocking, really! Just shocking.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Almost precisely $200,000. You can almost see that they wanted to keep their markup consistent.

Mr. Bullbrook: Free enterprise -- $40,000 a week, that’s not bad.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Then the fifth purchase occurred on Dec. 14, 1973, by another Freedman corporation called Loring Developments -- lot 11, concession 8. They paid $291,254.30 to Libsol Investments. Three months later, on March 13, 1974, Loring sold it to Holden and Ford for $516,741.30 -- once again just a little over $200,000.

Then there are two sales for which all the information is not complete. The registry office indicates the sale from Bonnydon in both cases to Holden and Ford but the purchase is not registered; it is not necessary under law to register it but there is information appended to the page at the registry office indicating the approximate dates when Bonnydon took ownership of the properties. The first property is the east half of lot 4 of concession 8; they bought it Feb. 28, 1974; 25 days later, on March 25, they sold it to the government for $562,815. There is no record of their purchase price, since the registry is not complete.

Mr. Bullbrook: Let’s say $200,000.

Mr. Singer: A nice round figure.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s purely an educated guess.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The seventh property, according to a note appended in the registry office without the price of the property at its original purchase, was bought by Bonnydon, I believe, on March 29 -- lot 7, concession 6 -- and was sold 37 days later on May 6, 1974, to Holden and Ford for $530,068.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Another $200,000.

Mr. Singer: We could guess at another $200,000, give or take a few dollars.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the direction of our criticism is at the minister and the Ontario Housing Corp. My colleague, the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), last night, much to the discomfiture of the minister, called for a full and public inquiry as to the business procedures of Ontario Housing; and this is something that the minister will have to undertake.

Mr. Bullbrook: It has to come.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I am telling him now that he will have to undertake that inquiry. Anything less than that is going to be unacceptable to the taxpayers who have had to find the money for these particular purchases, which surely do not indicate the basic business acumen that we should require for those charged with public responsibility.

We on this side feel very strongly about this, Mr. Chairman. The minister has accepted full responsibility for their defence, and he has indicated there will not be an investigation. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I will move that vote 801 be reduced by the sum of $17,999, being an amount equivalent to the minister’s salary less the sum of $1.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister is smiling.

Mr. Singer: Is he going to answer?

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, let’s have an answer.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Let’s have a $200,000 answer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon moves that vote 801 be reduced by the sum of $17,999, being an amount equivalent to the minister’s salary, less the sum of $1.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this motion?

Mr. Singer: Yes, there might be.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has again demonstrated the great knack of being able to be on both sides of the fence at the same time.

Mr. Bullbrook: That has nothing to do with it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have heard him state in this House many times that the land speculation tax was absolutely no good, that it was not in the best interests of the people.

Mr. Singer: He didn’t say that at all. He never said that at all.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: At all times he has said that the land speculation tax would not work. It has worked.

Mr. Bullbrook: What’s that got to do with this?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If he would remember -- and I hope he has a copy of the press release -- I said we were purchasing land to cool out speculation, and we did so.

Mr. Singer: Six hundred thousand dollars a deal. That’s cool!

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am telling you this --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is very impressive to see the Leader of the Opposition inform the members of the House, with all his knowledge, that the lands were zoned for agricultural purposes. But he doesn’t say what they are being used for.

Mr. Bullbrook: Let’s talk about the values. Come on.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You weren’t fair enough to the members of the House to state actual use, were you? You didn’t say that the lands were not being used for agricultural purposes. You didn’t state what the present use was.

Mr. Singer: Did it change six weeks ago?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Now, I am saying to you the reason we purchased the lands is to make sure that the lands remain in agricultural development as long as the people in the municipalities declare that to be in their best interest; as long as the government of Ontario declares that to be in the best interest of the people of Ontario. We have purchased those lands and we are proud of it.

Mr. Singer: You are proud of it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We are proud of it. We have cooled out speculation in this area and other areas. The Leader of the Opposition just doesn’t want to admit that the government of Ontario has finally stopped speculation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We don’t want you to waste our money.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And we are going to make sure that the lands that were questioned today are used for agricultural purposes. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) and myself have been talking about this development for many days.

Mr. Singer: The Planning Act put a freeze order on it.

Mr. R. S. Smith: It is already zoned agricultural.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We are going to make sure that speculators do not gain control of lands such as this in the future. I think the people of Ontario are very, very proud of the fact that they have a government that will protect the lands to be used for agriculture, if needed; or for housing when needed.

Mr. Roy: And you are going to buy that at any price.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The Leader of the Opposition has said I am the one responsible, and certainly I am. I will accept full responsibility for the Ministry of Housing, and I will be delighted to answer all the questions. I am not one bit ashamed of the acquisition. I think it was most necessary to take the speculators out of that area.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It took them out, all right.

Mr. Singer: They laughed all the way to the bank.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If we find out again that we have speculation in Brant county, we will do the same thing. We are going to make sure that the people understand this is for landbanking purposes, to retain the land for agricultural purposes, to develop the land when we feel it is necessary.

Mr. Bullbrook: I bet the speculators cried all the way to the bank.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I will conclude with those remarks for now.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I am fascinated by the performance just put on by the minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am delighted.

Mr. Singer: He has missed the whole point of what my leader said and what other members of our party said, and what several members of the NDP said about prices. To stand up and say he is proud to have acquired land -- do you mean that you are proud you paid these prices in light of the records that we have exhibited to you? Is that what you are proud of? Are you proud that these prices were paid? Now, I was very fascinated by the residual value idea that you dredged out from somewhere, compared with the appraised value. Now could you tell us, before this debate goes on much longer, what the appraised value in the OHC record shows for 83.44 acres of land that was acquired from Bonnydon -- which is the sale referred to earlier by my leader -- the one that took place on March 6, 1974? What was the appraised value? Could you tell me that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I haven’t got it with me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Singer: No, I am sure you haven’t.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But let me assure the hon. member that we had appraisals, and if you wish to have them we will surely bring them forth.

Mr. Singer: I certainly do, we certainly do -- now.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But let me also assure the hon. member that I didn’t miss any point brought out, because there was no point brought out.

Mr. Singer: I propose, Mr. Chairman, to ask the minister for the appraised values of each of these seven sales referred to by my leader. I presume you haven’t got the appraised values for the other six? Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I will check into it.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, since this debate is a very important one and since these facts are very material to the debate, I am now going to move that the committee rise for a period of 20 minutes or half an hour, or however long it will take the minister to get the appraised values, because I think they are vital to the carrying on of this debate.

Mr. Singer moves the committee rise and report.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know whether you are waiting for --

Mr. Singer: It is not debatable, Mr. Chairman. It is a motion; it is not debatable.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman, I felt in the best interest of the House we could continue with the debate while I can get the information.

Mr. Singer: No.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And while I am getting the information I don’t see any reason to have a 20-minute adjournment.

Mr. Singer: Get us the information now then. How long will it take?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, we will obtain the information as quickly as possible. I’m not going to say whether it’s five minutes, 10 minutes or half an hour -- but, in any event, I’ll obtain it.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, it’s a motion to adjourn and it’s not debatable. I would ask the chairman to put the motion please.

The committee divided on Mr. Singer’s motion that the committee rise and report, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 28, the “nays” 52.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost. The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I moved the motion in order to give the minister an opportunity to get us certain information about appraisals. I would hope the minister has that information. Does he have it now?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman. I greatly appreciate the courtesy of the hon. member for Downsview. It is marvellous to think that we can proceed with such fast action in this government, but I really can’t do it in a matter of a few minutes. I will have the information you want, and I’ll present it when I am ready to present it as a formal statement to the House. But I can’t do it at this time.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, if I may continue, one of the reasons why I’m going to support my leader’s motion about reducing the estimate by the sum of $17,999 is that this minister comes into the House unprepared. He had to be prepared and he should have been prepared. In all he does, he has a parliamentary duty, a political duty and a responsibility as a cabinet minister to come prepared to answer questions. Certainly one would think that it should be a matter of very simple procedure to get departmental estimates in so far as they relate to recent acquisitions of property by the government.

It could be the simplest thing. Without that information being here let me say this, I was listening carefully to the exchange between the minister and the hon. member for Wentworth and I was fascinated by the use of “residual value” and also the use of “appraised value.” The residual value, I suggest to you, is a complete and utter phoney.

I would imagine that Ontario Housing Corp. and the Ministry of Housing should have available to it as expert evaluators as there are in the Province of Ontario. Surely there should be no shortage of money available for the hiring or retaining of evaluators who can give you realistic value. And when you go and look at a piece of property, then you should be armed with -- I’m using the collective you -- your people should be armed with as good an appraisal as is available, as good an appraisal as money can buy in the Province of Ontario. If you do anything less than that, then you are not serving the public interests.

In your exchange with the member for Wentworth, where you admitted that you bought property for 2½ times its appraised value, I must ask you how you can possibly justify this? Do you have so little faith in your own appraisals that you won’t stick with those prices? Or do you get cowed by these speculators?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Buying out the speculators.

Mr. Singer: Yes, you are buying out the speculators. The one way to get rid of them is to buy them out.

An hon. member: That’s your own statement.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Singer: One must presume, since you are not able to produce the evaluation reports in relation to these seven items my leader dealt with earlier this afternoon, that the actual appraised values must be something much closer -- they have to be much closer -- to the values that were paid at the time Bonnydon and these other companies bought the land. Some of us here have had a little experience in expropriations, and some of us here have had a little experience in dealing with evaluators. And some of us have had a little experience in going before the court and we know what the courts look for. The best guide for an appraised value which the courts will accept is evidence of recent sales.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Singer: When you deal with item No. 5, the one I referred to on this list of ours earlier this afternoon, and you can see -- no, I’m sorry, item No. 4 -- where New Star Investments sold to Cedar Heights on Feb. 8, 1974, for $379,000; could there be any better evidence of value than a sale that took place six weeks before the sale to the government of Ontario, or to Ontario Housing? There couldn’t be. That’s why it is so crucial that the minister justify paying $200,000 more in a six-week period.

There is no way I know that any realistic evaluation of property could be made without taking into consideration the last sale. You have the last recent sale six weeks before and there it is. How do you justify a purchase price of $579,000 six weeks after a sale of $379,000? That’s the $64 question, and that’s the thing that you’ve been able to be able to answer, because there’s nothing you’ve been able to tell us that indicates anything other than that you have been wasting the money of the people of Ontario. We want to know why, and we want to know how; and we are entitled to know why, and we are entitled to know how. We are entitled to know the basis on which you made your judgements. You’ve got to be able to stand in your place -- whether you did it or your predecessors did it -- really doesn’t matter, you are the responsible minister today -- and be responsible for that kind of unusual procedure, which seems entirely unjustified on the basis of the evidence we have and on the basis of the answers you’ve been able to give us.

All of these things happened, apparently, by coincidence. Suddenly it occurred to Bonnydon and Cedar Heights and Loring that they should get into that land market and buy at grossly inflated prices some 2,300 acres of land in the Milton area. As far as we have been able to figure out, that land fronts on the lower baseline and backs onto the 10th sideroad. There is a square or an oblong piece of property in there; perhaps there are 2,300 acres, my measurements aren’t that exact. I understand as well that you have skipped some of the pieces within that block, and that you didn’t buy them all, I wonder about the expropriation power that you have, which really brings this thing down to its nub.

If your appraised value is an honest one and one in which you believe -- and it has to be because you are acting in the public trust -- and if the asking price of the owner is way above the appraised value, then why don’t you use your expropriation power? Isn’t that the logical answer? If you have a good appraisal and if you have faith in it, then you shouldn’t be afraid to take it before the courts. You shouldn’t be held up by speculators and you shouldn’t invent that new system you have, that the way to get rid of speculators is to buy them out; because that really is just throwing away the money of the people of the Province of Ontario.

If your evaluation means a single thing, then it should mean that you have sufficient faith in it either to stick to it or to test it in the courts by reasonable expropriation procedures. That is the $64 question, and we want the $64 answer or the $1 million answer on those seven properties that we have talked about.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Downsview has confirmed exactly what his leader said, that the government of Ontario took the right action when it brought forth the land speculation tax.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Oh, no.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): They have not paid it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have said in this House just a few minutes ago that the reason was to curtail the escalation of land prices in this area, which we have done. We have stabilized the prices in the overall area.

Mr. Breithaupt: Why did you pay twice the value then?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s all right for the member for Downsview to stand up and speak in hindsight.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Some stabilization!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You are a great man for that. But let me ask you this --

Mr. Worton: Where was the foresight when they passed that tax Act?

Mr. Lawlor: Where was the foresight?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Where was there property in Toronto or any other place in an urban development area that wasn’t escalating at that particular time? The property was going up and it was going up very rapidly.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: In 32 days?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You have the nerve to stand up in this House and say there wasn’t any escalation. There was escalation and this is the reason we took such action as we did.

Mr. Singer: In 32 days, three months; say even five months.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We’ll bring forth, I expect, in due course, an opinion which will show that we paid a proper price for the lands.

Mr. Bullbrook: Due course is no good.

Mr. Breithaupt: You don’t want the opinion. What use is the opinion once it is passed?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think you and your leader have to make your minds up once and for all that you are on the side of the government in regard to land speculation tax. You are on the side of the government to try to stabilize land prices; and if you are we’d appreciate you for it.

Mr. Roy: Answer the question.

Mr. Bullbrook: Answer the question.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Right on.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Cochrane South has the floor.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): I wanted to get in on another matter, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: What was that? Just a minute please, until I find out what he wants. What item do you want to speak on?

Mr. Ferrier: I want to speak on the first vote on a policy matter.

Mr. Chairman: Item 1?

Mr. Ferrier: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That will be great. I don’t think we have been on that yet.

Mr. Chairman: To my knowledge item 1 has not been carried yet.

Mr. Roy: The minister would like to get off that matter, wouldn’t he?

Mr. Ferrier: If I could speak on that matter, then you can get back to your other debate afterwards. I have been concerned about --

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order, we are on a motion by the Leader of the Opposition to reduce the vote. I think really the member should consider that we would like to carry on with this particular debate as it relates to the motion, because the whole thrust of the leader’s motion is the inability of the government to respond to this.

Mr. Ferrier: In other words, we are to be silenced because of this motion.

Mr. Bullbrook: No, not at all.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: There always has been some understanding.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: You can talk about what you like.

Mr. Chairman: I understood when I took over that we would deal with the vote item by item. Item 4 is the minister’s salary, and we certainly haven’t reached that. Do you want to carry over all items previous to item 4? Then we’ll deal with item 4 at this time and the motion.

Mr. Bullbrook: We are not carrying item 4.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Then we’ll deal with it item by item. Item 1, the member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, we have a motion on the floor and if we change the subject, of course, then we may as well be realistic about it, you completely extricate the minister from the problems he has in this particular debate.

Now that’s your right. I don’t mean to fetter that right, that’s not my purpose; but we want to talk about this.

Mr. Chairman: You are out of order, as far as that item is concerned, until we get to item 4, the minister’s salary. We have to deal with other items first.

Mr. Roy: The motion was accepted by your predecessor.

Mr. Bullbrook: The motion has been put by the Chair.

Mr. Chairman: Do you want to challenge the chairman’s ruling?

Mr. Bullbrook: No. Why do you provoke a challenge? We don’t want to provoke a challenge. The motion has been put.

Mr. Chairman: If you want to put the motion and deal with the motion, all items previous to the motion that you were dealing with on item 4 will be carried.

Mr. Roy: That’s not what your predecessor said.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the motion does not relate to item 4. It relates to vote 801; it is that the total amount asked for in vote 801 be reduced by the sum of $17,999. It doesn’t relate to item 4.

Mr. Chairman: I would like to remind the member for Downsview that when he was on the floor previous to this he referred to the minister’s salary as item 4.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): There is no item 4.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, let me try and explain it to you. First, we can’t deal with the minister’s salary because the minister’s salary is statutory. There is no way that we can put a motion to cover that area. The motion moved by my leader, if you would read it, is to reduce the amount asked for in vote 801 -- the whole thing; items 1, 2, 3, 4; altogether -- from the sum asked for, which is $1,808,000, by the sum of $17,999. It relates to the whole vote and not just to item 4. We can’t deal with item 4 because it is statutory. In fact, it isn’t even item 4; it’s item S. There is no item 4 here at all.

Mr. Chairman: I know there is no item 4. I was referring to the same language that you used. But if you deal with the motion at the present time, you deal with the whole vote.

Mr. Singer: No, it is the first vote. The member for Lakeshore wants to speak to it. My colleague from Sarnia wants to speak to it.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Cochrane South would like to speak on item 1.

Mr. Lawlor: I want to speak on item 1.

Mr. Ferrier: I want to ask the minister what action he has taken as far as policy is concerned on the recommendation of the advisory task force on housing policy in terms of housing and housekeeping assistance for handicapped persons.

A number of these people, who are on provincial pensions, are older people, and they are not able to get into the regular Ontario housing units. Your predecessor had sent me a note saying that your ministry was considering this need and this problem and in due course would probably be making a policy decision.

Now this need is a very real and pressing one, with a number of people in every riding across the province trying to get some kind of adequate housing. They may be single people or they may be couples, but as things are structured now, very few of the housing authorities will provide units for these people. I think you have probably recognized the need, and I wonder if you have dealt with this and have come up with a policy or what you propose to do with it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Housing has, through the non-profit and community-sponsored housing programme, adopted a programme which we feel will meet the needs of such special groups as the hon. member has brought to our attention. In this regard, though, I must say to the member that we do need the acceptance of the communities to integrate housing and to look after the needs of handicapped people.

We have made modifications to our existing rent-geared-to-income units for selective people, such as the physically handicapped he mentioned, and we look forward to developing this programme further in the future. Our staff are working with those who are working on behalf of the people in their communities in non-profit organizations, and I hope to see further progress made during the year.

The matter of looking after the physically handicapped is one which we’re well aware of and one which we are taking action on. In our opinion, it’s the non-profit housing organizations that can look after this. We would like to have, if we could, some specific proposal, but we haven’t got one as yet. If you have one I would be pleased to have it.

Mr. Ferrier: I’m just wondering about those who are not physically disabled and in wheelchairs, who can get around but have very poor health. Are you making any allowances for them to get into the present senior-citizen accommodations? Are you planning to extend the terms of reference for people to get in? How are you going to try to help this group? There seems to be a pretty pressing social need for that particular group.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: This is a matter which is under group homes in our ministry. We have studied this also. We have group homes operated by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. At our PMLC meetings which we have monthly, we’ve discussed this matter through the Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. White).

But there still is, as I mentioned before, some municipal resistance to this concept and we’re trying to overcome that. We want to have these people looked after as much as we can. At the present time -- and I’m not saying that we’re entirely satisfied with the programme by any means -- we have made some headway and we expect to make more.

Mr. Chairman: Item 1 carried? Carried.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to return, if I may, more directly to the material that was the basis of the motion that is before the committee. I want to say, if I can, first through the chairman to the minister, that I’m not interested in --

Mr. Chairman: Just a minute before you speak. Are you talking on the resolution of the hon. member for Brant?

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, I’m talking on the original material.

Mr. Chairman: I want it understood that when I put the motion for the resolution of Mr. R. F. Nixon that vote 801 will be carried.

Mr. Singer: Or defeated.

Mr. Chairman: Or defeated, whichever way the House decides. Does any other member wish to speak on item 2?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Chairman: As long as you understand.

Mr. Bullbrook: I understand, but anybody here can speak as long as they want to in connection with vote 801.

Mr. Chairman: That’s right.

Mr. Bullbrook: We all understand that. And they can relate to any subject they want to. I wasn’t attempting to fetter, again, the hon. member for Cochrane South; hardly. That’s not my responsibility nor my wish. But we were talking about this particular material and we will have enough hours, one would hope.

I want to begin by saying this, and I want to make absolutely clear: I’m not interested in a response to my questions or comments that relates to the Land Speculation Tax Act because that is a non sequitur indescribable. It has nothing to do with what my leader talked about; and don’t try to besmirch the issue and confuse the thrust of our purpose here by bringing that in. It has nothing to do with it.

We have an obligation here, and I want to say this, and I wish the Premier would listen to this. I really am interested in it because I think it’s a very vital aspect of what we do. We have a responsibility in the opposition to vote, as do the government members, as to the appropriations to carry out the responsibilities of this ministry. I want to say in the past it’s always been the system that the ministers come with their officials; and I want to say, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier and his cabinet colleagues, they’ve always in the past been able to answer us, or they’ve got the information. That was the cut and thrust of debate and that’s where our responsibility is.

But a new scheme is coming about. It started with the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development. It started there when questions were asked and no answers were given. An undertaking was given at that time to respond in one fell swoop, which I think cuts down the spontaneity of debate and really the purpose that we undertake. That happened.

In Industry and Tourism I put three questions to the minister over a period of an hour and half one evening. We were told by the chairman that evening that there was general agreement by all that the period would be elasticized beyond 10:30 so that the minister would give answers to those questions. Again, no response.

And today again we have this. We now have the minister saying, and he has said to my leader: “I’ll get a statement out for you.” I say this to you most respectfully, through the chairman: I have great admiration for you personally, but that’s the sign of a weak minister who cannot handle his responsibilities, when he must go back over the evening hours and have his officials write out for him a statement to respond.

I think we are entitled to have the replies of the minister through his officials now. We are entitled to be able to say: “All right, how did you come to the conclusion, through your appraisals, that these values were worth paying public funds for?” We are entitled to that, and we are entitled to it now, before we vote on the leader’s motion, and every member in the House, including those on the government side, is entitled to that.

I would hope that the minister would undertake that responsibility to us and get that information. Sure, this is political babble -- we understand it is -- but it is a little more important than that to us at the present time.

I want to say something to you, if I may, because I think the response at times bordered on being ludicrous. One of the statements mentioned by the minister, alluded to by other speakers, is that the way you get speculators out is to buy them out. I want to point out to you how that particular statement has absolutely no foundation in fact.

I want to ask the minister: Are you familiar with the provisions of the Income Tax Act of Canada as it relates to developers? The very thing they must do when they sell land is rebuild their inventory -- they have to -- to take advantage of the depreciation available to them in connection with their capital. So what happens when you deal with speculators -- I know, I act for them -- and when you deal with developers -- I know, I act for them -- is that they immediately go out and they buy other land.

That puts the lie to your proposition that the way to get rid of speculators is to buy them out; because what the Freedmans have to do is get out and buy some more land somewhere else in the Province of Ontario and that has the very effect that you don’t want to have.

I was very proud of this, Mr. Chairman, to the minister. My leader in his statement said this: “We’re not interested in the Freedmans; we’re not interested in whether they have any internal knowledge ahead of time; whether they were clairvoyant Freedmans and went in there in a happy circumstance and got there first.” I, for one, know no evidence to the contrary. I don’t. And my leader, I would think, made that amply clear for this purpose -- again, we don’t want to be deflected -- maybe they did have inside knowledge, but we are not going to deal with that, because we are not passing the estimates of Mr. and Mrs. Freedman today; we are passing the estimates of the Ontario Housing Corp. and we want to know why you paid that.

That’s the thrust of our questioning -- why you paid it -- because it really causes me some concern, when you get down to the actual negotiation with these people. You know, as a matter of fact -- the officials must know as a matter of fact -- that in relation to parcel 4 that they bought on Feb. 8, 1974, they paid $379,000-plus. You have to know that. You have to know also that the ultimate responsibility for land use and the control of land use in this province lies in the very minister who supervises the Ontario Housing Corp.

You can’t again deflect the issue by saying that the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t know anything about the zoning; because the fact of the matter is the government controls zoning and the government can control zoning. If you want that land to remain in agricultural use, the Freedmans can never do anything else with it -- if you want it left in agricultural use -- and when you are sitting down with them negotiating that fact, don’t think they don’t know it. This is the type of thing we are interested in.

Again, let’s forget about any inside knowledge on the part of the Freedmans; let’s find out what the Ontario Housing Corp. did. When they sat down with the Freedmans they had to have an appraisal. My colleague from Downsview, who deals, as I do, many times in his professional conduct, with respect to matters of this nature, will tell you that one of the cornerstones in arriving at market value of comparable sales -- and I want to tell you that one of the cornerstones of comparable sales -- is the very sale of the property itself. I just don’t know how any appraiser worth the name could possibly go before, for example, Mr. Yoerger, chairman of the Land Compensation Board, and rationalize to the satisfaction of that board an appreciation in value over a six-week period of over $200,000 or 53 per cent of the value. Again, you can’t resist saying, “Is the member for Downsview saying that prices didn’t go up at that time?” That begs the question; we all know that prices went up, but no prices would go up in that fashion were the government doing its job in spending public funds under the trust of the government.

That is all we are asking for. We just want to know how it came about. It might well be you can come forward to us today and say that during that six-week period there were improvements placed upon that property by the Freedmans, your appraisers took into consideration those improvements, and that is why the appraisal is higher. If you could do that, do you know what I think we would do? I think my leader would withdraw the motion. Sure he would.

But just give us the information. No statements afterward, just the information now. You are the one responsible for it; you accepted that responsibility. We want to partake in that responsibility.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister wish to reply?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify for the members’ own good that when I said I would obtain the information I wasn’t referring to getting the information next year.

Mr. Bullbrook: Right now.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I can’t get it right now.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why? Other ministers can do it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If the hon. member was here last night, and I am not sure he was, I was asked to provide information which related to 1967, 1968, 1969, and I am supposed to have all that in my head.

Mr. Roy: Yes, but today is 1973-1974.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No way. I will tell you this much --

Mr. Bullbrook: No, you are not supposed to have it in your head, Mr. Minister.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, he was not asked last night to provide that information last night whatsoever.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Oh, yes I was.

Mr. R. S. Smith: You were not.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am sorry, I want the member for Lakeshore to get on, but again beclouding the issue, nobody expects you or any other minister of the Crown to carry this information in his head, but they come in with estimate books and officials who have information available.

Mr. Singer: Three rows thick.

Mr. Bullbrook: Aside from that, it requires no mental giant to recognize that the leader asked a question of you in question period. One would have thought with alacrity of mind you would have said, “He might bring that up again.”

Mr. Breithaupt: That was three hours ago.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, if I can proceed now. Are you all through or would you like another outburst?

Mr. Bullbrook: No, no, I don’t want the outburst, I just don’t want to be misread.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, I don’t want to be misquoted either.

Mr. Bullbrook: I never said I expected you to carry it around in your head.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t want to be misquoted either. I didn’t say the Leader of the Opposition didn’t know that the land was zoned agricultural. I said he knew it was zoned agricultural but he didn’t know the purpose it was being used for. That’s what I said. The purpose is more important, I believe. I am well aware that this ministry is the one that controls the land use; I am well aware of that. I am well aware that we are also the ones responsible for the purchases. I will provide you the reasons why, but I can’t do it in five minutes.

Mr. Roy: You have had three hours.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And we are not going to expropriate it, if that’s what you think.

Mr. Singer: Why not?

Mr. Bullbrook: I didn’t say so.

Mr. Good: Do you really need it?

Mr. Roy: Can I speak on this?

Mr. Chairman: Okay, the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment on the points raised by my leader in relation to these latest transactions. I would like to emphasize to the minister that since I have been observing him last night he has continually twisted words.

We can understand that you cannot get estimates or get us figures for 1967 and 1968 sales just like that, but you are dealing here with sales of 1973-1974. Surely with about 50 officials sitting around under the galleries you should be able to provide this information in a period of three hours. You have no meaning. His own Expropriations happened before, that we are being put off. We want answers now. We are only talking about six or seven different transactions here and it should be simple enough.

The point I want to raise with the minister, Mr. Chairman, is his famous words here about land residual value as a criterion for assessing property. I want to say to the minister that if you look at any expropriation Act, whether you are talking about the federal Expropriation Act or the provincial Expropriations Act, that words of this nature have no meaning. His own Expropriations Act, which has been passed by this House uses the standard criteria of actual value or market value when you’re looking at comparable sales. I cannot understand, as the members have repeated here before, why he does not rely on that as a criterion.

First of all, you’ve never said, in any of these transactions, whether you were talking about the point raised by the member for Grey-Bruce or the member for Nipissing on these transactions, that the owner of these properties had refused a lower price. The minister does not tell us about the negotiations. If he were to come into this House and present to us at least the minutes of these meetings and of the negotiations that went on, and if he could prove to us through tough bargaining that the government got it at that price, that would be one thing.

But it appears obvious that on each of these occasions the vendor was getting an offer he could not refuse from the ministry as a purchaser, at these particular prices. How can he possibly use taxpayers’ money as freely and say that he’s relying on land residual value? He really is a patsy on behalf of the people of this province and the taxpayers.

All a fellow has to do is buy a piece of property, run over to the government and say: “Look, I’ve got a piece of property here. I’ve paid $1,500 per acre but the land residual value of the property is probably $7,000 per acre, because in the year I think this property might be the best property. There might be a city some place around here.”

The minister is so inconsistent.

I can recall talking with the Treasurer and he could not understand that. Suppose he were to tell the farmers when he passed his bill on planning and development in Ontario, if at that point he decided to rezone land in the green belt: “That land will be used for farming purposes.” At no time did he compensate them. Yet he turns around and comes into a situation like this, with no evidence whatsoever that he bargained with them or that they refused a lower offer or anything of this nature. He comes along and says: “We bought it at the best price possible because the land residual value was so much per acre.” That’s phoney. That borders on negligence on his part to use taxpayers’ money as freely as this.

If the bargaining was that tough that you could not get the land cheaper, why did you not expropriate it? The minister has done that before. Why did you not proceed under the planning and development legislation in Ontario and change the zoning on it, if you wanted to keep it.

Mr. Singer: Freeze it.

Mr. Roy: Yes, he could have frozen it, but no. He’s got the gall to tell us about the land speculation tax. My God, by the looks of things, the land speculation tax should have been brought in ahead of this, if he was going to be taken like this. At least, he should have put some money back in the coffers of the province. For any one who has dealt with land properties and land values and has appeared before every court and every board of this province, or before the federal court of Canada, at no time is there any other criteria. If the minister were to argue that land residual value has any meaning, he would be laughed out of court. Yet he is spending millions of dollars on behalf of the taxpayers of this province.

The minister should consider seriously the approach taken by Ontario Housing Corp. in these things. How he can sit there and smile and have a flippant attitude with some of our questions on this is beyond me. One would think he would be more responsible.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have to have a good sense of humour.

Mr. Roy: He could have been a more responsible minister. He could at least have said: “Look, it’s happened in the past. I wasn’t the minister then. Maybe we can remedy it in the future. We won’t do that again.” But, with enthusiasm, he is defending that position. How he can possibly do that is beyond me.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Ottawa East, let me make it very clear that I am defending the positions taken in the past. What I do in the future will be my decisions and we’ll try to make sure they are the best decisions possible. The member has not said anything more than what we’ve discussed for the last hour or two. I see no reason for me to repeat what I have said and, therefore, there is no further comment.

Mr. Roy: Give us some answers and give us some minutes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’m telling the member right now that what we have done is to stabilize the prices. He was talking about residual values a way back in 1968 and 1969, first of all, in Oakville north, I thought.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, just before we leave this point, the minister has just said -- he’s used the classic argument -- “From now on, I’ll be responsible. Up until this point, somebody else is.”

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I said I’d be responsible.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, yes, you are accepting the responsibility, but essentially it is a special kind of responsibility -- not a personal one but a ministerial one.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, it is personal.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: These transactions that I brought to your attention are in 1973 and 1974. They are not in the dim and distant history; they are decisions made by the officials that are presently advising you. Now, presumably the chairman of Ontario Housing and people from Ontario Housing are here, and I don’t see why we are doing these estimates this way unless they do not have all of the facts and figures pertaining to any question that should be asked right here, to bring in to you.

Evidently they either haven’t got them for you or you want it all pieced out so that you can have a formal defence -- except for this thing: Does it not concern you that Ontario Housing has been subject to this kind of criticism -- investigation by the Attorney General of many of the people charged because of the acceptance of these gifts, and the refusal of you, as minister, or the Attorney General to say whence these gifts came?

Now, we look at the business procedures that I’ve outlined here and we are not in a position to make any allegation or even an innuendo. The only persons who are culpable of bad decisions are those people in Ontario Housing. You say you are not responsible. Who the devil is responsible, if it isn’t you?

If you are responsible you should order an impartial investigation into how they do business. See that the minutes are made public, and clean this thing up. If it is less than that, it will not be acceptable. That’s why we are attempting to reduce your salary to $1.

Sure, you can’t be personally responsible for what your seatmate did a few months ago, or what the Attorney General as Minister of Housing did a few months ago, but you are the man on the spot now and it is up to you, my friend, to see that it is cleaned up. and to see that the taxpayers are confident that their moneys are properly being administered and that they are not being given away to people with unconscionable, speculative profits.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I said very clearly I was not sidestepping my responsibility. I am responsible --

Mr. Roy: Well, act responsible, then.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and I will be responsible for what happened in the past and what happens in the future. I’ve said that many times. I don’t know how often I have to say it to the Leader of the Opposition so that he will understand it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order on your last comment when you were on your feet you said: “Of course, that was done before my time.”

Mrs. Campbell: Exactly.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Just don’t quote me until you read Hansard. I don’t think you know what I did say. You sit there but you are not listening half the time.

Mrs. Campbell: Do you know what you are saying?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If you’d pay a little bit more attention to the proceedings you might know that what we are talking about should be in vote 4, not as it is now.

Mr. Ruston: You are beyond hope.

Mr. R. S. Smith: What is the answer? If you are responsible, where are the answers?

Mr. Chairman: Does anyone else wish to speak before I put the motion?

The committee divided on Mr. R. F. Nixon’s motion that vote 801 be reduced by the sum of $17,999, being an amount equivalent to the minister’s salary less the sum of $1, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 25 the “nays” are 45.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost and vote 801 carried.

Vote 801 agreed to.

On Vote 802:

Mr. Chairman: Item 1? Carried.

Item 2? Carried.

Item 3? Carried.

Item 4?

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: Item 3?

Mrs. Campbell: Item 1.

Mr. Chairman: Item 1.

An hon. member: Item 1?

Mr. Singer: A noble try.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mrs. Campbell: I can appreciate the eagerness of this government to try to get through these estimates without further discussion, but I feel that it is incumbent upon us to raise some of the questions that have to be raised in connection with this community planning programme.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mrs. Campbell: This is the vote where we are talking about such matters as community renewal and the North Pickering project, and certainly so far as this caucus is concerned, we are very eager to have an up-to-date report on the North Pickering project. Here also we have what is known as plans administration.

We wonder just when you have changed your policy. We have just heard from this minister there was no way that he would countenance an expropriation of agricultural land, since I take it he wished to incorporate a new programme, which we now are prepared to call SAP, being the “speculators’ assistance programme.” We wonder just why we have a different point of view when we look at the properties of the people in North Pickering. We would like to know what has happened to this particular proposal at this point in time. And what can the minister report on the amount available in the community renewal portion, which again does not seem to be jelling too well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Roy: Do you want a couple of days?

Mr. Chairman: Does Item 1 carry?

Mrs. Campbell: Oh aren’t we to get answers to any of those questions?

Mr. Chairman: Most of the questions you have asked the minister come under items 2, 3 and 4.

Mrs. Campbell: It’s under administration, Mr. Chairman. Could we just get an answer?

Mr. Chairman: It’s up to the minister if he wishes to answer, but actually you have covered the whole field of vote 802.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, I think it is important that we do.

Mr. Chairman: Now, is it the wish of the members that they handle the whole of vote 802 in one programme? Is that suitable to the minister?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Chairman: Is it suitable that we handle vote 802 as one vote, rather than item by item?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, that’s okay.

Mr. Chairman: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: At least we are on one particular vote, Mr. Chairman, which is a change.

As far as North Pickering is concerned, we have stated before that we have expropriated a certain acreage, of which I think the member is well aware. We have a greenbelt area there. We have had many serious discussions with the people in the area. We have had a North Pickering project staff in action for many months. From the first instance of the land being acquired by the government, everyone has been fully informed in the area as to what the government’s plans were. The only part that has caused some serious implications, as far as we are concerned, is whether or not the federal government will proceed with the airport.

We had indications the other day a decision has been made, but I only know that by reading the newspapers. I have discussed this with one of your colleagues. So, therefore, we can’t say the matter has been finalized, but what we are trying to do now is to determine what this government will do with the lands we have acquired in regard to development.

It is our expectation that during this session of the Legislature we will have a development corporation which will be responsible for a plan of development of the lands, in co-operation with the area municipalities and the regions concerned.

This matter has been discussed only recently with the region of Durham and the regional council was in full attendance.

We have certainly sent out many proposals -- and they are only proposals -- in regard to what North Pickering will be. I wish to hold a particular brochure up for your attention. I think the members may be well aware of the “North Pickering Project, New Community.”

What we are trying to do is to make sure -- and we have sent this information out to each person in the area -- that they are well aware that we wish to have their views in regard to how this particular land will be developed. They are only proposals. They will be much more fully discussed in the future.

We hope that with the decision now reached that we will have the central York servicing scheme started in the near future -- that we will be able to have services in place somewhere around 1977, or before if possible. But as to the size of the community and how it will be developed, this has not been decided. This will be decided -- an undertaking has been given -- when we have had the opportunity to discuss, through our staff with the appointed people of the area and through this government with the elected people of this area, so that we have everyone involved in regard to the final application of our plan.

Now the plan will not go ahead until we have reached a consensus. I don’t suppose we will achieve 100 per cent approval of any plan in that area. But I think it’s recognized by all concerned that we have tried and we have done, in my opinion, an excellent job in communicating with the people of that area to try and resolve their problems and make sure they are well aware that their rights will be protected.

The hon. member may have other questions. I would like to hear from her if she has other questions regarding North Pickering.

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